I am not prepared to make the leap of calling this prostitution. It was stupid for the University to be caught up in that. I think the "Orange Pride" became far too public during the Kiffen year. It made it look like we were out of bounds, because, suddenly, we were. Every major program had this type of operation, but it is meant to be out of sight.
Those girls taking their operation off-campus was probably the dumbest thing that Coaching Staff did, and their list of dumb things was long. Kiffen wanted an online presence for UT to look like a sexy choice for recruits going forward.
Kiffen was putting us on a course for destruction.
And the magic number of $40 coaches were providing makes it sound like these girls were practically paying their own way to "wine and dine" those recruits.
""
The Keteyian-Benedict book describes the "hostess business," where "pretty, personable, well-trained" college women are used as bait to lure top talent.
"Even if they don't have physical relationships with high school players (and some certainly do), they are encouraged to engage in at least pseudo romantic relationships" through social media and text for months on end, says YahooSports reporter Dan Wetzel, who wrote "Death to the BCS."
-- from linked article
""
I think this is a far cry from prostitution. The girls would hook up if they felt like it. That is no different than getting some drinks at a frat party and going home with someone. Plus their ages are no more than 3-4 years, probably. So no consent issues.
Promiscuous? Yes.
Prostitution? Not really.
College life can be like that. If a prospective employer sets me up with a secretary, for example, to show me around the offices and warehouses, or whatever, and we go out a few days later, and have "relations",...
It is not prostitution. It is two people doing what they want.
Even making the implication of prostitution is slanderous, since the girl's are publicly involved. Not territory you want to tread.