The women who take husbands not out of love but out of greed, to get their bills paid, to get a fine house and clothes and jewels; the women who marry to get out of a tiresome job, or to get away from disagreeable relatives, or to avoid being called an old maid — these are whores in everything but name. The only difference between them and my girls is that my girls gave a man his money’s worth. – Polly Adler
I’ve written a few times about women who pretend they aren’t whores, but are. In My Humble Opinion, any woman who takes money in exchange for sex is by definition a whore. It doesn’t matter if she is married to her customer or not, nor whether the price is discussed before or after the act; and it doesn’t matter if the money is granted by a divorce court or blackmailed out of the customer or taken in the form of gifts or squeeze or salary or “child support”. If a woman takes any form of compensation from a man that he would not have given but for their sexual relationship, she is a whore whether she admits it or not. The only difference between such women and those legally defined as prostitutes is that most prostitutes are honest and bound by professional ethics, while whores-in-denial are not. So if any woman (especially the one whom I discuss in today’s column) decides to take issue with my inclusion of her in my profession, all I have to say is “If the shoe fits…” If you don’t want to be defined as a whore, don’t take money from men with whom you have sex, and if you’re going to take money from them at least have the decency to give them what they pay for as true professionals do.
This news item came to my attention yesterday; it’s about a whore with a terminal case of what we call Platinum Pussy Syndrome, the pathological belief that her favors are worth vastly more than those of other women. If this stupid bitch had simply charged a fair fee and given her customer his money’s worth we would never have heard of her, but because she developed delusions of grandeur and tried to victimize her client rather than trading fairly with him she dishonored both her family and our profession and will spend several of her declining years in prison (to say nothing of the bad karma she has incurred). Of course, when she gets out she’ll be assured of a book deal (promoted on the daytime talk show circuit) in which she whines about how she was “victimized”, but that will merely prove my point all the more. Obviously, this entire column is only my opinion; I can’t know what was going through her mind, and the only facts I have are those determined by the court, but I think those facts speak for themselves.
The following is paraphrased from an AP article:
A Louisville, Kentucky woman was convicted Thursday (August 5, 2010) of demanding millions of dollars from Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino to keep their one-night stand in a restaurant secret, then falsely claiming he raped her after he reported the extortion to the police. Karen Cunagin Sypher, a 50-year-old former car-show model, was found guilty of three counts of extortion, two counts of lying to the FBI and one count of retaliating against a witness. She stared at the ceiling as the verdict was read, while one of her sons wept openly. Neither Sypher nor her attorney commented as they left federal court following her eight-day trial, but one of her sons, Jacob Wise, sneered “Thanks for taking my mother away, guys,” at prosecutors. (Nice way to shift blame there, Jake! – Maggie)
The case involved a 2003 sexual encounter between Pitino and Sypher at a table inside a restaurant closed for the night; some months later she told him she was pregnant and he gave her $3000 for an abortion, but he then heard nothing more from her until last year, when he received three threatening phone calls and two letters demanding cash and gifts to keep the tryst secret. One of the letters showed to the jury was a handwritten note from Sypher that asked for cars, tuition for her children and her mortgage to be paid off. Pitino reported the blackmail attempt to the police and testified that Sypher “came on to him” (witnesses described her as “persistent and flirty” that night) and that the sex was consensual; after she was charged, Sypher unsurprisingly retaliated by accusing Pitino of rape.
Unfortunately for Sypher, her threatening phone calls were recorded and played back in court; jury foreman Glen Elder told The Associated Press that the panel went through the charges line by line and there were no disagreements during about five hours of deliberations over two days, while other jurors said the recordings “played a major part” in their decision. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 26 years in prison, but under federal sentencing guidelines, the penalty will likely be lighter; Sypher will remain free until her sentencing on October 27th.
Now, let’s look at how this greedy, incompetent amateur botched the whole deal. First off, it’s both incredibly unethical and amazingly stupid to ask for payment after delivering the service rather than agreeing on a price beforehand; unethical because it allows price-gouging, and stupid because there is no guarantee that the client will pay up. If he refuses to pay it can’t even be considered a rape since no price was mentioned in advance.
Next, I think it’s safe to infer that this idiot didn’t require Pitino to use a condom, because if she had he wouldn’t have believed her claim of pregnancy. Clearly, she was laboring under the delusion we talked about yesterday, that “good girls” don’t use condoms; I would point out that “good girls” also don’t seduce strangers, screw on restaurant tables, blackmail people and make false accusations of rape, but that would be stating the obvious. According to the popular delusion (shared by police as also discussed yesterday), asking him to use a condom would have made her a whore; funny, I would think it was the request for money which defines whoredom, but I guess I’m just silly that way.
Then there was the request for an exorbitant amount of money; $3000 for an encounter which both testified lasted mere minutes is far beyond the going rate even for a porn star. But Pitino was foolish enough to pay up, and Sypher netted $2570 on the deal ($3000 less the $430 the abortion actually cost, according to medical records presented at the trial). That’s more than I’ve ever made in a few minutes, and had she been less greedy, stupid and evil she would’ve walked away with a fat fee for a very easy call. But as I said at the beginning we’re dealing with a serious case of Platinum Pussy Syndrome, which in its terminal stages can induce brain rot leading to the delusion that one’s sexual favors really are worth ten (or a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand) times those of other women. I might theorize that she contracted it via car show modeling, except that I’ve also done that without developing even the most minor symptom of the disorder.
And I’m very glad I didn’t; over the course of six years Sypher (is that her name or her IQ?) seems to have developed delusions so grandiose that they destroyed both her ability to perceive reality and her minimal capacity for moral judgment. She not only decided that her amateurish performance was worth millions of dollars, but that it was morally acceptable to demand retroactive payment years after the fact and to attempt to collect it via threats rather than by honest negotiation. And when her scam was foiled she descended to that most reprehensible of actions, the bogus rape charge; such accusations not only harm the accused, but also cast doubt onto truthful accusations made by other women. The “Potiphar’s wife” dodge is the last refuge of a moral imbecile who has been caught doing something she shouldn’t; it is a repugnant act of infantile self-centeredness which places her reputation above the personal safety of all of her sisters.
Unfortunately, Karen Sypher is not alone; as I pointed out in my column of July 12th, whores-in-denial vastly outnumber those of us who are honest about it, and while we are persecuted for our honesty their dishonesty is rewarded and abetted by the legal system. Had Syfwhore stopped with her demand for “abortion money,” she wouldn’t even have been technically guilty of breaking any man-made law because our paternalistic legal system holds men accountable for the voluntary sexual behavior of adult women (except for legally-defined prostitutes, but that’s a discussion for another day). Since she did not quit while she was ahead, however, her astonishing stupidity, appalling immorality and truly mythic greed qualify her as the first inductee into my Hall of Shame, a list of whores (whether admitted or not) who have dishonored our profession by their incredibly disgusting behavior.
A few years ago, I patronized an escort from a respectable service in my area. To say she was absolutely gorgeous would be an extreme understatement. Fifteen minutes into the encounter, she still hadn’t taken her panties off despite the clear indication I was ready for the consumation of our time together. When I jokingly asked, “Do you fuck this well?” she responded by saying, “It depends on how well you tip me. I was chagrined but quickly agreed to a price of $100 with her so I could get inside her. As promised, I went to an ATM in a nearby McDonald’s and gave her the agreed-upon tip. As soon as I got back to my laptop, I posted a scathing review of her on the proprietor’s website and went so far as to tell her if any future girls I dealt with were like that one (I was a well-paying reular) I would forego her service altogethe rin the future. She sympathized and offered me a discount for services the next time I patronized her. I hope she took the discount out of her cut of the girl’s money rather than the girl’s fee, because the worker waqs phenomenal at her job. Shortly thereafter, several of my friends who were unfortunate enough to be fooled by this girl’s beautiful face and supple curves lodged similar complaints. It was not long before her profile and picture no longer appeared on the site. A guy I worked with in the oil field was screwed even worse. He married a woman with three kids from a previous marriage and foolishly adopted her kids. Well, that was the opening she wanted. As a high-paid contract worker, he makes high six figures a year and so has to pay gargantuan child support to her upon the divorce that followed less than a year later–if he appears in the United States. Naturally he refused to let his x-wife and the US justice system rape him trying to provide the bitch’s kids with a bette rlife than their deadbeat biologial father could ever provide them. Rather than be subject to parental laws that would rob him of huge amounts of money he works his ass off for, he cut all ties with the US. He sold his house and property stateside, moved all his bank accounts overseas, and completely uprooted to the Philippines. Last I saw, he vowed never to step fot back in the US to avoid giving any money to his whorish ex-wife. I’m sure he’s not alone. Unfortunately many women would rather sodomize the men in their lives to get every dime possible without working a second for it. Sadly many state laws are written for the sole purpose of facilitating that. Such is the dismaying state of affairs in the modern-day United States.
Remember my column on Modern Marriage (July 18th)? The true husband of your friend’s ex is the government, and it has no compunction against robbing her lover (i.e. the poor dumb schmuck who thought with his balls) in order to support her and her brood. He’s definitely not alone; my cousin Jeff was eventually forced to leave the country for similar reasons, due to seizure of all his assets accompanied by a string of court orders which added up to more than he made per month, followed by another saying he would have his driver’s license revoked and be found in contempt of court if he missed as much as one payment. When he pointed out the impossibility of the situation to the court, the judge said he might “order” him to find a higher-paying job.
Women who do this sort of thing are the worst kind of filthy trollops imaginable, but neofeminists encourage them and governments enable them while simultaneously persecuting honest whores like myself. Honestly, the inmates are running the asylum, and it won’t stop until the men stage a full-scale revolution. And when that happens, guys, please remember who spoke up for you when it wasn’t politically correct to do so!
Was this the same cousin Jeff you spoke of with so much respect and admiration when you told the story of your life? In this case this is a double shame, because, judging by your description, he is one hell of a good guy. (How did it end, by the way? Did he have to pay all that?)
In principle, child support laws should have in mind ‘the best interest of the child’. In this case, however, it is difficult to see how any of this had anything to do with the best interest of the child.
One of the best attacks on child support laws I’ve heard is that it’s basically about saving money for the state. After all, if daddy doesn’t pay and mommy is really broke, there’ll be one more person getting welfare money. Having to choose between itself and the daddy, the state of course chooses the daddy.
And who is caring for that child again?
As for any incoming revolution… since the radMRA’s are turning out not to be any better than the radfems/neofeminists, Maggie, I’m afraid that even if guys like your readers here remember who spoke up for them when it wasn’t politically correct to do so, the new rulers won’t. I’m sorry to say, but I don’t expect things to get better from any such revolutions. At best the injustices will shift a bit: different people will suffer. More probably, whores will still be persecuted for some stupid reason or other, and the MRAs will shift the law in an anti-woman direction and injustices will start happening to the other gender.
Of course, it’s always possible that something miraculous will happen and people will actually start thinking about this issue and eliminating prejudices and irrational beliefs. We are a bit better now than we were in the Dark Ages, aren’t we? But this is a matter of centuries, not years or decades.
Yes, the same one. No, it was literally impossible for him to pay all that even if he moved in with his parents and spent literally nothing on himself. So he left the country and went to the Far East; the last letter I had from him was postmarked from Katmandu in the summer of 1997 and stated his intention to travel in Tibet, so I must presume he met with an accident (possibly at the hands of Chinese soldiers). 🙁
Damn! That makes it all the worse, Maggie. I’m sorry for you, and for him. What a shame!
I have a friend who travelled through those areas, and given the current China-India conflict (the ‘String of Pearls’) and what she told me, you may very well be right.
Again, what a shame! I know it happens all the time, but I can’t not feel bad when bad things happen to good people. 🙁
Thank you, Asehpe. I still think of him often, even after all these years. 🙁
There’s so much in this one that I love. I don’t have time to respond properly to it, but I will later.
I suspected you would enjoy this one. 🙂
Wow, your opinion is refreshing to see!
Thank you, Ant! I just calls ’em like I sees ’em, which a lot of people nowadays seem completely unable to grasp. I have been called a “traitor” by feminists for posts like this one, and a “radical feminist” by men for ones they find unflattering; similarly, I’ve been called both a “liberal” and a “conservative”, an “elitist” and an “anti-intellectual”, and a number of other paired opposites too numerous too mention because I prefer to see things as they are rather than through the filter of some group’s dogma. Put more simply, just because I’m a woman doesn’t mean I will automatically side with other women even when I see them treating men in a morally reprehensible manner.
Very well put, Maggie. I have the same feeling too, about both men and women. I also don’t automatically side with men, or women (or Brazilians, or Catholics, or fathers, or linguists, or anything else I happen to be).
And I have had a similar record in my little online discussions, being sometimes called a “radical feminist” and sometimes a “patriachy worshipper.” Since my belief is that socio-political continua are not really straight lines, but circles (so that the extremes meet), I am actually quite pleased at the fact that both radfems and radMRAs think I’m their enemy. They’re so similar, if you think about it, that it’s not difficult to want to be their enemy.
My ideal would be a world in which people cared about the truth enough to admit that they might be wrong about some of their beliefs, and would be always ready to examine and cross-check them against new facts and research.
I’m not holding my breath though. 🙂
“In My Humble Opinion, any woman who takes money in exchange for sex is by definition a whore. It doesn’t matter if she is married to her customer or not, nor whether the price is discussed before or after the act; and it doesn’t matter if the money is granted by a divorce court or blackmailed out of the customer or taken in the form of gifts or squeeze or salary or “child support”.”
-Ver truthendaagen.
“If a woman takes any form of compensation from a man that he would not have given but for their sexual relationship, she is a whore whether she admits it or not.”
-So, what is it about American thinking that provokes such rage when this truth is stated? Puritan brainwashing?
-Also, what *else* would make a man give a woman money? What *else* would make a woman give a man some pussy? Only in high school is money not a part of the equation.
“If you don’t want to be defined as a whore, don’t take money from men with whom you have sex, and if you’re going to take money from them at least have the decency to give them what they pay for as true professionals do.”
-But, as you’ve said yourself, “Free Pussy” is an oxymoron.
“It’s about a whore with a terminal case of what we call
*Platinum Pussy Syndrome,* the pathological belief that her favors are worth vastly more than those of other women.”
-HoLEE crap not only do I love this phrase, but I have used this very definition quite a few times; now I have an actual accurate term.
“If this stupid bitch had simply charged a fair fee and given her customer his money’s worth we would never have heard of her, but because she developed delusions of grandeur and tried to victimize her client rather than trading fairly with him she dishonored both her family and our profession and will spend several of her declining years in prison.”
-That whole paragraph is just funny as Hell to me. 🙂
“One of the letters showed to the jury was a handwritten note from Sypher that asked for cars, tuition for her children and her mortgage to be paid off.”
-Thus rightfully giving birth to the title of this blog article. 🙂
“Pitino reported the blackmail attempt to the police and testified that Sypher “came on to him” (witnesses described her as “persistent and flirty” that night) and that the sex was consensual; after she was charged, Sypher unsurprisingly retaliated by accusing Pitino of rape.”
-This is the part that makes my eyes crossed with anger; more on that later.
“Next, I think it’s safe to infer that this idiot didn’t require Pitino to use a condom, because if she had he wouldn’t have believed her claim of pregnancy. Clearly, she was laboring under the delusion we talked about yesterday, that “good girls” don’t use condoms; I would point out that “good girls” also don’t seduce strangers, screw on restaurant tables, blackmail people and make false accusations of rape, but that would be stating the obvious. According to the popular delusion (shared by police as also discussed yesterday), asking him to use a condom would have made her a whore; funny, I would think it was the request for money which defines whoredom, but I guess I’m just silly that way.”
-Not silly at all, but I’m assuming that she was actually trying to get pregnant, or at least keep the option open, as evidenced by her subsequent behavior. I do like what you said yesterday about how women who don’t require a condom make it painfully obvious that that means they’ve MUST’VE allowed other men to have then condomless as well. Which means that as a man, you’re exposing yourself to whatever those other men might’ve been carrying as well.
“Then there was the request for an exorbitant amount of money; $3000 for an encounter which both testified lasted mere minutes is far beyond the going rate even for a porn star.
Had she been less greedy, stupid and evil she would’ve walked away with a fat fee for a very easy call.”
-True.
“But as I said at the beginning we’re dealing with a serious case of *Platinum Pussy Syndrome,* which in its terminal stages can induce brain rot leading to the delusion that one’s sexual favors really are worth ten (or a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand) times those of other women.”
-HahahahHAHHAHAHhahahahahah!!!!!!
“She not only decided that her amateurish performance was worth millions of dollars, but that it was morally acceptable to demand retroactive payment years after the fact and to attempt to collect it via threats rather than by honest negotiation.”
-As do quite a few women; and as you state later, the court systems fully support this. You know about both the marital laws and the paternity laws in California.
But here’s my thing:
The rules & standards & expectations have changed too much for a man of means to even logically consider getting married. Just think about it. Men are still required to bring the same exact thing to the table, an ability to provide. The stronger the level of finances the man brings, the more pussy and potential wives are available to him.
But consider: American women are no longer required to bring *anything* to the table.
==No expectation of virtue
==No expectation of domestic skill
==No expectation of respect for their husband
==No expectation of a focus on motherhood
…I know all of that will make people angry that I’ve even dared to say it, which actually proves my point, but I’d like to hear your take on why, if at all, there’s any legitimate reason for contemporary men to even get married. Because as a man, you have to pay, no matter what you do. And at this point, what is a man paying FOR exactly???
“And when her scam was foiled she descended to that most reprehensible of actions, the bogus rape charge; such accusations not only harm the accused, but also cast doubt onto truthful accusations made by other women.”
-This is is exactly, and the impact that this often has on the male psyche is far reaching and terrible. It only takes one story like this to feed and justify the chauvinistic and selfish notion of, “Well she wanted it.”
“The “Potiphar’s wife” dodge is the last refuge of a moral imbecile who has been caught doing something she shouldn’t; it is a repugnant act of infantile self-centeredness which places her reputation above the personal safety of all of her sisters.”
-Love the Bible reference, because it’s so true; but Potiphar must’ve just been trying to save face by having Joseph arrested. He must’ve known that his wife was untrustworthy, because if he’d believed her fully, why didn’t he just kill Joseph?
“Unfortunately, Karen Sypher is not alone; as I pointed out in my column of July 12th, whores-in-denial vastly outnumber those of us who are honest about it, and while we are persecuted for our honesty their dishonesty is rewarded and abetted by the legal system.”
-Indubitably.
“Had Syfwhore stopped with her demand for “abortion money,” she wouldn’t even have been technically guilty of breaking any man-made law because our paternalistic legal system holds men accountable for the voluntary sexual behavior of adult women (except for legally-defined prostitutes, but that’s a discussion for another day).”
-This is, IMO, the best statement in the article. What I’m trying to understand, in 21st century America, is why?
WHY are men held accountable for the voluntary sexual actions of adult women? WHY?
“Since she did not quit while she was ahead,”
-There’s a dirty joke in there. SNARK 🙂
“however, her astonishing stupidity, appalling immorality and truly mythic greed qualify her as the first inductee into my Hall of Shame, a list of whores (whether admitted or not) who have dishonored our profession by their incredibly disgusting behavior.”
-I agree that one should always have the integrity to admit who or what he or she is. But again, that’s illegal in our system; but PRETENDING is not. It’s perfectly legal to prostitute as long as you don’t admit that’s what you’re doing.
But my theory has long been that this is how America was founded, which is why it’s still possible to this day. America was conceived to allow select people to do what they wanted, and change the language so as to not properly identify their behavior, which is the root of slavery.
Looking forward to your responses.
Yowza! This is a long one!
Nah, it’s not uniquely American; it’s just the old Madonna/whore duality again. The whore is the “other”, never the speaker.
It’s the one service owners use in New Orleans, though I don’t know if it’s used elsewhere.
You forgot “no requirement to provide sex”. The way “marital rape” laws are written in most states, if a husband even nags his wife for it and she gives in, it can be considered “rape”.
And American women wonder why men are “afraid of commitment”. It isn’t “commitment” they’re afraid of, it’s buying a pig in a poke.
I see no reason at all; if I were a man I certainly wouldn’t. And I’m sure fewer and fewer men will until marriage law is changed to allow couples to write their own ironclad contracts which can’t be summarily overturned in divorce court as they can be now.
Exactly. And good women suffer for it, because when they make truthful accusations every man listening thinks of women like Sypher and Mrs. Potiphar.
Reread my article of July 18th. There are more adult women than men, so if a government pleases all women and no men it still stays in power. But since there isn’t enough revenue to give goodies to every woman, it has to come from somewhere. A system by which the involuntary labor of some supports others who give them nothing in return used to be called “slavery”.
I’m afraid that’s not uniquely American, either; the Asians mastered that thousands of years ago.
Yowza! This is a long one!
-Insert a multitude of crude but funny jokes here 🙂
[American women are no longer required to bring *anything* to the table.
==No expectation of virtue
==No expectation of domestic skill
==No expectation of respect for their husband
==No expectation of a focus on motherhood]
You forgot “no requirement to provide sex”. The way “marital rape” laws are written in most states, if a husband even nags his wife for it and she gives in, it can be considered “rape”.
And American women wonder why men are “afraid of commitment”. It isn’t “commitment” they’re afraid of, it’s buying a pig in a poke.
-Yes. Exactly. I look at two of my favorite cousin’s wives, and they are both not that attractive, overweight, loud, rude, and selfish. I can’t understand how my two male cousins are even attracted to them.
Truth be told, they probably aren’t, but they will get financially raped and relegated to paying for a household that they no longer get any benefits to, and seeing their kids on weekends if they divorce.
Meanwhile, the wives get to continue on the “pigs on parade” tour, and the men have no recourse. God, every day I live I am SO glad that I’m not married.
[I’d like to hear your take on why, if at all, there’s any legitimate reason for contemporary men to even get married. Because as a man, you have to pay, no matter what you do. And at this point, what is a man paying FOR exactly???]
I see no reason at all; if I were a man I certainly wouldn’t.
And I’m sure fewer and fewer men will until marriage law is changed to allow couples to write their own ironclad contracts which can’t be summarily overturned in divorce court as they can be now.
-I hear you…I just don’t see how that’s going to happen. My vote would also be for an impossible piece of legislation…one that basically calls for “truth in advertising” when it comes to Marriage.
[This is it exactly, and the impact that this often has on the male psyche is far reaching and terrible. It only takes one story like this to feed and justify the chauvinistic and selfish notion of, “Well she wanted it.”]
Exactly. And good women suffer for it, because when they make truthful accusations every man listening thinks of women like Sypher and Mrs. Potiphar.
-Which is a damn shame for all the women that have been traumatized beyond repair, and will spend the rest of their lives in mental prison because of one pig of a man.
[WHY are men held accountable for the voluntary sexual actions of adult women?]
Reread my article of July 18th. There are more adult women than men, so if a givernment pleases all women and no men it still stays in power. But since there isn’t enough revenue to pay to support every woman, it has to come from somewhere. A system by which the involuntary labor of some supports others who give them nothing in return used to be called “slavery”.
-Ah, I see.
Well, if “gay marriage” becomes widespread (as seems inevitable), it will eventually have to be allowed because the “bleed the man to support the woman and her brood” philosophy doesn’t apply if the “marriage” is made up of two women or two men. And once it’s approved for homos, it will automatically apply to heteros.
Um, so is that a “hooray for gay marriage,” or what?
Nope. Just an observation. I don’t really want to open up this site for discussion of issues which have nothing to do with whores; those people can discuss their issues any place they want, while we’re generally ignored by the media except when we’re spoken of in third person like toddlers.
I say that we need some kind of school for men. Especially rich men.
Fair enough. I’ve already expressed a concern that politics could take over, and I sure don’t want to be the one to make that happen. 0_0′
Human Scortch, you suggest a school for men. OK with me, as long as it isn’t “john school.” Ug.
But there needs to be a school for women too. Just like a man needs to know (for example) that his wife wasn’t putting out more during courtship to trap him, a woman needs to know that just expecting him to be happy with less isn’t any more reasonable. Maggie knows this, but a lot of women don’t.
The sad thing is, all the information is out there; many psychologists and marital therapists have written dozens of books saying exactly the same things I say. But unfortunately, they are shouted down by those who have a vested interest in keeping the gender war going, including many who are sponsored by the government. A “re-education” camp isn’t a school; if anything it’s the opposite of a school because it denies the truth, contracts the mind and teaches ignorance and propaganda rather than knowledge and thinking skills.
Been giving some more thought to this post. I kind of think that this kind of mindset or behavior of taking advantage of men is something that we teach and reinforce from an early age.
I mean is it any different if a pretty blond gets the guys at work to do all sorts of stuff for her without reciprocating, or the cute redhead always asks the men to bring her something back for lunch but never goes out and gets stuff for others? Why is that socially acceptable?
Because the guy thinks it might get him “in”, is why. Some men consider it worth doing stuff like that just for a smile or a kind word from a pretty girl; I know it happens to me all the time. The difference is that a good woman appreciates it, and a bad woman merely exploits it.
“I mean is it any different if a pretty blond gets the guys at work to do all sorts of stuff for her without reciprocating, or the cute redhead always asks the men to bring her something back for lunch but never goes out and gets stuff for others? Why is that socially acceptable?”
Because women don’t have to be as responsible for their actions as men do, when it comes to most things sexual and/or flirty. Obviously babies are the biggest exception.
That’s only your perception because you’re young; even as recently as the early ’80s it was the exact opposite. The idea of women not being responsible for their own sexual behavior largely dates to the late ’80s when no-fault divorce and all the “sexual harassment” laws started coming in.
Yowza, what a discussion! And I’m coming late… I have just a couple of thoughts:
Why should men ever marry? Scorch and Maggie agree that there isn’t a reason. I disagree. Maggie, you’re yourself married; which means your husband is married to you. Is that wrong? Was it a bad thing for him to marry you? Would you advise him against marrying you? Any chance you’re ever going to screw him over a child support lawsuit? 🙂
In olden days people used to say (at least in Brazil they did) that marriage is a lottery: you never know what you’re going to get. Today, there are some reasons (as Scorch pointed out) for men to take pause. But then again, there were times (and there are places today — look at Saudi Arabia) when it was women who had to fear their husbands, because they had many more rights. And still, even in these times and places, there were happily married women, because there is such a thing as a good man (and a good husband) even in a society unfavorable to women, and there is such a thing as a good woman (and a good wife) even in a society unfavorable to men (in case you think ours is one… but that’s a different discussion).
suffering and the genders:
Truth be told, Scorch, I’ve also seen the exact opposite: obviously unattractive guys with horrible personalities who kept torturing their wives; I couldn’t understand how said wives were attracted to them. As in your cousins’ case, these wives probably aren’t, but maybe they depend financially on the man in question and can’t hire a divorce lawyer or have nowhere else to go. (I did volunteer work fir a while in a rape hotline when I was in grad school, and you’d be surprised by the number of women in obviously bad situations who don’t try to escape them because they don’t have any means to.)
Life can be unfair to both genders.
the paradox of the necessity of laws
Indeed, it’s a shame that false rape claims exist, because they destory innocent men’s lives (and, as you both point out, make true rape claims harder to believe). A famous case happens: some disgusting bitch destroys her man’s life, and later on it becomes clear that it wasn’t rape. A scandal ensues; popular outrage leads to the laws changing in such as way as to make false rape claims more difficult. This, however means that some cases of true rape, in which the evidence will now not be sufficient for a conviction, will go unpunished. At some point, a famous case happens: some famous son of a bitch of a violent rapist gets scot free, and later on it becomes clear that he was guilty. A scandal emerges, people are outraged. The laws are changed, to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Now, as if by magic, it becomes easier to convict rapists; and those who want to game the system realize it’s a little easier to get away with false rape accusations. The number of said accusations increases; and now we’re back to square one. Repeat the cycle.
Conclusion: laws are essentially imperfect, because they are finite, whereas the world of possibilities in reality is probably infinite. Even if we lived in a world in which laws were made only by truly honest, honorable people with the best intentions, we can’t capture the complexity of reality in a bunch of statements. Someone will find a loophole and exploit it, basically frustrating the best intentions of the hypothetically honest lawmakers.
It seems the best we can do is keep trying change our laws as things develop, never really hoping for a perfect system, and always remembering that life would be worse if we had no law system at all.
I’m a big believer in REAL marriage, just not the modern American goat rope falsely referred to as “marriage”. Just like I’m a big fan of real Christmas, but not the modern American festival of consumerism falsely referred to as “Christmas”. 🙁
I don’t recall saying(but correct me if I’m wrong) that it wasn’t *possible* to find a “good spouse,” however that’s being defined…
I said that the *laws* and the *social expectations* of today’s culture make it a losing proposition for a man to get married. Because if he does, it’s more likely that he’ll get screwed over in the relationship. Especially if he makes more money than his wife.
Men get married because they think they’re in love(and they might be), but often men get married because it’s what women require to keep the pussy & good treatment coming. Once that happens the law favors her in the event of a break up.
If women get screwed over, they can make all kinds of accusations, and bleed the man dry financially, as well as make his life a living Hell, especially if she has custody of the children, which happens more often than not.
Women don’t get married for sex or for looks, those are generally bonuses…women get married for some kind of security. Spiritual, emotional, social, financial, physical. Women are driven by a need not to be alone.
So I agree that laws are never defined, enforced, or adjudicated perfectly…but that doesn’t change the fact that the current climate when it comes to marriage is unarguably not man-friendly.
I don’t think you said that out loud, Scorch. But I think you made marriage seem to be a no-brainer lose-lose situation for the man. Whereas I think it all depends on who he marries. The system may perhaps make it more likely that, if he marries a bad person, then he’ll really be sorry. Still, as always, the success or failure of the marriage depends on who you are and who your future spouse is.
All in all, a marriage will be as good as the people who enter it. No matter who the marriage law system favors — the man in the past, maybe the woman now — if the partners are good and their relationship is real the thing will work.
If you get involved with the kind of woman who wants to pussy-whip you into marrying her… or if a woman gets married to an abusive guy just because ‘sometimes he’s OK’ and she thinks she can fix him… then the marriage will be bad and will fail in many important ways, no matter how many laws there are in favor of men or in favor of women.
I agree that it’s better to change a system that gives loopholes for bad people to exploit it against members of the other gender. By all means, let’s reconsider the laws! They always end up sucking a little, but maybe we can reduce the failure rate a little, and that’s a worthy goal. (In fact, I wouldn’t mind discussing what kinds of laws you guys think would be better, i.e. would be fair to both men and women.)
But frankly speaking, if you are in a relationship with a bitch, she’d find some way to screw you over even if the legal system were totally rigged in favor of males. Ditto for the woman who married some manipulative prick in a female-biased legal system. And ditto even if we had a perfectly gender-fair system (if such a thing is possible).
I have now come around to agree with you; a marriage is only as good as the people in it.
Maybe… But I feel like asking Maggie (with all due respect, and hoping not to intrude your personal life; feel free not to answer if you think I’m asking too much): why did you marry your husband? Was it just to get a feeling of security, of one of the kinds that Scorch mentions above? I mean, the relationship you had before marriage wasn’t enough? Or did marriage mean something else to you and to your husband?
As I said above, I’m a big believer in REAL marriage, but not in the frozen American TV-dinner-substitute most people consume these days.
That of course makes me curious: what is REAL marriage to you, Maggie, and why should women (or men) be interested in it? (That might be worth a post of its own in your blog — in case you haven’t discussed it in a previous post yet.)
Real marriage is a commitment between two people to seek each other’s happiness and welfare, not to exploit each other and run for a lawyer at the first sign of trouble. 🙁
Madam, truer words were seldom said about marriage. Let me hope that yours stays that way (and mine, too).
I like what u have written here, some of the things you’ve said gives me confirmation of my own findings on sexuality and female pussy power and how we view relationships and the whoring with glory (marriage)
[…] happening at home, why leave it to chance that someone like a halfway whore (to rejected men: beware of those supposedly offering “freebies”) will come along? Why not outsource it to a professional sex worker? I always think that when […]
Well said…And the phrasing was really good through the article i found.
My thoughts after reading the quote by Polly Adler as well as the following paragraph, “Wow! I never thought about it like that”. Really interesting way to look at it. Thought provoking indeed.