"The mom offered you her innocent teen virgin daughter; why am I not surprised? It's well established that most women are not feminists. Many moms will jump at the chance to make a fast buck by selling their female children to men for their pleasure. I read a post a while ago, from a virped, suggesting perhaps pedophilic relationships should be okay if permission is granted by parents, as if that will safe guard children. I thought "are you kidding me??". That is the worst possible idea EVER. You think CSA is bad now... Parents will sell their daughters to the highest bidder. That will basically legalize child prostitution. Look at what happens in poor Asian countries. Mom's sell their daughters to traffickers as sex slaves. You can never underestimate people's greed."

Just because mom offered Gimwinkle her innocent teen virgin daughter does not imply the mom did not care for the innocent teen virgin, or would not consult and respect the virgin.

Many moms would sell their daughters as sex slaves for a fast buck.
However, many moms dislike the thought of having no further claim on the slaveowner, having received the slave price in full. Or having a daughter who resents the mom for having sold the daughter into slavery, and spends the sugardaddy´s money on herself, her own children and her lovers rather than her mom.

Whereas having a daughter with a rich sugardaddy well around her little finger - in case of a paedophile, around her very little finger - who continues to love her mom and voluntarily milk sugardaddy for mom´s benefit would make a slow buck.

Given that both moms out for a fast buck and moms out for a slow buck are common, what can be deduced from existence of parental permission? Or from lack of parental permission?

Gimwinkle - do you think the mom of the 15F, 8F and 6F was out for the fast buck or for the slow buck?