<p>All Pilgrims were Puritans. Not all Puritans were Pilgrims.</p>
<p>That the amateur hookers in college tell you they tell their girlfriends does not mean that they’re the norm for female college students in the US. This is a bizarre subset. </p>
<p>To be honest the hookup culture is more prevalent on the net than in real life. Unless my kids have very conservative friends, I don’t think they do but both kids have at least 10-20 that are not participate in this. We’re talking about typical California good looking blonds and such. Not some sub culture immigrants.
In fact, I was told a lot stuff since high school because these kids had nothing to hide whether they did hook up or not. </p>
<p>"Work is noble, selling yourself to be used is degrading.</p>
<p>And a college coed who drinks a lot, gets stupid drunk, hooks up with different guys on a whim and does not mind being used as a door mat by those guys is not degrading herself?"</p>
<p>Sure she is. This isn’t a zero-sum game where only one type of action can qualify as degrading. </p>
<p>“Why this change? It is easy to spot. When I was in college in the early and mid-80s, there was actual dating. And the concept of the casual hook-ups was not something people practiced, as the norm. It idid happen, but no one advertised it, as that behavior was looked down upon as well.”</p>
<p>With all due respect, there were casual hook-ups back then as well. And there is still actual dating on today’s campuses. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see both acts, as bad judgement on part of the girls. </p>
<p>And this is why a while back I said people selectively choose what they want to be outraged about. </p>
<p>According to this logic, coed could choose to be a doormat for many college guys, but that is just bad judgement. However, a girl who chooses to be a doormat for one SD for four years is not bad judgement and enters another worse realm of something else? This is really just rationalization of the fact that you do not like the exchange of money for sex. Fair enough not liking that monetary exchange. I get that. However, I find both girls are equally stupid and exhibiting equally bad judgment, money notwithstanding. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said exactly that. Read the post. What does this sentence mean?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what I said is on the college campus today dating is not the norm that it used to be. it just is not. Hook-ups are the norm now; not dating, as in the past. Note - I never said dating disappeared. </p>
<p>It’s not the money exchanging hands that bothers me so much. One is bad judgement because it is hurtful to one self and maybe others.</p>
<p>The other act could be mutually beneficial to two people but the acceptance of such behavior is dangerous to civil society. It is a derivative form of slavery that will encourage more brazen attempts to buy people or enslave people. Human nature is the same as it was 1,000 years ago. The desire to subjugate others is still there. The desire to be enslaved is still there too. Not everyone wants freedom.</p>
<p>Very interesting discussion!</p>
<p>Here’s my take: if you believe at all that sex as an act ought to be something with real emotion attached to it, then you have to view sex for hire as being an immoral act. It would be like being hired to pretend to be someone’s friend. Some things are supposed to be the product of true affection and of a generous spirit, not a monetary transaction. This is why being offered payment for something that you did out of generosity is always so insulting – because the sincerity of your emotions is being called into question.</p>
<p>Maybe, as awcntdb says, sex on college campuses is no longer an act of affection. Well, it’s still supposed to be something that two people do together because they really want to, not because one of them is doing it in exchange for compensation from the other. That monetary transaction puts the entire act on a different level. If I ask a friend to work on a class project with me and they accept, it’s assumed to be because we like each other and trust each other’s ability to do quality work. If I offer to pay the friend to work on the class project with me, that’s insulting to my friend because (a) it assumes that my friend’s friendship and good will are for hire, and (b) it assumes that my friend wouldn’t do it if not for the money. </p>
<p>What awcntdb describes is neither a friendship/dating relationship nor a pure business relationship. I’m not sure I think it’s entirely immoral – maybe not if the sugar daddy makes it clear that he doesn’t expect sex and that all he wants is companionship, and if sex happens it will be because both of them decide on their own that they want it. But it’s a kind of unnatural hybrid that is a mockery of a true dating relationship and a corruption of a true business relationship. It’s skeevy.</p>
<p>Oddly, I don’t judge the women in ages past who lived as kept women, because back then women literally could not support themselves beyond a very menial level. They had no other options than to latch on to a man in some way in order to survive. That is not the case today. Sugar babies are making a deliberate choice to treat what should be given freely and from the heart, as something they’ll only provide upon payment, and they’re choosing to do this with their time rather than earn money in some other way. I can’t approve of that.</p>
<p>I hope this will spawn some comments, but I have to go do what I get paid for now! Will be back to respond to any comments later tonight.</p>
<p>What we are seeing is a basic disconnect in attitudes between the wealthy and not wealthy. In my middle class world, dating was always something between two equals - equal education level, equal interests, equal work ethic, and roughly equal level of attractiveness. At my income level, my eventual mate would have to be able to help me carry the couch up the stairs. My middle class “6” was not going to attract a lower class “9” because I could afford Red Lobster instead of McDonalds. One study even somewhat quantified this; optimum male height starts about 6’1", and every inch below 6’ requires an additional $300,000 net worth to even it out.</p>
<p>The wealthy grow up immersed in unequal relationships. This is their “normal.” My exchange student “brother” had his own nanny in addition to the shared drivers, bodyguards, cooks and maids. They understand implicitly that the smell of money gets them better service and more options, prettier girlfriends, better seats at the symphony, and that people will behave differently in their presence. Shortly after my wife and I started dating, she was invited to fly on a private jet to the Caribbean for the weekend by one of my parents’ well-to-do friends (she knew my father and hadn’t told him we were dating). If she weren’t already smitten I imagine she would have gone, and I expect that the success rate for that type of proposition is pretty good. Given the equivalent, an attractive, interesting, single 40-year-old female asking 21-year-old me to go to the Caribbean I would not have hesitated.</p>
<p>My wife knows a couple of trophy wives, spouses of household names, who understand that their position requires them to acknowledge the power imbalance in the relationships. They put up with the chronic adultery (keep it on the road) and the occasional abuse in exchange for the joint checking account. We cheered Elin when she smacked Tiger Woods with a 4-iron. I’m sure he didn’t expect it as that type of response rarely visits the gated communities. </p>
<p>I also suspect that if the author of the prior linked Mother Jones article were incrementally more beautiful, and had attracted an interested party who was a charming single rich man instead of a gross drunk pig, it would not have been such an obvious choice for her.</p>
<p>
No. Most normal people would not think of doing this. Its boorish, uncouth and extremely insensitive/offensive. Many people active in MADD have lost a loved one to a drunk driving incident. Mocking them or taunting about alcohol consumption would be extremely distasteful. And what the heck is an “alcohol loving person” anyway? (rhetorical question)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The general point is that some folks will openly discuss/brag about things they know someone is strongly against if he/she is sanctimonious and tries imposing his/her views about such things on others as a way to get a rise out of the sanctimonious busybodying type. </p>
<p>It’s a way to communicate that most folks don’t like what they perceive to be sanctimonious moralistic scold…whether rightly or wrongly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, I doubt most of the “Masters of the universes” awcntdb is talking about care about or want an equal relationship. </p>
<p>Second, everyone has a different threshold as to how much “drama” each person can take. IME, it seems people are far less willing to put up with “drama” the older they get, especially if it’s exceeds the threshold of most folks in their given age group/social circle culture. </p>
<p>There’s a happy medium somewhere between folks who avoid all drama and those who revel in it to such an extent they unnecessarily complicate their own lives along with those of their SOs and the lives of their family, friends, colleagues, and society at large. </p>
<p>It also makes very little sense to me as if one or both partners are so unhappy with their lives and/or each other they’re constantly criticizing them or picking fights, then it’s past time for them to seek a therapist and/or seriously consider breaking up/divorcing. </p>
<p>I’d say the same about a date/SO who constantly dumps his/her negative emotions about his/her life on his/her partner regularly for months/years. It’s one thing to be a supportive partner…it’s totally something else to be his/her therapist which is NOT something most dates/SOs signed up for at the beginning of a relationship. Each individual member in a relationship is also responsible for finding his/her own happiness and to solve their own personal problems/issues…especially if they don’t involve the SO. </p>
<p>Hard to make an(obvious) point with something any normal person would not do.</p>
<p>
A married man paying a young female to be his social/sexual partner is demonstrating equally bad judgement. Maybe worse. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>"Hi, I’m Prairie! And I’ll be your server this evening! "</p>
<p>So, are you insulted by friendly, perky waiters who are only smiling at you to get a bigger tip? And as a loving spouse, do u never acquiesce when u are really not in the mood?</p>
<p>The reality is that sex is sold/bartered even when couples are married. What legitimized Anna Nicole Smith rendering intimate services to J Howard Marshall is the fact he legalized the transaction by putting a ring on it.</p>
<p>You can speak in general term . It doesn’t happen like that to all marriage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What doesn’t happen in all marriages-- that partners do it anyway, even when they’re really not in the mood?</p>
<p>Maybe some do it when they aren’t in the mood because they love their spouse and people who love each other sometimes do things to make the other person happy. That’s different than staring at the ceiling because you feel obligated and are being paid to do so.</p>
<p>^ and surprise, surprise, 9 times out of 10, it turns that maybe you were in the mood but didn’t know it :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People are missing the first and most important part of the SD-SB relationship, and I guess they are doing it because they want to keep the hooker angle going. </p>
<p>The most important aspect is SDs and SBs actually choose each other because they like each other. Until people understand that then you are not even discussing the real SD-SB relationship.</p>
<p>I know SDs who have gotten turned down by coed SBs because the potential SB did not like him, as they had no initial like or anything in common. If there is no like and no stuff in common, then the SB does not enter that SD-SB relationship. </p>
<p>For some reason, many posters have decided that this mutual like cannot be possible, so they are having a false discussion with themselves. I cannot help there if people ignore what is really happening, as to fit one’s particular world view of male-female dynamics. People need to accept that there is more than one view on things, including male-female relationships. </p>
<p>This set-up is qualitatively different than a hooker, who does not care about like or in-common issues with whom she sleeps. Quantitatively, I agree, the relationships are the same, as there is some form of payment. However, being the same quantitatively does not mean they are the same qualitatively. And this is the major error I see many posters making. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another thing people have ongoing, which is inaccurate, is there must be and cannot be any desire on the part of the SB.</p>
<p>Well, I have not met one SB who did not want to sleep with the SD. I wrote earlier that it was weird at first because the SBs I initially met were totally confused, as just younger girlfriends. I did not know they were SBs. Hookers and escorts do not portray or cannot even act like that. </p>
<p>The entire beginning song and dance of the SD-SB relationship is to first establish that there is attraction between the parties - why people blow past that all important criteria and pretend it is all mechanical is another gross error. I figure it makes people feel better in thinking that no female can be acting like this on her own free will. Sorry, such females exist, and there is a lot of them.</p>
<p>To place our own imagined constructs on the relationship, constructs that are not accurate and not happening, does not change the fact SDs and SBs actually do like each other and choose each other because of mutual attraction; the money does not come in until after that attraction is established to be real. If people do not want to understand or accept that basic fact, then they are not discussing SD-SB relationships, as they actually exist; they are discussing a wholly different straw man relationship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, but this only applies to 30% of SDs who are married. The other 70% are not hiding jack from anyone.</p>
<p>Sound’s like an inaccurate assumption that posters don’t understand that participants enjoy each other’s company and may be/are attracted to each other at some level(s), which includes the physical attraction and the allure of money, power, status, etc. Please give reader’s here some credit. They are not fools. </p>
<p>But the constant focus on the behavior/choices of the women, with little to no mention of the despicable lack of respect that a cheating husband has towards his family is just beyond the pale. Doesn’t matter how rich, polished, sophisticated and generous is, if he’s married he’s still pond scum.</p>