Don't get me wrong--I feel for the kid(s) who are ultimately the victims of their parents' narcissism and callousness. But is this any worse than drugging their kid because he won't sit still and focus, or abdicating their parental duties to a full-time nanny (both of which are, these days, not considered shocking or taboo)?

Whether it's worse or not doesn't bear on the moral weight of whether or not one involves oneself in it.

Yes, parents who are going to abuse their children are going to abuse their children. It's another thing entirely to say "good on these people for helping those parents abuse their children, it's a great way to make bank!"

These rich parents are going to spend their money on something. Better it go to these guys rather than something even worse. I agree with you, though: Ideally it would be better to make money by being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

I mean I'm not going to pretend I can't contemplate without judgment someone who would be willing even to seriously consider engaging in this sort of activity, regardless of motivation.

I get that someone might imagine they're helping people this way - using methods designed to help people far out on the autism spectrum, and not entirely without controversy even in that application, on people for whom they are not only ineffective but harshly abusive. But that person, in so thinking, errs. While I'm not entirely without sympathy for the error, the extent of that sympathy is strictly circumscribed by the fact of the harm that they're doing. There comes a point beyond which "I didn't know" no longer gets you a pass. That others have further trespassed in that direction than these doesn't change the fact of their trespass.

Hiring a nanny may be buying a way out of the problem, but at least is a decision you make. "Parents who pay to be watched" bothers me for the same reason life coaches bother me: it would seem to be a way of buying your wait out of having to "do you".

An adult should first be their own person. Of course it's not a good thing if they're bad parents (although even naming a boy Sue may be a way of exerting parenthood), but they're not going to be good for anyone if they're not their own people.

Here's an analogy: I understand prostitution -- it sells a service to people who are very ugly/deformed, the mentally ill, people who have very high sex drives or, in the limit, even people who don't want to deal with dating and Tinder and want to just get their sexual needs met in an uncomplicated fashion. The last case may be even societally deplorable (I'm not making value calls here) but at least is something one does.

I have slightly more trouble understanding the idea of escorts, who sell "arm candy" service to narcissistic people . I mean, I understand the appeal: I used to have share a desk with a very attractive woman and just the everyday banter and occasional flirty smile gave me a huge "ego boost".

What I don't get is hiring someone to pretend to be your girlfriend. The article tells us about a service that lets you pretend to be a parent.

I'd say comparable in harm to drugging the kid but far more harmful than using a nanny. I don't see an issue with a nanny, especially one who is long term, bonds emotionally with the kid(s), and who is compensated fairly.

We are pro business here, but I took that comment as sarcasm.