« To Please or Not to Please. That is the Question. | Main | Summertime, and the Blogging is Easy »

July 15, 2008

Comments

It's prostitution!!

Ken

Gold Diggers.

Sarah M

Oh wow that is really sad. The last sentence is exactly what I was thinking.

Sarah

It's not like the men don't know they're getting gold diggers.

wendy

Hmmm, this is really interesting, from the fine print:

"No Representation or Guarantee of Accuracy of Member Information.

Although all of our members are encouraged, and are obligated, under this Agreement, to be truthful, accurate and forthright, with respect to all financial, personal and other information they provide, we have not independently verified the information posted on the Service by our users. As mentioned above, we do not, nor do we have any duty, to inspect or verify the information provided to us by users.

The term "verified" as it may appear from time to time is not to be in anyway construed as a guarantee."

Reader

You mean you've never heard of SugarDaddy.com until now? The internet just makes gold digging easier, and less deceptive...

Allison

But aren't these men advertising themselves in this way to get their gold dug? The part that bothers me the most is that in our society, women's most important asset always seems to be connected to their physicality. Although some of these rich guys could be lazy, useless bums, who just inherited their money, many of them are successful, ambitious, hard workers. If men's "best" asset is money, at least there's an option to work, and become successful even if they weren't born with money. All women can do is starve themselves and get plastic surgery if their not born "beautiful enough".

Lori

What does this remind me of? The saying that there's no fool like an old fool.

Ken

Now that I'm trying to cite the article I can't find it, but Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has written often (and scathingly) about people in his Jewish community who matchmake near-entirely for the male's future earnings and the female's "media-gorgeous" appearance.

(Another kicker is me -- as goyish as they come, with no hint of any Jews in my ancestry -- citing the Rabbi as a reference.)

Charles Upton

Dear Modestly:

One of the saddest things in all this is that such baldly mercenary transactions imply that a woman's physical beauty can appeal to nothing higher than lust as far as a man is concerned. A women's beauty always appealed to that level, of course, but society used to allow that a man could FALL IN LOVE with a beautiful woman. ("Fall in love"? What's that?) But
nowadays, women who possess physical beauty will automatically feel like whores, because that's what society is pressuring them to be -- not to mention the fact that they may earn the hatred of other women who consider them to possess an "unfair advantage" in the social meat-market. So they will either exploit their beauty or try in every way to hide it -- by grungy dress, by becoming obese, etc. And either way they go, they degrade themselves. When this society was more "romantic" -- as it was even in the 60's -- it was possible for a woman, and the people around her, to see physical beauty as a "gift" and therefore, also, as a responsibility -- as something a woman had to work to live up to, so she could be as beautiful within as she was outwardly, so she could be more than a hollow shell. Here are two paragraphs from a book my wife Jenny and I recently published called SHADOW OF THE ROSE: THE ESOTERISM OF THE ROMANTIC TRADITION that relate to this situation:

(1) Certainly human physical beauty, as in Plato’s Symposium, is an incomparable mirror of the Beauty of God – a truth which, under present social mores that either exploit a woman’s (and, increasingly, a man’s) physical beauty as crassly as possible, or attempt to suppress it as representing either a dangerous vulnerability or an unfair advantage, it takes courage as well as insight to admit. But cannot the fedele’s beloved also act as a theophany of the Divine through her qualities of moral, intellectual and spiritual beauty? Are we asked to believe that if Beatrice had been a physically beautiful woman with a vicious soul – if, indeed, she were destined for damnation – Dante would still have been able to know her as the soul of his life and his life’s work, the Divine Comedy? To believe this would be to accept the equivalent of the Apollinarian heresy in the realm of romance -- which, in terms of christology, denied that Christ had an individual human soul, and therefore failed to recognize the spiritual import of the individual soul per se.

(2) The truth is, there is nothing more difficult and burdensome for a woman than to be seen as the bearer of a transpersonal, spiritual value that she, by her own efforts, could never merit. In chivalric terms, for a woman to submit to being defended by a man is to suffer every bit as much as her defender must suffer, though in the opposite way. The chivalrous man must endure not only the outer blows of the enemy, social or military, but also the inner blows of his conscience, his “accusing self”, his sense of his own unworthiness to adequately defend the woman he has undertaken to protect. Likewise the woman who submits to this protection must suffer the blows of her own accusing self, her sense that she is in no way worthy of the sacrifices being made on her behalf. Chivalry calls us to be better than ourselves, and in so doing humbles us before our own ideals.

Sincerely,
Charles Upton

Justin

This is indeed troubling but let us fastforward a bit to the the possible results of this.

(There is a very, very funny craiglist entry out there by a girl seeking this and a rational response from a man--worth googling.)

So the eye candy girl is looking for a wealth guy for a relationship. Perhaps, they wine and dine and begin some kind agreement like relationship. What if they sometime get married eventually? Can you imagine they waking up at 50 and startled to find they're unhappy--the woman, in particular? The man has no doubt noticed that the woman's body has, well, changed a bit? Both may begin to think, "Just who is this person living in my house?"

Sounds like a recipe for unhappiness, infidelity and divorce.

Ken

When this society was more "romantic" -- as it was even in the 60's -- -- Charles Upton

Correction: As it was in the FIRST 1960s, the forgotten 1960s of the New Frontier, early James Bond movies, Man on the Moon, and Audrey Hepburn romances.

THE SIXTIES (TM) are actually the Second 1960s, after Sauron got the Ring in 1968. Even now, a full 40 years later, we are trying to remain arrested in THE SIXTIES (TM).

Ted Lipien

Dear Blogger,

You might be interested to know that you blog is listed in my new book, "Wojtyla’s Women: How They Shaped the Life of Pope John Paul II and Changed the Catholic Church." The book has a section on Karol Wojtyla's early views on how young men and women should dress in various situations and settings. This is the first time this material has been published in English. Please go to my page on Amazon (search Ted Lipien if the link does not work) for more information or visit my web sites: www.tedlipien.com/index.htm or www.tedlipien.com/index.html (media site).

Wojtyla's Women was published in the U.K. by O-Books (June 2008).

Best Regards,

Ted Lipien

mail@tedlipien.com

www.tedlipien.com/index.htm

415-793-1642

MargueriteFLOYD34

Some time ago, I did need to buy a good car for my firm but I did not earn enough cash and could not buy anything. Thank God my fellow adviced to try to get the personal loans at creditors. Therefore, I acted so and was happy with my car loan.

The comments to this entry are closed.