In order to take care of her recently orphaned younger sister, a broke twentysomething decides to sleep around with married men with the intention of blackmailing them, lest she expose them for their infidelity.

Why does it always have to be a woman who sells her body?? How about a role reversal?? A guy utilizes his only marketable assets-- his looks and charm -- to take care of his loved one by becoming a gigolo, blackmails married women.? Who, after all,? are likelt be more emotionally vulnerable and economically dependent? (on their husbands)?

fwiw.

I like the idea. It's an interesting concept.

I agree with Paul Clarke about the last line to be unnecessary.

But I actually think that the idea of her doing it to several men is more interesting. It evolves more risk this way.

Ant it's something believable if she doesn't have access to a very rich man. If she's unemployed, for instance, she then won't have a rich boss to blackmail. ?It's just a matter of explaining throughout the film why she has to blackmail more than one guy. I don't see a problem there.

I'd suggest that the woman should be married and she and her husband love each other. This way she would be risking more and it could create more tension.

For me the logline is good enough to get me curious to watch the film, so it works for me.

Paul Clarke's? version is better --- but isn't the real story --which is to say, the plot -- about what happens after she actually blackmails the man ?? Isn't the affair with a married man just a set up?