<p>^ See Bernie.
<a href=“http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bernie_2011/[/url]”>http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bernie_2011/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. </p>
<p>And the girls do not give a rat’s patoot what other women think of them either. A lot of these girls are hot, and they know it. They could care less what other women say about them. That is just the way it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then moms are messing up somewhere because these girls see these men as perfect gentlemen. </p>
<p>Why do they see these guys, as gentlemen? Because, unlike the majority of college guys, these men are upfront about what they want, are not playing games, and honesty wins the day; they open doors for the girls; they send them flowers; they know their favorite perfume etc. The girls like the return to chivalry and being treated nicely. Only feminists think that opening a door for a girl and paying for dinner this demeaning and college guys have internalized those ideas and the girls see them as rough-cuts. These girls love the treat me nice stuff, and the young guys in college are clueless about the thoughtful, small things.</p>
<p>Yeah…it is sort of hookup with perks for the girls… maybe it IS partly a product of the fact that young men don’t bother with the trappings of dating as much any more. Some young men do (D1’s BF is a star in this area), but others not so much (D2’s BF not so much… I think he is a nice young man, but their relationship is… casual).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exactly what it is. </p>
<p>Why hook up with a college guy when you can hook-up with a guy who takes you out to dinner upon getting an A on your final? If the girl is going to sleep with someone, might as well have the guy actually like you and want to be with you. The hook-up culture is the best thing that ever happened to Sugar Daddies.</p>
<p>And one thing that many are missing is the guys actually like the girls. No Sugar daddy spends money on a girl he does not truly like. That is a waste. And the girls actually like their Sugar Daddies too. It is not the distant prostitute relationship that people are comparing it to.</p>
<p>"Only feminists think that opening a door for a girl and paying for dinner this demeaning and college guys have internalized those ideas and the girls see them as rough-cuts. "</p>
<p>Well, I consider myself a feminist and I also raised my son to open doors for women, pay for dinner, etc. And I’ve raised my daughter to think of guys who do this as being gentlemen, or class acts, or mensches, or whatever term you want to use.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I restate:</p>
<p>“Only the feminists with the loudest bullhorns think that opening a door for a girl and paying for dinner this demeaning and college guys have internalized those ideas and the girls see them as rough-cuts.”</p>
<p>Really @awcntdb you are so off on that. I also consider myself a feminist and my H opens doors for me, takes me to dinner and sends me flowers. I appreciate those gestures and would not have married a man who did not treat me that way. I return those gestures with things I think he would appreciate and also contribute to our household finances. I expect my son will mirror his father as that is what he has seen growing up. I think you are confusing feminists with women who reject or dislike men. Feminists want equality in the workplace and a society that respects their right to make decisions for themselves. No more no less.</p>
<p>"Why do they see these guys, as gentlemen? Because, unlike the majority of college guys, these men are upfront about what they want, are not playing games, and honesty wins the day; they open doors for the girls; they send them flowers; they know their favorite perfume etc. The girls like the return to chivalry and being treated nicely. "</p>
<p>awcntdb, if I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am), you have described yourself as a social conservative on many fronts. Given that, I’m surprised you’re not more condemning of this trend. I myself don’t really know yet what I think about it because on one hand it certainly isn’t what I want for my daughter, yet on the other hand I kind of feel if the terms are upfront and both parties get what they want, what is it to me.</p>
<p>“Only the feminists with the loudest bullhorns think that opening a door for a girl and paying for dinner is demeaning”</p>
<p>Who are the self-described feminists with the loudest bullhorns (which I take to mean the most widely listened to) – Rachel Maddow? Sheryl Sandberg? Emma Watson, at the moment? Can you point to an example of one of them saying this sort of thing? Gloria Steinem has said that she thinks anyone can hold a door for anyone else, so she can’t be who you’re talking about. I wonder whether you’ve heard this straight from any prominent feminists, or whether you’re guessing what they believe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I stated earlier that I would not condone it and would advise against it. What more should I say? Just because I understand something does not mean I am not personally against it and would not engage in it.</p>
<p>Also, you missed a key part of my description - social conservative libertarian.</p>
<p>Apart from the cash, I can see why these old farts might be socially appealing to these young women. The gals can dress up and go to the opera, rather than have one of their male contemporaries try to impress them w their air guitar technique.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that the silver " fox" & the bright young thing like each other.
I’ve heard that working girls also like their clients, if they didn’t they probably should be charging more.</p>
<p>But to spend a lot of time with someone that you merely enjoy and aren’t in love with and don’t imagine that you would ever be anything more than fond (& if you would drop him like a hot potato if he lost his money, then you are not being honest with yourself when you think you aren’t for sale), that is taking away time that you could be spending with people who shared your interests (& your age bracket)</p>
<p>I’ve known women my age who behaved similarly before the frost was on the pumpkin, and it is very sad. Because they still seek validation of their worth by how much men are willing to spend on them.
It’s like when teens use drugs, their maturity gets stuck at the age they began using.
Needing the high of material trinkets seems to have kept these now middle aged women from emotional maturity.</p>
<p>HarvestMoon1:</p>
<p>Re: The “seeping upwards” thing, here’s Krugman’s take:
<a href=“Life in Belle Epoque America - The New York Times”>http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/life-in-belle-epoque-america/</a></p>
<p>There are some powerful societal forces at work here. If you look through American history, you see both equality/inequality and acceptance of conformity/nonconformity swing back and forth like a pendulum.</p>
<p>@Hanna - I am just repeating what my DSs and his friends get from the groups and particular females on their campus. There are groups of feminists, which confuse help and chivalry with condescension and dependence. </p>
<p>I saw a good bit of that myself in the early 8Os, so, yes, I also personally heard that straight from some feminists. It was not to hard to figure out what was going on after about the 5th time on campus I was told by a female, “I can get the door myself.” Like I did not know that, but that was the last time I was nice to those specific women and saved to it for the ones who understood that it was just the nice thing to do. My older DS was told the same thing a couple times last year, as a freshman, so it still exists for some.</p>
<p>I like my students, and many of them like me, but I spend hours listening to their hopes and dreams because their parents are paying me. It’s a living. Genuine mutual affection doesn’t make the commercial transaction go away. I imagine that’s true for lots of therapists, nurses, teachers, etc.</p>
<p>I am willing to buy Krugman’s argument that economic inequality produces this sort of desperation, but only to a point. I think the title of the Atlantic is not really supported by the story. Many of the girls cited in the article do not appear to be in this for tuition, in fact many who use this service are not even enrolled in college. What many of the girls talk about is"getting a credit card in their name" as the goal, not tuition dollars. Expensive dinners, credit cards and limos are not the norm for most in even the best economies. So I don’t see why we should hang this on a poor economy.</p>
<p>And as far as the girl at P is concerned, how is it that she is enrolled if there was not sufficient funds to pay the tuition? Most people look at their aid package and whatever EFC is expected and act accordingly. And how many college students live extravagant life styles? So the eating clubs at P aren’t good enough and I guess Agricola across the street isn’t cutting it either? I suspect that tuition dollars are not the motive here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lots and lots of people date people they are fond of but not in love with. How many movie plots w one partner being unable to day the “L” word?</p>
<p>When I was in college, I never looked at any of my dates (same age as me) as a serious life-partner, even though some of the relationships lasted for years. I knew the relationship was transient as I was headed to grad school in another part of the country, then likely a job in yet another part of the country. Good thing I finally found a spouse who enjoys being a nomad.</p>
<p>I haven’t read every post all that closely, but I do have a question:</p>
<p>I think we all agree that the “seeking arrangements” website is basically a front for prostitution. The whole point is that the women are willing to exchange sex for money.</p>
<p>But for Pizzagirl and awcantdb – how can you tell from the outside whether the relationship falls into this category? Awcantdb says he meets women in these sugar daddy relationships all the time. But how do you know the basis of the relationship? We’re talking about beautiful young women who are also supposedly smart (smart enough to get into Princeton). It is not inconceivable that an older guy could genuinely fall for such a woman. And I know plenty of women who were genuinely attracted to rich, powerful older men. It seems to me if the feelings are mutual it is outside the “seeking arrangement” or prostitution box. How can you tell from just meeting someone at a party what box they fall into? </p>
<p>And Pizzagirl, yes, you and I and every other middle-aged woman may roll their eyes when the rich dude shows up with the beautiful young thing. But plenty of those relationships have endured and plenty of those young women have turned out to be women of substance OR supportive of the men in question in exactly the way those particular men seem to need or want. In that case, what business of ours is it if they choose to pair up with each other? And how can we conclude it is not true love (or a close enough approximation thereof) just because the woman is young and beautiful.</p>
<p>*
Lots and lots of people date people they are fond of but not in love with. *
I agree. And they may go out with them once or twice, and be dating others at the same time.
I was under the impression the sugar daddy relationship, precluded the girl from having other romantic relationships.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Lots of people are serially monagamous w partners they are only “in like” with.</p>