<p>Before the feminist movement, “girls were girls and men were men.”</p>
<p><<<
I can think of no better way to drive yourself insane than to try to track down every last cent a philandering spouse spent on girlfriends by scrutinizing text messages, emails and the like. Not worth it in my book! Especially if you have kids and want to maintain a relatively decent relationship with the spouse. Just thinking about the one hotel bill I stumbled upon accidentally still makes blood pressure rise dangerously high even now, five years later. I seriously do not want to know.
<<<<</p>
<p>@nottelling I sympathize with what you went thru. and, finding a hotel bill is especially hurtful because of what it suggests. I am sorry that you had to go thru that. </p>
<p>However, if there was a huge amount of spending (and I mean tens of thousands or more), and it would seriously affect your future (retirement, etc), then it might be necessary to go thru the short-term pain in order to restore your financial security. What if your ex had bought this woman a home or a new Mercedes with YOUR money? Wouldn’t you want to know that and be compensated for that?</p>
<p>(BTW…maybe I’m nuts but I wouldn’t give a rat’s patootie about having a relatively decent relationship with an ex-spouse who cheated on me, spent OUR money on some floozie, and broke up our marriage.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue is having-it-all was converted into having all that men have and doing all that men do. Well, that is not even possible because we are physically different and wired differently via the brain. And unfortunately for the diehard have-it-all feminists, they did not take into account that biology is much stronger than their ideology. </p>
<p>This have-it-all concept easily lead to unrealistic expectations simply because men are physically different, cannot have children, and thus do not have the same issues and risks related to endless sex etc. And men also do not have a biological clock, so delaying having children has really shown up to be one thorny issue for women who try to have kids after 35; it is much harder than at 25. This was not the case when child-rearing was put before career. In short, the early feminists put biology second to being like men in the work arena, but the biology is winning and the SBs have figured that out. SBs are cashing in on their youth the way a mid-30 career woman cannot.</p>
<p>SBs may just be the natural (extreme) extension of if men can do it so can I, so they have sex just for sex sake like many men do - but they (some say smartly) also attach the entrepreneurial opportunity to enrich themselves. The SBs figured out that biologically they have and can only use their youth, but for so long. </p>
<p>This article captures exactly what many career women are figuring out.</p>
<p><a href=“30 Is the New 50: Old Age Is Killing My Dating Life | TIME”>30 Is the New 50: Old Age Is Killing My Dating Life | TIME;
<p>What is even more revealing on the feminist front is none of the college SBs I have met are trying to be like men career-wise or otherwise, but consider themselves feminists because they get to choose the man who pays therm, not the man choosing them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To the letter, this is exactly how SBs think. They do not see themselves in competition with men at all, but rather as a biologically necessary and different complement.</p>
<p>Wow, madaboutx - jump the shark? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not in my opinion. If one wants to look down on a prostitute, fine, but they should look down on a very loose woman just as much. Commercializing it shouldn’t make it any more or less excusable. </p>
<p>Yup, let’s blame Susan B. Anthony and the other “early feminists” for unleashing all this when they fought for the rights of women to vote. And when I think of Betty Fredan, I immediately think of “Sugar Babies.” Because she invented prostitution.</p>
<p>Disregarding the sex, this seems like a wonderful opportunity in learning and networking. It’s like well paid intern.</p>
<p>Of course, there is sex involved, but it’s still a choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not blame early feminists for anything. I clearly said that the message got changed / co-opted. And I did not disagree with voting rights etc. </p>
<p>I specifically pointed out in the work arena, and in a couple other areas where biology is so different, that the having-it-all concept ran into natural obstacles when it got converted to mean to be just like men. Just like men is quite different than having the constitutional rights just like any other citizen. Yes, women should have rights like another citizen, but in some arenas, they cannot be just like men; same as men cannot be just like women. </p>
<p>I am not sure how what I said got construed, as blaming early feminists. I would say the blame lies with later feminists; the mid-70s, early 80s maybe. Not sure exactly where. </p>
<p>“Equal pay, maternity leave, pay for homemaking, being treated like men-don’t hold a door, don’t pull out a seat, don’t stare at my breasts and don’t look at my hairy legs types of women are reduced to finding sugar daddy’s to pay their way thru college.”</p>
<p>This is by far the most convoluted logic I’ve ever seen. How, again, did “equal pay, maternity leave and I-can-hold-my-own-door” result in families not having the money to send daughters to college and hence enticing the girls to consider alternate funding ways? </p>
<p>And does that mean that if I let someone stare at my breasts, I can get more money for my kids’ college? </p>
<p>Holy smokes! Are some of you kidding? Did my iPad become a magic time machine going back in time? Reading this thread has become like watching really bad TV; it will rot your brain. Enough of this misogynist darkness; I’m heading to where the sun does shine. </p>
<p>Men may be able to procreate indefinitely, but don’t kid yourself–that old sperm ain’t what it used to be!</p>
<p><a href=“Older Dads Linked to Kids' Genetic Risk for Autism and Schizophrenia | TIME.com”>http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/23/older-fathers-linked-to-kids-autism-and-schizophrenia-risk/</a></p>
<p>But I’m sure that’s the feminists’ fault too!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not misogynisitic to acknowledge that men and women are different, physically and in other ways. </p>
<p>And it is not misogynisitic to acknowledge that those differences do affect how certain things can be done. It is called reality.</p>
<p>The female who wrote the article Iinked to above had to begrudgingly acknowledge these differences because she was taught differently and reality hit her in the face. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your point is exactly what I was making. Even with this reduction, men still have a useful reproductive lifespan 2 to 3X the length of women. It is not misogynistic to acknowledge as much. That is reality. </p>
<p>And for women, they do need to plan in ways men do not re career etc. Reality bites again.</p>
<p>“SBs may just be the natural (extreme) extension of if men can do it so can I”</p>
<p>Bwuh? I don’t see any aspect here that’s new except the web site. In the 50s, they were called “kept women.” Mobsters and senators had them. Remember “Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend”? “There may come a time when a hard-boiled employer thinks you’re awful nice, but get that ice, or else no dice!”</p>
<p>18th-century French courtesans were exactly the same. They were charming at parties, too, and got jewelry and apartments, not salaries. </p>
<p>The sexual revolution suggested that women could pursue pleasure like men always have, but SBs are old school, and they state that up front.</p>
<p>Actually, at least since the early 1980s, contemporary feminist thought has focused (to a large extent) on differences between men and women (sometimes to a fault, imho). Carol Gilligan, for example, argued in In A Different Voice that women are more likely to be motivated by an “ethic of care” while men are more likely to be motivated by an “ethic of justice.” This sort of essentialist thought was the driving force for many practical changes; in the law, for example, for the development of the “reasonable woman” standard for evaluating certain conduct, on the theory that the “reasonable woman” might see things differently from the “reasonable man.” And there’s the whole theory that supposedly gender-neutral policies may well have a disparate impact on women largely because of differences in biology. In pop culture, there’s the pop-feminist trope that there wouldn’t be wars if women ruled the world. So, I take issue not only with your logic but also with your underlying premise regarding the bedrock principles of feminist thought. (The Susan B. Anthony comment was just meant to poke a bit of fun. I didn’t really think you were arguing against voting rights for women). </p>
<p>It’s definitely more fun and interesting to hear about pay structure and perks of being a sb or sd than to argue about whether feminism has led to an increase in promiscuity (and whether that’s good or bad).</p>
<p>“The liberal feminist movement is collapsing in on itself. Women seeking to have it all have to twirl on poles, give lap dances, do stripteases and have sex with old freaky men willing to pay to get on the lowest rung of the corporate ladder. Wait until they find out what they’ll be asked to do to move up the ladder.”</p>
<p>Um, this is a joke, right? Hahaha? </p>
<p>Are there any attractive, wealthy younger women who feel they could benefit from the experience and perspective of an older gentleman? Just curious.</p>
<p>One who professes to have expertise of the US healthcare system? Just curious.</p>
<p>You may not consider it misogynistic, but that doesn’t make it correct.</p>
<p>Men and women are different between the legs and to some extent in capacity for athleticism (let’s see all the men on CC who run a 4:15 mile like the fastest woman does), and that is it. Both men and women have estrogen and testosterone. Both men and women have intellectual capacities that range from miniscule to sublime.</p>
<p>Sexism is very similar to racism, in that the haves feel that the have-nots are creeping up in terms of equality, and the have must argue that they are inherently better, or even just “different”.</p>
<p>NFN, I know a lot of stories of sponging boyfriends who in some cases were the reason why a girl had to drop out of college. Can’t one look at this as a correcting factor?</p>
<p>Also, promiscuity has not increased, it is just not as taboo to talk about it. </p>
<p>LOL that there wouldn’t be wars if women ruled the world. Women and men both have a great capacity for nastiness and evil.</p>
<p>(Many religions have one of their basic tenets that women can never achieve the highest levels or even lower leadership levels in their organizations. Take away religion, and a lot of misogyny will go away.)</p>
<p>(And I had a classmate who was checking off fraternity photos as a hobby. And insisted on talking about her comparisons at the dinner table in the sorority. That was 20 years ago. Would it not be more healthy to find one rich guy and sleep with him, and use it to pay for college?)</p>
<p>(My other thought on this is proving that you are a student at the college you purport to attend. I would be very concerned about what would happen if the “well goes dry” = no more tuition help and the sd knows my name and what school I attend.)</p>
<p>Well I have not read everything but is there a website for sugar mommy and the equivalent sugar baby for male?Just a thought. </p>
<p>^^ Yes. </p>
<p>The Sugar Momma has been around a long time too. There is an entire industry around that in Palm Beach for example where divorced and widowed women hire men to keep them company for the winter season parities. The men are politely called walkers, but they do perform all other services. I see them all the time there.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure such sites exist. Probably part of the SD sites.</p>