Mistress market bottoms out as crisis sucks in millionaires, but toy boys spared a licking

US culture, US Economy

I’ve always wanted to be a Sun headline writer.

Soon it will be grape juice of wrath for mistresses, as the Moët’s off the table now multimillionaires are moved to downsize their despicable deeds of decadence. This shocking scoop comes courtesy of the Wall Street Journal (h/t TNR), which has its finger all over the pulse:

According to a new survey by Prince & Assoc., more than 80% of multimillionaires who had extra-marital lovers planned to cut back on their gifts and allowances. [..]

“Rich people are getting hit, and they’re all expressing the need to curtail unnecessary spending,” said Russ Alan Prince, president of Prince & Assoc., a wealth-research firm based in Connecticut. “Lovers are part of the same calculation.” [..]

Fully 82% of men in the study said they planned to lower the allowances to their mistresses, while more than three quarters planned to provide fewer gifts, less expensive gifts and fewer perks, like jet rides, resort vacations and top restaurant meals. [..]

“What we found in talking to the respondents is that the magic of the relationship with their lover fades after a while, so they’re more willing to let them go,” Mr. Prince says.

No more bubbly for you, young lady (Image used under CC license from Flickr user overge)

No more bubbly for you, young lady (Image used under CC license from Flickr user overge)

Charming.

In keeping with these times of flex-work, risk looms largest for long-term lovers: “more than two thirds of the millionaires who had been with their lovers for three or more years planned to cut back. That compares with less than half for those with a tenure of one to three years.” There’s no such thing as security.

How much better is it to be a tool of temptation of the toy boy type! Willingly gratifying the whims of wealthy women is more generously rewarded, it turns out, as their favours are more faithfully doled out.

Yes, the women multimillionaires are truly kind of heart:

Women were far more generous to their paramours in the face of financial crises. Less than 20% planned to lower allowances, gifts and perks, while more than half planned to raise them.

Susan Shapiro Barash, who teaches gender studies at Marymount Manhattan College and wrote “Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets,” about why women lie, said women [..] may value their lovers more today because their husbands are so miserable. “If your husband lost his job on Wall Street and he’s miserable, you need the escape,” she says.

Hard times are a-coming.

8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. sozobe  •  Nov 19, 2008 @1:38 pm

    OMG! Those poor mistresses!

  2. Deb  •  Nov 19, 2008 @2:40 pm

    Only you, Nimh!!!

    This is actually really interesting sociology.

  3. Deb  •  Nov 19, 2008 @2:41 pm

    PS: But where’s the goddam GRAPH?????

  4. nimh  •  Nov 20, 2008 @7:14 pm

    Heh ;-). No graph for this one…

  5. cyphercat  •  Nov 24, 2008 @5:24 pm

    Ha! That headline is fab… I just followed your link from a2k without looking at where you were linking to, and after I read that great opening paragraph I thought, wow, this is a funny blogger nimh found, just what blog am I on here…? :) nice work! you’ll have that career at the Sun yet…

  6. Diane  •  Nov 24, 2008 @8:20 pm

    Ah nimh, a post from you without a graph is like Chritmas without snow, Hannity without Combs(sp?), chicken soup without chicken…

    Sort a makes you sorry for the rich men, doesn’t it? The need to cut back on the perks they give their mistress, must hurt their morally minimal souls.

    Good to hear rich women are more generous.

    The rich really are different.

  7. Jo  •  Nov 24, 2008 @10:35 pm

    I dunno, Diane, as poor women have been known to give more too.. well, that’s another whole subject.

    Whatever, that’s an interesting complexity nimh details.

    Shall we give him a job as headline writer?

  8. nimh  •  Dec 4, 2008 @7:22 am

    Heh – thanks all for your replies. And yes – the rich really are different… at least it certainly seems so.

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>