Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Brightstar, why do you and your supposed ilk get the corner on sexual frustration?
I have seen what it's like out there on all sides. I was always a very thin female until my early 20s, when I went on medication that made me fat fat fat. I eventually went off the meds and it took me about two years to shed those pounds.
When I was fat, no man even LOOKED at me, much less propositioned me. I was really horny too -- but nope, no sex for that fat woman! And no, I never went to a massage parlor for women for a "happy ending" (hmm -- wonder how many of those really exist?)
I lived in sexual obscurity until I lost the weight. I am sure that the men who ignored me completely would like a huge lecture on why they did not find me attractive when I was 200 pounds. Or maybe I should lecture the numerous men who hit on me when I was 12-15 years old?
Well, regardless, I got thinner -- normal weight -- and got attention. I suppose I should hold that against the men who suddenly liked me? "You should have liked me when I was FAT!" I should have yelled. Or maybe hold a deep bitterness for all men, everywhere, because none of them would date when I was 200 pounds but with a "stellar personality."
Years after losing the "fat" I started dating a waiter. Imagine that! A non-obese woman choosing a man who made LESS money than she did! Minds must explode.
We all have our reasons to be bitter, but we can choose to be bitter. I know my partner would NOT have dated me when I was fat. So what?
That the purpose of dating is so that a woman can TRAP them into marriage.
Bah!
After my divorce, I decided that I was pretty happy as a single mom, focused upon finishing college and bringing up my daughter. At no point was I interested in marriage. In fact, I dumped men who were interested in marriage. For me, dating was just dating -- something to do, a way to pass the time, a way to meet interesting guys.
Only, often I was too busy even to date. I wanted as high a GPA as I could get. I wanted to be the best mother that I could be. Men were rather down on my list of things to worry about.
After I had been single awhile, I realized that I never wanted to marry again. Men may have worried about finding sex. I was more concerned with finding a man who would carry his weight. What good would it do me to find a man who wanted me to take care of him, who thought that I should work, take care of my child, AND be a housekeeper for him? The idea of the usual second shift appalled me. I wanted a man who truly willing to do HALF of the housework and cooking -- if I was to want to a man on a long term basis at all. Marriage or a LTR didn't seem like a very good deal to me.
I know lots of women like me. Lots and lots of women who, after having been in bad relationships/marriages, decided quite deliberately to opt our of any serious search for a mate. Many of them are quite willing to forego the higher income/status that they might get by marrying. For many of us, it's not about money or sex or status. It's about freedom and peace of mind and time to pursue our own interests, quite selfishly. Single mothers make lots of sacrifices. Finally, my time is my own.
For some reason, several people have posted and announced themselves as feminists and said that this it pathetic for the woman. What about the man? Is it pathetic that the man has to spend literally thousands of dollars just for companionship for three months in the hopes that he might get some companionship and sex? Is it pathetic that only rich men can make such a proffer? I don't see that patheticness except that it is considered immoral (and I hope it's not illegal).
What's the problem? I thought most women would go out with a guy that could show her a good time and lavish his attentions (and food and drink tabs) on her. Feminists might say they want to pay their way, but there is still the element of giving of one's time. We all are doint it, just at different levels.
What about the man?
What about him? I see no particular reason to be concerned about either of them if the circumstances are as described. In the original article the man described himself as being dediciated to his work and uninterested in a more time-consuming relationship. Frankly, I think the whole article is a form of viral marketing, but if the situation is real and both parties are satisfied, then I think the whole thing has more to do with commerce than morality.
Is it pathetic that the man has to spend literally thousands of dollars just for companionship for three months in the hopes that he might get some companionship and sex?
The man doesn't have to hope. He paid for it. Is it pathetic that some people have yachts with gold plated bathroom fixtures? That some people wear Harry Winston jewels? That some people brag endlessly about their Ivy League degree acquired via legacy preference?
You want us to feel sorry for this guy. Gawd! I am just sorry that poor mean old Leona Helmsley had such poor human relations that she had to leave part of her fortune to her dog.
Is it pathetic that only rich men can make such a proffer?
Do you favor destroying are entire capitalist system? Watch out! Some idiots will start calling you the liberal illuminati. Since the woman is selling a product for a price the market will bear and the man is buying a product for the price the market will bear, they are both good Americans.
What do you want? The government should start some sort of sex welfare system in which it hires women to provide men with sex? This could be costly to the taxpayer. We don't yet have universal health care.
I don't see that patheticness except that it is considered immoral (and I hope it's not illegal).
Well, it probably is illegal, but she probably won't be arrested.
What's the problem?
I'm a feminist. I don't see a problem.
I thought most women would go out with a guy that could show her a good time and lavish his attentions (and food and drink tabs) on her.
Some women actually go out with a guy simply because they like him. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I have never heard another woman say she was going out with a guy merely for food and drinks. Although, if the economy continues to tank, this could surely happen.
Feminists might say they want to pay their way, but there is still the element of giving of one's time. We all are doint it, just at different levels.
Doing what? Prostitution? I don't think so. I think if there is a vast difference in incomes the person who makes the most money should kindly pay most of the time -- whether that person is male or female. Otherwise, they should do inexpensive activities. Walks in the park cost nothing. Most museums have a cheap day. Should "feminists" pay their own way? If they can afford to. However, it is a general rule of manners that the one who does the asking does the paying.
I realize this is changing, but Miss Manners abhors bring your own bottle parties. Housewarmings that are transparent bids for gifts. Wedding receptions where people are asked to pay for their own meals.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
