- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Tres amusing how this subject (like the Elliot Spitzer fiasco) bring the trolls out of the trees, in order to vent their intense anger and hatred at women (you know, all of us women who have no sexual feelings or desires, and only want SHOES...shoes we cannot buy ourselves because we are too dumb and lazy and cheap to work for a living...oh wait, even working at a job is prostitution!)
There are enough brilliantly insane quotes here to wallpaper a small living room, so I can't possible address them all.
I guess it is impossible for trolls to see the irony in shrieking and braying against marriage and women, while simultaneously idealizing it past the point any women (any human) could possibly live up to. A woman is presumably to service your needs, live with you, clean and cook for you, bear and raise your children -- but she deserves literally absolutely NOTHING ("not a dollar" sez Brightstar) when your marriage ends, you tire of her. If she has a weight problem, you go online and bash or humiliate her (dickdworkin).
You marry a woman half your age, post online about how miserable and constraining your THIRD marriage is (after only a few weeks) and announce that "sex with your wife is no different than sex with a woman you don't love". Amerigo, honey -- promise you will write that sentiment in your wife's Valentine this February? I know she will appreciate it!
Worst of all: we have to hear exactly how big Brightstar's penis is. It's truly a miracle that a man this wealthy, this handsome and fit, this "endowed", could possibly be a loser in the sweepstakes of love, isn't it? Could it be that women figure out that he is a CRAZY, SELF-IMPORTANT WOMAN-HATING LOSER? and that in light of that, no amount of looks or money will EVER buy him the gorgeous supermodel of his dreams?
Brighty, take a hint. You are staring down another 43 years (approx.) of bitter loneliness, no children, and it won't ever get better until you get sane. And it's not because "women are feminazis". It's because you are nuts. And BTW, if "wimmin" were not the target of your hatred and vile, it would be the Blacks or the Jews or the Liberrrrals or Islamofacism...trust me, you'd find something to be paranoid about.
****
As far as the almost lost SUBJECT MATTER: I agree that this is a fake PR stunt. Whenever I read..."so and so gave us his Tax Returns, to prove how rich he/she is"...I smell a rat. In the US, our tax returns are MORE private than our sex lives. It's easy to get blank returns at post office, fill in what you like.
Secondly, Melissa would technically be a mistress, not a prostitute. The difference is she is with one man, has an actual relationship with him and he is supporting her much as he would a wife -- simply without the legal protections of marriage. I am not particularly saying this is "better", only that it is different than a street prostitute (which the vast majority of prostitutes ARE, high end call girls being very rare) who will sleep with anyone, usually without condoms and is entirely indiscriminate.
There are few "mistresses" because it takes a very VERY rich man to support a woman in this sort of style, to make it worthwhile to a young attractive woman (who could presumably marry) to put her life on hold in exchange for shoes and jewelry and gifts. Furthermore, there is a built-in guarantee to mistresshood that you acknowledge you will be discarded in time for a younger model, with no compensation. In the olden days, before DNA testing, your children would have been illegitimate and not inherited anything from their father, so this was a big risk indeed.
But Melissa's story just stinks: the sugar daddy "dated" her for three months with no sex? Gimme a break. Nobody is stupid enough to pay thousands of dollars for sex they are not getting, not even Elliot Spitzer.
Do a handful of women do this? Very few. It can't be many because again A. there are not many men this rich, and even most rich men (see: Bill Gates) who could do it, do not (they get MARRIED to their PEERS). And the vast majority of women simply are not beautiful enough to command this kind of lavish support.
The weirdest thing though is the continued emphasis (by trolls) on how women "have" some sexual thing (our vaginas, I guess) that we "control" and keep from men....but of course, since women have no sexual desires, it is impossible to imagine a woman (older, plainer, heavier) who wants what MEN HAVE -- a penis -- and can't have that, anymore than a poor man can get the vagina of a supermodel.
And women do not have the secondary market of prostitution. Male prostitutes who service only lonely old wrinkly fat women simply do not exist. If a woman isn't beautiful, she's pretty much shit-out-of-luck in that department. As Gemma Kaye Brown intelligently observes, men may get richer over time but women lose their looks and youth, and get discarded. There are 80 year old millionaires, like Hugh Hefner, who can still pay gorgeous girls to service him -- but I'll bet my last nickel that Leona Helmsley had no such thing.
Trust me, women have just exactly as strong needs for sex as men do, but far less ability to command it -- unless they are beautiful. And most women statistically speaking are not beautiful or young. So the sorry truth is a world filled with lonely HUMAN BEINGS who cannot connect, because of all the bizarre belief systems pulling them in opposite directions.
So that's all. Except let's say a prayer for poor Mrs. Dworkin and Mrs. Amerigo; I feel sorrier for them than almost any other women I can think of.
