Through the ages all over the world regardless of race and religion, the phenomenon of wealthy men keeping mistresses is so common that it has almost come to be accepted as a social norm.
Concerning the Jack Neo sex scandal, one of our MPs caused a furore with the following quote "Actually, a man who has good career development would find such scenarios unavoidable,”
He later clarified that he was misquoted out of context by the media. The statement, while politically incorrect, contains a touch of realism. Much as I love my wife, I really cannot guarantee that I can stay faithful if a devilish stunning seductress were to throw herself onto my lap. However, if my present financial condition persists, I am confident of staying faithful. I am not successful enough to find such scenarios unavoidable. Hmm ... should I be sad or be glad?
It is a pity to have able men who can do a lot of social good be destroyed by sex scandals. I would like to make some suggestions to solve this problem. Don't take them too seriously, though.
When men become rich, they start to think they are entitled to more. They start keeping mistresses like pets. Some even abuse their power and ask for sexual favors from their female employees. One way to keep these men from temptation is to make them so repulsive that no women would want to be near them regardless of how much money they offer. One effective way to do this is to fine the mistress. With such a law, there is no incentive for women to sell themselves to men whom they do not love. The opposite is true. It is in their interests to avoid such men. Make the fine so heavy that it will bankrupt the mistresses.
Some will cry "Unfair!! Why punish the victim?!!" The pragmatic approach to solving social problems is to place effectiveness over fairness. If someone can suggest a fairer but equally effective solution, I will be all ears.
Women who seduce to get rich will be out of business. It does not make sense for these gold-diggers to dig a hole in their own pockets. This policy will put a stop to all such gold-diggers.
Concerning the Jack Neo sex scandal, one of our MPs caused a furore with the following quote "Actually, a man who has good career development would find such scenarios unavoidable,”
He later clarified that he was misquoted out of context by the media. The statement, while politically incorrect, contains a touch of realism. Much as I love my wife, I really cannot guarantee that I can stay faithful if a devilish stunning seductress were to throw herself onto my lap. However, if my present financial condition persists, I am confident of staying faithful. I am not successful enough to find such scenarios unavoidable. Hmm ... should I be sad or be glad?
It is a pity to have able men who can do a lot of social good be destroyed by sex scandals. I would like to make some suggestions to solve this problem. Don't take them too seriously, though.
- Fine the mistress
When men become rich, they start to think they are entitled to more. They start keeping mistresses like pets. Some even abuse their power and ask for sexual favors from their female employees. One way to keep these men from temptation is to make them so repulsive that no women would want to be near them regardless of how much money they offer. One effective way to do this is to fine the mistress. With such a law, there is no incentive for women to sell themselves to men whom they do not love. The opposite is true. It is in their interests to avoid such men. Make the fine so heavy that it will bankrupt the mistresses.
Some will cry "Unfair!! Why punish the victim?!!" The pragmatic approach to solving social problems is to place effectiveness over fairness. If someone can suggest a fairer but equally effective solution, I will be all ears.
Women who seduce to get rich will be out of business. It does not make sense for these gold-diggers to dig a hole in their own pockets. This policy will put a stop to all such gold-diggers.
- The fine is to be proportional to the man's wealth
If the fine is too little, the rich man can simply help the mistress pay the fine. The fine should be proportional to the man's wealth and substantial enough to deter him. More importantly, it should be large enough to bankrupt the mistress. In this way, the affair will not even have a chance to start because the mistress will not even want to think about it.
Even with such a law in place, adultery will still happen. Adultery has high social costs. By putting a fine to it, part of the social costs can be recovered in the form of government revenue which can be spent on social programs.
Yes indeed.............fine fine fine. Money is the root of all evil.
ReplyDeleteFine the mistress only if they tell the whole world :P
Brilliant! For those sluts who do not hesitate to break others marriages, be prepared to go bankrupt !!!
ReplyDeletei find your analysis very insightful.. and at the same time hilarious. well done.. your CHC blog led me onto this.. more thoughts as you gather them along then! =)
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly admire the way you put pragmatism one step above idealism.
ReplyDeleteI am so sad you think you live in a country where you think women queue up to sell themselves for money and where men can not resist the temptation and take advantage of that.
ReplyDeleteIt is even more sad that you want to make revenue on an issue that should only attain the parties involved.
I am happy though to see other Singaporeans around me that are trying to build their country with a different vision in mind though.