Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Go read some Bin Laden. They made us read it in college. They being the liberal elites obviously (tounge halfway in cheek). 9/11 was my first week on campus.
The passages which I remember the most were about how he was all pissed about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky - and how it reflected our larger culture.
But, all the liberals in America, who have never read Bin Laden, want to blame Bush for 9/11. Which makes no sense.
___________________
relevancy alert. A year an a half ago I was casually dating a NYU undergrad, I think she was a sophomore (no, I didn't pay for the sex). Her roommate - who was really good looking - had the same type of sugar daddy thing going on as this essayist. The dude would pay her around 3 grand a month to sleep with him whenever he asked. She seemed like a normal girl, but obviously there some something wrong. Which gets me back to my original point. When did materialism become more important than values or elementary ethics? Is it all the advertising? Was it Carrie Bradshaw?
Now, I look back on my college career and I have my regrets. But they're nothing compared to what these chicks are going to remember about their college experience. Those expensive shoes and handbags will all have withered away - and they'll be left with the knowledge that they were prostitutes.
At least some phychiatrists may make some money down the road.
We need to fundamentally change what we value as a society. I'll do my part, try to do yours.
I wish I had been that smart when I was young and pretty. At least she is getting something for it! Now that I am old and not pretty, I realize that there is nothing wrong with wanted to be treated and pampered for sex, if you can get it.
"Enough with the vaginas, ladies." -- Parson Jim
They can't, its their unique commodity. They sell it under many names, have endless ways to promote it, it can be purchased singly or in bulk, rented by the hour or for longer-terms including lifetime, and its even available in convenient packaged deals. There are those who claim otherwise but I suspect that the majority of those merely market to clientèle of a similar gender, or else lack sufficient business acumen. There are occasions when it is not sold at all, and those are rare, but good to find.
Marriages or near-marriages for gain, advantage, convenience or trade have a far far far longer history.
I read the "article". She name-checks a website that matches wealthy men with their beneficients and gives a rundown on all the great things about it and her subsequent relationship. Sounds like a viral advertising campaign that's a little more sophisticated than your average.
"By the way, words still have weight in our society. If, let's say, you're a call girl, then your life is joyous and carefree; but you feel entirely different if you're a whore."
-V. P'yetsukh, "Killer Miller", as translated and published in The Paris Review, 2002.
This is an edge many girls in college come close to, or go over completely. Especially those with no financial support and unable to get good jobs. Generally, though, it's more for bills and groceries than designer goods, and very few of them are unashamed enough to ever admit to it publicly (and thus shut themselves out from future respectable opportunities).
As P'yetsukh points out, the language and mindset make all the difference.
and she'd be a lot smarter if she'd shut up about it. Also, she should buy cheaper shoes (I doubt her man can tell the difference) and keep the cash, as I doubt she has a pension (acronym: no penis!)
Problems with this "career" is that it doesn't have longevity or opportunity for advancement. Nor does it allow you to have a (genuine) personal life outside the office. Sounds worse than law, actually (although many have noted similarities).
"Is it necessary for us to sit in judgement of other people's private decisions?"
Ms Beech came to the decision to publicize her private decision by selling an account of it to Tina Brown. She was not thrust unwillingly into the spotlight of our culture's fascination with other people's morals and sexual negotiations, she pulled back the curtain herself, proclaiming "Ta-da! Look what I did!".
Frankly, her piece seemed more like a infomercial for the social networking website for cads and courtesans, the link for which she placed strategically toward the end of page 1. Wanna hook-up in a high-end FWB arrangement, guys and gals? Just go to this website...
So, what's the problem? Like everything else out here in the market place, there are different levels of whoredom. There's Dollar Store whores and there's Dior whores.
There is nothing new here, move along. That she blabs and blogs is the issue, isn't it? Now, let's place bets how long her "sugar daddy" puts up with being the object of her online story-telling.
Besides, do we really know it's true or just some tart's bullshit?
If a person thinks that women are selling their very souls when they sell sex, they are really saying that a woman’s sense of self is no deeper than her vaginal canal.
Your post kinda brought to my mind the Vagina Monologues and the controversy surrounding it. I think you have a valid point. It always amuses me when I hear some feminists make broad-brush arguments that sex work (porn/stripping/prostitution) is inherently degrading, abusive, exploitative, and dehumanizing, because such arguments always contain an element of seeing sex itself in those negative terms, no matter how much effort is expended to mask that underlying puritanism. The related arguments that most or all women who work in the sex industry are being abused or exploited or objectified or dehumanized also rely on underlying assumptions that these women don't know what's best for themselves (but the radical feminists sure do!), and lack the adult agency, maturity, autonomy, rationality, discipline, and self-esteem to be able to offer their full, informed consent to these activities, weigh the pros and cons, estimate risk, protect their self-interests, or recognize if they're being used or manipulated. They're really just widdle girls who can't think for themselves and make their own choices, and need the radfems (who have all those answers) to stage an intervention and save them from themselves, and of course the big, bad, mean, nasty MEN.
Such arguments strike me as just as sexist and degrading toward women, in their own way, as anything you'd hear from a diehard male chauvinist pig.
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
