What is marriage but prostitution to one man instead of many? – Angela Carter
In yesterday’s column I pointed out that it’s impossible to draw lines which sharply delineate prostitution from other, totally legal feminine behaviors, and as I pointed out in one of my very earliest columns, “…the woman who is honest about what she wants and what she will give for it is legally persecuted and branded with the name of ‘whore’, while she who is dishonest and cloaks her prostitution by hiding it in a venerable institution is not only rewarded both socially and financially, but is actually allowed to use the machinery of ‘justice’ to collect her fee.” The laws requiring men to financially support children they sired were enacted in a day when most women had no income of their own, and at that time those laws were just and fair. But in modern times, ready access to birth control and abortion means no woman needs to have a baby she cannot support, and the misnamed “no fault” divorce laws allow her to walk out on a man for no concrete reason, block his access to his children by a number of easily-implemented stratagems, and still demand he support her children…even if she is more capable of supporting them alone than most normal men would be. Here’s an example from the August 10th Huffington Post:
Model Linda Evangelista, who once touted she doesn’t get up for less than $10,000 a day, recently asked a New York court to award her $46,000 a month in child support. Is Evangelista’s child support request as unreasonable as the headlines would like us to believe? Not necessarily. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek publication, the child’s father Francois Henri-Pinault’s total compensation as CEO of PPR-SA, a luxury brand corporation, for fiscal year 2010 was roughly $5.2 million…The annual total of the child support requested is less than 11% of Pinault’s annual income from PPR-SA. Not an outrageous amount. While the demise of the “Supermodel” may have put a damper on Evangelista’s earnings, she is reported to be worth $8 million, far from an income level where her child is in danger of becoming a public charge. However…New York law states that in…cases where parental income exceeds $130,000…an award of child support should be based on the child’s actual needs and the amount required for the child to live an appropriate lifestyle…The New York Post reports the majority of the $46,000 a month in child support would cover a 24-hour nanny and personal drivers for the child. In this case, a 24-hour nanny for a child whose mother has a career like Evangelista’s may be viewed as reasonable by a court. And while the request of personal drivers for a child may appear excessive and unreasonable to most, a judge may think they are necessary for the child’s lifestyle…Will the Family Court order Pinault to pay $46,000 a month in child support to Evangelista? Probably not. Is Evangelista’s child support claim as outrageous as it seems? Not at all.
I beg to differ. The author of this article is apparently a lawhead, one of those psychological aberrations who believes that laws can change reality. It doesn’t matter whether the law defines her claim as outrageous or not; the idea that the “actual needs” of any infant who was not the heir to a throne (and maybe not even then) could possibly come to over $1500/day is beyond absurdity; I daresay most American children cost less to support than that per month. The words “actual needs” are pretty clear, though obviously courts have chosen to interpret them in some strange fashion which makes sense only to lawyers and spoiled “supermodels”. The monthly interest on Linda Evangelista’s investments alone could support ten children, pay my entire household budget and still leave enough for her to have fresh sushi flown in from Tokyo three times a week, and that’s not even counting whatever new whoring fees she’s making now. Why do we as a culture allow women like her to waste the court’s time and to enrich themselves by cynically exploiting a system designed to prevent children from being neglected by amoral fathers? When I was a working whore, I had the sense to collect my fees in advance; platinum pussy syndrome sufferers like Evangelista need to do the same. And if they’re going to pretend they aren’t whores, they need to stop demanding the government extract from men monies to which they would not be entitled had those men not had sex with them.
One Year Ago Today
“Aversions” is a discussion of some of the things I, personally, dislike in sex, for the purpose of demonstrating that even a woman as sexually open-minded as I am still has her own idiosyncrasies.
Wow.
Maggie for President.
BTW, Maggie, how do other women react to your opinions?
Take a look around. It appears they’re fairly popular. 😉
I don’t know …
This is kind of an extreme example with this woman (I’ve never heard of her) and her tremendously large income. I think it’s dangerous to make decisions based on “fringe” kind of situations because most women who are in this position don’t make the money that this woman does.
When I was a Command Master Chief on a Navy ship – we had an integrated (male / female) crew. I became a psychologist on that ship … or a sexologist or whatever … watching the behavior of people on that ship during long periods at sea.
On a deployment – I’d have at least one pregnancy. Probably about five during my whole time on that ship. In each case – the woman had to leave the ship of course. I always told them … “Who’s the dad? I won’t prosecute them but … diapers are expensive and I’ll make sure you get support”.
It almost made me cry … the amount of blind faith that women have in men which we do not deserve.
“Oh, he’ll take care of me – he’s a good man”.
None of these women would ever tell me – they protected these deadbeats. And NONE of guys who got these girls pregnant ever “took care” of these women and their babies. Usually the women would call me up – a year later, and tell me that they’d like to now tell me the name of the father so I could help with child support.
I told every single one of them … “I throw a lifeline ONCE … and I threw one to you when you left the ship which you refused to grab on to. Now you can handle this in court by yourself.”
Now … I know that women should be smart enough to have sex without getting pregnant. I get that.
However – I also think that MEN should be responsible with their seed. If the girl wants unprotected sex – then the guy needs to step and say … “Uhm … no, we need a raincoat dearie”.
So – I got my arse chewed once for saying all this in another column. Let me just say – I don’t advocate the law forcing people into compensation … etc.
But I DO THINK that men are responsible for creating life – just as the women are.
And it makes me sad when I see women excusing bad male behavior.
If men aren’t held to a higher standard than they are today – they will never be any better than they are today.
Maggie – have you ever written a column on what you perceive men’s responsibilities to be within relationships?
This is a late comment, of course (log entry — “late entry!” 😉 ), but — yeah, yeah, yeah. I also think that men share responsibility for creating life (absent active deception), and should indeed see to it that they don’t risk making a baby … if they are not prepared to support that baby.
I have never understood the reluctance of (other) men about wearing a condom. I just don’t get it.
$1500 a day? I know people raising a family on $1500 a month!
Yes, yes, yes!
Maggie gives me truthgasms often.
Two things…
First, I think you are overestimating women’s access to contraception and abortions. There are approximately 50 million people in the US who have no health insurance. Those who use medicaid, medicare, or other federally funded health care are denied abortion coverage due to Title X; they must pay cash for an abortion. Though, most abortion providers charge on a sliding scale, abortions can cost anywhere from $400 to $3,000 depending upon a variety of factors.
Also, private or employer-provided health insurance coverage for contraception and abortions vary widely; some require only a minimal co-pay, while others do not fund either prescription or procedure. And while those women with health insurance may get a prescription, she may have difficulty in finding a pharmacist to fill her ‘scrip, especially if she is unmarried – what with all these new laws allowing for “conscience clauses” in pharmacy employee employment contracts.
If a woman needs an abortion, good luck in finding a provider. Many states have passed laws so draconian, a pregnant woman looking to terminate may have to cross several state lines to reach a provider of abortion services. This adds additional costs – frequently making abortion prohibitively expensive, even for those with health insurance.
It would seem the only solution is to never have sex – which is exactly what the religious nuts and prudes would love to happen.
Second, while I agree with your premise that wife = prostitute with one client, I have a few quibbles, that may or may not be anecdotal in nature.
I think being a homemaker is an honorable vocation; like every other job, it isn’t always pleasant or fun to raise children, cook meals and clean a house. I also think that if two adults come to the agreement that this is the kind of lifestyle they want to lead (husband earns money, wife is homemaker) then – great!
However, this arrangement is problematic for several reasons. Even if a woman has a college education, dropping out of the work force to raise children is a huge risk. As someone so charmingly pointed out yesterday, the wife will age, her children will grow and move out to live their own lives and soon, her husband may find that maintaining his wife no longer has the value it once did when she was young, firm, beautiful and was caring for minor children. If he divorces her for a newer model, she is at great risk because she has been out of the work force for 18+ years and has few, if any marketable skills.
The wife will fare better in the event of a divorce (or loss of spouse) if she also works, but it seems like a far from ideal situation. She will have to rely on others to help raise her children; the house will still need to be cleaned, bills will still need to be paid and meals will need to be cooked and unless the combined incomes of husband and wife can provide for a housekeeper and cook, the wife will be unfairly burdened with a 2nd shift.
So while I agree that courts seem to continue to unfairly penalize men financially in divorce cases, I don’t really know what the solution is. I can’t really comment on Ms. Evangelista’s situation, because I know absolutely no one who lives like that in the first place. It is unfair to expect ex-husbands to maintain a certain lifestyle for their ex-wives when, as Chris Rock once said, he isn’t getting any “pussy payments” in return. But it is also equally unfair to women who sold their good years to a man who, when tired of them, divorces them at an age when starting a new career with a living wage or remarrying are unlikely.
Those 50 million without insurance: who cares? Don’t you know that all these HORRIBLE, EVIL social programs are used by cheats, those who are able-bodied but refuse to work, etc.? Don’t you know the solution is to END those horrible programs? See how simple it is? Just cut off Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Administration disability payments and the problem will solve itself! The disabilities they have will just DISAPPEAR, completely cured out of thin air! The able-bodied will get 100’s of job offers without sending out 1 resume! It’s that simple. Until then these cheats, etc., should be put in lines to get their benefits that are outside so all can see them. That’ll punish them even more which is what’s needed. They’re all cheats, haven’t looked for work for months and/or years, don’t want to work, etc. anyway. So put them on display like animals in a zoo! They need their self-esteem lowered even more and they need to be punished/exposed in public. The government never does anyone any good EVER, don’t you know? ALL the politicians are evil and don’t care about anyone ever and none of them run for office to help anyone. It’s all just a show.
Laura, when Tonja says, “…which is exactly what the religious nuts and prudes would love to happen,” she is obviously talking about people who are both a) religious and b) nutty. The people who are religious and not nutty? Tonja isn’t talking about them. You are defending people who have not been attacked.
You do this a lot, Darling, and you need to cut it out. It weakens you. When you go to defend somebody who needs it, people will tend to dismiss it with “there she goes again.” And Sweetie, it won’t be unreasonable when they do.
For some reason, WordPress put this under your statement where you defend one group, while I was replying to your post where you defend another. I assume you’re smart enough to figure out which post I’m talking about, but this weird placement bothers me, so I mention it.
Dear Sailor B, this is getting tiring. Why is it you never say a word when I’ve literally 100’s of times spoken up about the MVS getting ###*** like this? An example: those MVS keep literally profiting off the deaths of their loved 1’s and that’s what they want to keep up. That’s what was said above but all I did was switch the group and the action done. Also, at least some of those “prudes” (eyeroll…I love how it’s said everyone should do what they want sexually but when people choose to be sexually conservative and/or celibate they’re trashed) don’t say a word to ANYONE ELSE about THEIR sex lives. They keep their choices to themselves. Why is that NEVER pointed out? It’s CONSTANTLY the negative. At least some of the celibate people don’t order anyone around. The same with those who only have sex within a legal marriage. I could do the same with some groups on here. An example: those pagans want every woman to be a whore for a certain amount of time if the women want to or not. Do you see how unfair and negative that is? Not a word about the 1’s who wouldn’t want that. Would YOU like seeing this: those who still are upset over the 2000 US presidential election want everyone to not trust those who count votes, work at the polls, etc. Notice the religious people who don’t order anyone around aren’t mentioned? It’s a pattern. Like I said always the negative. I’d never say the pagan thing I did above because it’s completely negative, unfair and doesn’t apply to at least some of them.
Look at the date. We’ve talked about this since then.
For some reason, at least some of those “religious nuts” (what a fair, open-minded, positive term!) counsel their fellow nuts about their sex lives, how to make them better and also write books to help these people. But, I thought they don’t want anyone to ever have sex? HHMM…why are they then doing all this? Why do things like the American Board of Christian Sex Therapists exist? HHMM…those prudes also! For some reason, like those religious nut sex therapists, at least some of them don’t order anyone to stop having sex. They practice what they believe in and leave everyone else alone. HHMM…
I covered that in the text. If a housewife has a traditional relationship and the two agreed on children, you bet your boots she deserves child support; after all, if one breaks a lease one is still responsible for paying out the term. But those aren’t super-wealthy career women, either.
I was going to bring up this:
>>>But in modern times, ready access to birth control and abortion means no woman needs to have a baby she cannot support,>>>
But it looks like Tonya did it first.
There are unfortunately many places in the country where ready access to birth control and abortion is restricted due to the reasons stated above. I would argue that, in those places at least, a woman is justified in demanding child-support.
Anybody who can’t afford condoms can’t afford a baby either; the problem isn’t availability of birth control (I am unaware of any place in the U.S. where condoms are illegal), but the education to use them (which is often blocked). I do agree that a poor woman who has a baby due to accident in a state where abortion is illegal deserves child support.
Also it’s important to note that condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy with perfect use, and about 85-90% effective in practice due to imperfect use. I ended up on the other side of that statistics despite always using quality condoms; knowing, as I thought, what the most common mistakes were and how to avoid them; and getting the day-after pill immediately the couple of times in my life that a condom broke – and timing wise, condom break was not the cause anyway.
Womens’ access to contraception and abortions is further stymied by the paternalistic way in which medical “care” is administered in this country. Women are generally infantalized and are deemed unable to make their own decisions about their reproductive organs without the informed consent of the man in their life – be it father or husband.
To be more specific, I’ve known loads of women who were repeatedly denied therapeutic hysterectomy because they might want to have babies (and apparently lack of uterus = no marriage prospects). I’ve known loads of women seeking voluntary sterilization – they were denied without written consent of their husbands or pending a psych evaluation.
I also have several friends who are alive today because their parents had a contraception failure and because abortion was illegal. They were born whether their parents could afford it or not.
Children shouldn’t be a punishment for having sex. Contraceptive failures do happen. Until contraception, abortion and other reproductive health services are legal, safe, affordable and accessible – it’s hardly fair to saddle anyone with the burden of more (expensive) responsibilities, but to expect they won’t engage in sex isn’t realistic either.
Tonya,
You illustrate how being a wife is prostitution by any other name. Women give up their attractive years; the man walks away, thus leaving her. She’s spent herself, he withdraws payment. She’s left destitute: Woman (and Womyn) feel cheated.
On the other hand, he might feel cheated: perhaps she let herself go (gaining 80 lbs basically makes her a non-sexual being as far as almost any man is concerned). Maybe she’s ignored him (no end of men make this complaint: “I had my kids, I’m done with it”). What about when he leaves her then? A total lack of sexual interest is fine for women when they want to leave men. Women do this all the time. What about for men?
The truth is: An implicit One Size Fits All arrangement is unfair and ridiculous.
The solution is Contract Law. That’s where an honest whore can give a guy who wants to marry good advice.
Work out the price for her pussy beforehand. It’s a buy and sell relationship: Let’s see what the buyer is willing to pay. Most women grotesquely over-value access to their pussy (this is a natural female reaction, based in biology: Eggs are expensive and offspring time-consuming; sperm is cheap and disposable). Frankly, most women consider their pussy gold-embroidered.
It’s ridiculous.
Contract law. Have a few standard ones so couples won’t argue. Make them *equal*. Have a standard one that favors a housewife; have one that’s neutral; have one that looks like a casual relationship but has terms for dealing with offspring.
MAKE IT BINDING.
Remove this from criminal/family law and place it into contract law. Sue for assets, sue for breach of contract, etc.
You can have addenda like: You will not seek outside sexual partners, but SHOULD you do so, the following provisions will not be voided, etc. etc. etc. This protects women if they cheat on men, but perhaps not completely.
You can have debates abut what should be assumed about X or Y clause (are men more likely to cheat? When? What should penalties be like?).
Above all, we need to get rid of no-fault divorce.
Don’t forget, men let themselves go too. I have girlfriends who haven’t gotten any in years because their husbands’ guts are so big; they haven’t seen their dick except in a full length mirror. They are either so obese they can’t get it up or can’t get it in.
You also seem to contradict yourself – you acknowledge that children are time consuming, but complain that wives neglect their husbands. The solution would be to forgo having children altogether. Unfortunately, while children are young, the focus of the marriage is irretrievably altered. The vast majority of middle class and working class women are saying that they would love to have time to focus on intimacy with their husbands – if they weren’t so exhausted from working 2-3 jobs (paid work, housework and child care).
A husband hardly has room to complain if he won’t pitch in to help with his own children, his own home or to give his wife time to take care of herself (go to the gym, hairdresser, nail salon, etc.). There is a big difference between the wife who ignores her home and children in favor of soap operas and bon bons (which I believe to be the minority) and the wife who works 8+ hours a day, comes home to laundry, pet and child care, dishes and dinner, not to mention a hundred other tasks. If a husband is upset about being ignored, maybe he should ask himself how he can help ease her burden so she has some energy left over to focus on him too.
I’m not sure if tort (contract) law will resolve that which for millennia, has been a socio-economic and cultural institution. I believe this is what pre-nuptial agreements were designed to resolve, but, as they say, your mileage may vary.
Tonja – you are soooooo spot on!
Women bring a lot more to a relationship and marriage than just sex. Now – the sex is what hooks us guys – because obviously, I have no interest in hooking up with a big burly guy from my gym even if he’s a great homemaker. So the sex draws the men in – but it’s not what keeps us there.
As a man – I always thought my role was to be a positive role model for my kids. My wife, however, did most of the discipline and raising though. That’s the way it had to be – first, I’m 6’2″ and 215 lbs on a muscular frame – and, unfortunately, I can smile at someone and they feel intimidated. Most women on the street – won’t even make eye contact with me, they look down as they pass me. The exception was when I was in Iceland – and the women there are about as big as me! LOL
So … there’s no way I’m disciplining a child without traumatizing them for life!
Second – I was gone a lot in the military … especially after 9-11. My wife ran the household affairs. Paid the taxes and the bills. Ran the kids to ball practice and dance lessons … and yeah, she worked as an engineer at the same time.
Did / Do I help with the house chores … yeah, but not enough.
I always gave the kids a lot of love, took them fishing, taught them to ride bikes – I did those things pretty well. But I thought that the most value I could be to them was to be an example of how men should behave in the home and how they should treat women. My wife and I really never argued – and it when we did – it was never an ugly traumatizing experience for the kids.
But … my wife is the real hero of the whole thing. Were I to leave her – because she’s getting old … I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. And besides, like I said in the thread yesterday – she’s still a turn-on to me (and I imagine she always will be).
Now, the sad thing is, my wife is older than me and she went through menopause … and came out the other side with a greatly reduced desire for sex. She felt guilty about it … I could sense it. She knows how I am and what complicates things – I’m 49, and my Doctor recently told me that my Testosterone levels are still as high as a 20-year old’s. So my hormones are still full-on, my wife’s – not so much.
So to take the pressure and guilt off my wife – I just simply told her the sex wasn’t that important to me either and when she was ready for sex – I would always be there.
But don’t congratulate me for any of that. The only way I was able to do this was by visiting an escort. I only did it once and, when I was out of the country on business in Europe. But I will prolly see her (or another) every time I’m in Europe – which is two or three times a year.
I feel guilty about that – but as long as I can keep it a secret – my wife has been very happy, there hasn’t been any pressure on her for sex, and when she’s ready for it – I can sense that and I know what to do. Sex with her is still better than with an escort (though the one I saw knew a lot of nifty “tricks” that my wife doesn’t know … LOL).
Anyway … so there you have it. I think women, most women, are pretty much SAINTS … considering all they put up with from us men.
Krulac,
Time was this was true. But take a look at the modern world. Women like your wife are
*extremely rare*.
Most women today are utterly self-obsessed and narcissistic. Try dating in a large city. It’s crushing.
I’m a small-town guy. The men I know in large cities are, by and large, more reliable and more decent – more typically “feminine” – than almost all of the women they’re with. It’s shocking.
I think you need to be on the dating scene (and in your late 30’s) like me to see the wholesale sea-change in temperaments.
Go online and start reading the dating blogs. The differences in just 15 years is astonishing.
Young women in the US are some of the most empowered, ambitious and focused in history. As far as dating and marriage goes, they’re also among the most narcissistic, self-serving and dismissive. I know lots of young men who have decided to bail entirely.
The men these women cater to – the “good men” they desire so much – have become even more narcissistic and dismissive than the women.
Basically, it amounts to a sex fest between women trading up for as much as they can get and bailing if it’s a Tuesday or if the weather is bad or if some guy with a bigger tattoo comes along and men who encourage this (and adore feminism) because they get to play with all the hot babes and then discard them as soon as talk turns to anything approaching a relationship.
At one time, sexuality was kept in check: Both the promiscuous, opportunistic male sexuality and the hypergamous (up-trading) and calculating female sexuality.
What it’s done is encourage the most base behavior. Basically, it’s all id and no super ego.
It’s literally tearing at the foundations of our society. When social liberals (libertines?) and progressive politicians, including neofeminists, pushed for complete social deregulation, they undid the ties that bind civilization together.
We may have bristled at some of those ties, but for better or worse our entire social order was built around them. Instead of thinking clearly, we rebelled against the restrictions.
Feminism in this regard was no worse than self-serving social conservatism.
EVERY social movement that emerged from the 1960’s was so totally irresponsible it’s shocking. Feminism was all for rights without any attendant responsibilities: Women wanted the right to get high-paying office jobs but seem shockingly absent from low-paying dangerous or dirty jobs. I hear no feminist wailing about the paucity of female coal miners.
Women can join male sports teams. Men aren’t allowed to join female teams. That would be discrimination.
When women went into the workforce, there were calls for daycare. That’s great: But who raises our children? Is this actually BETTER for the next generation? It’s liberating for individuals – but did we throw the baby out with the bathwater? There was no thought put to this. Imagine state funded daycare; Innefficient, bloated, state-level intrusion, a step closer to authoritarian oppression, a government growing and becoming bloated. Parenthood reduced to popping out the baby.
On the other hand, conservatives want to restrict us from doing what used to come naturally: Now, sex has to be regulated. 35 year-old dating a 25-year-old? Disgusting! Or: Two homosexuals having sex? Disgusting! Or Better than heterosexual sex!
Busybody conservatives have naturally met up around the circle with fascist neofeminists. They have everything in common with each other.
With rights come responsibilities. Marxism is sold to people as something for nothing. Just wait for the bill to come due. That’s when everything falls apart and they have to tell you what your rights are.
They sell you a revolution and give you an ideological prison.
Sorry man … I just don’t share your cynicism of women. I have not had these kinds of experiences. Most all of the women I know are hard working, and loving human beings who do a lot more for others than they do for themselves.
I don’t know … maybe I run with an older crowd now – but in my days in the Navy (which weren’t too long ago) … I knew a lot of very fine young women. Of course – they were people who volunteered to serve their country – so maybe they were a bit “filtered” from the stock you see in urban areas.
Dear Krulac, thank God you don’t share the cynicism! THANK YOU!
Studies show when combining housework, child care, and paid work, men usually put in an hour or two more a week.
Also alot of hourswork is busy work. My step mother used to dust, wash the window and vacume every room every day, and wash the carpets once a month whether they neede them or not. It took her years to get past that mentality
Tonya,
I see your point, but as it is, only men are punished for breaking the contract.
Prenups have been eviscerated by family courts: They’re useless.
And as for men not contributing: Bunkus. THe generation of men in their 30’s-40’s studies show work, in *total*, longer hours than women at all jobs, including domestic chores; when all work, not just paid work and child-rearing is taken into consideration, men *still* work longer hours on average.
The whole “men not contributing” myth has been repudiated by every study done on the subject for 15 years. It’s a holdover 1970’s myth that was true for our fathers and mothers – not us.
Also, the wage gap has disappeared. By and large, when women make less money than their equivalent male peers, it’s due to different (chosen) priorities, like not being willing to work overtime at work or commit themselves to onerous workplace requirements. They’re less obsessed with their careers and he results are obvious.
I’m happy to take feminists at their word, and have everything be equal:
When in divorce court, calculate contributions to marriages based on choice
Factor in all work done for the family: Fixing the family car, washing dishes, gardening, taking kids to doctors, shopping for groceries, working at a job – everything.
If it’s about equality, make it equal. Some men won’t like this, but I guarantee you — the majority complaints for being treated as “equals” will come from women.
In this day and age, any woman who doesn’t earn money at a job has to be called a loser and an imbecile: her choice not to work cannot be taken into consideration when calculating alimony. Alimony must be outlawed. She has the choice whether to work or not: If she chooses not to, tough shit. Suffer.
Women are equals? Then be equal, or get lost.
Some moral consistency isn’t too much to ask of equals.
PS
The day women start desiring househusbands as a priority will be a day of real equality. But women are hypergamous and resource-seeking by nature: They seek resources from men and prefer men who are more powerful and have more resources than they do themselves. Viz: Height.
When women start to break this and decide to voluntarily be sexually attracted to househusbands and beta males, then we can talk about true equality.
Callously throwing away a wife when she gets old and ugly is one thing. Contracts can specify what happens then. On the other hand, women not getting any:
Most of the men I know take care of themselves reasonably well.
In the US, as soon as women get married, they tend to bloat. Take a look at the stats.
A woman’s primary value for sexual purposes is her appearance. It’s a basic fact of male sexual attraction; Appearance is almost everything.
This is not true for women: There’s no end of ugly guys that women literally get wet for. Why? By and large, most women are attracted to both physical appearance and “alpha male behavior”.
My post-divorce life is a testament to this. Being a mild jerk has gotten me laid almost without fail with women more attractive than anyone I dated before. And I’m not as physically attractive as I was when I was 25.
You can whine about it, but this is the nature of male and female sexuality.
It’s not even restricted to *humans*’.
the idea that the “actual needs” of any infant who was not the heir to a throne
I have a quibble here. The throne this child could be heir to may not come with “king” “queen” or whatever attached, but it’s still a handsome inheritance. PPR-SA is a huge company, with the total assets hovering around 24 billion Euros. More than that, this is a family company; Francois-Henri inherited it from his father and will likely hand it over to one of his own children when it is time. Aye, there’s the rub. Which of his children gets to inherit? The one he had with Linda Evangelista? Or the one (and possibly more in the future) he has with his current wife, Salma Hayek? This is a game of thrones and this one is currently worth billions. And that’s just the company assets.
And just like any other aristocratic concerns of issue, “legitimate” children are favored over “natural” children. As far as I know, he never married Evangelista. So these are the cases where the mother of the “natural” child, figuring this kid isn’t going to inherit a lot in the end, secures what she can now.
I agree with Tonja, this can’t be compared to us plebes, where women are much more likely to be poor and be poorer still raising a child on her own. This case isn’t about mere upkeep.
So these are the cases where the mother of the “natural” child, figuring this kid isn’t going to inherit a lot in the end, secures what she can now.
Right, selfless self sacrificing mothers insuring he childrens future. Funny how so often when those kids turn 18 there isnt a bank account stuffed with miilions of dollars held in abyence for them. But there is plenty of coture stuffed in mommys closet.
If a parents chooses not to leave anything to their children its none of our business. People cut off their kids all the time, there is no law stating parents must leave their children an inheritence. Just look at the children of the Gates’.
They are getting less then 1% of their parents money when they die – why is that perfectly acceptable, but anything less than 10 million in child support plus half of all major expenses a horrible horrible tradgey of epic proportions?
Right, selfless self sacrificing mothers insuring he childrens future. Funny how so often when those kids turn 18 there isnt a bank account stuffed with miilions of dollars held in abyence for them. But there is plenty of coture stuffed in mommys closet.
1) Strawman. Where did I say anything about self-sacrifice? Argue the points I actually brought up; 2) Linda, former supermodel (and a well-regarded one at that) will have couture to fill her closet until the day she dies, without having to do the manipulation you are accusing her of.
If a parents chooses not to leave anything to their children its none of our business. People cut off their kids all the time, there is no law stating parents must leave their children an inheritence. Just look at the children of the Gates’.
3) Who cares about the Gates’? They’re not part of this story. Again, another strawman.; 4) Yes, some people (read: multi-millionaires and multi-billionaires) do cut off their kids; most don’t. Warren Buffett cut off his children too and he is considered an anomaly among their social class. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with actual wealthy people and you’d understand how their world operates outside of the soundbites gleaned from news reports?
They are getting less then 1% of their parents money when they die – why is that perfectly acceptable, but anything less than 10 million in child support plus half of all major expenses a horrible horrible tradgey of epic proportions?
5) Again, who cares about the other families? This is about the Pinaults, not the Gates’, not the Buffetts, not anyone else. And again, actually read what I wrote, not what your bias against child support is interpreting in my statement: This case isn’t about mere upkeep.
@Gorbachev: Women wanted the right to get high-paying office jobs but seem shockingly absent from low-paying dangerous or dirty jobs.
There are plenty of women in those low-paying jobs. Only they seem to be ignored due to the fact that they are working-class and/or non-white. The ones you are talking about and generalizing all women as are middle to upper-middle class white women. And what are you defining as low-paying dangerous or dirty jobs? A Chicago Public School teacher, regardless of what you may feel about teachers or public schools, has a job that easily fits that category if it’s in the wrong part of town. If you would like a one-on-one interview with someone who has had to stare-down a barrel of a pistol (more than once) aimed by a pissed off parent in Englewood or generally dodging bullets when the gangs get started up in the spring and summer in Humboldt Park or Back of the Yards, I can give you both of those women’s number. Nurses? Also low-paying, dirty (as the first line against disease, they are always an at-risk population), and (depending on the department they work in, like emergency room) dangerous.
Janitors/Maids? Low-paying and dirty and I see plenty of women in that job too, especially on college campuses and in office buildings, sometimes after everyone goes home. Oh, also dangerous as they’re working in an area that’s largely deserted at that time in the day. Most of these women are African-American or Latina. Convenience store clerks and Currency Exchange cashiers? Low-paying, dirty, and/or dangerous. I see quite a few black and low-income white women in these positions, especially on overnight shifts, which they work while their children are asleep. Police officers? One of my close friends growing up had a mother who became a police officer because it was the best job she could get with benefits without having to rely on a husband who left her with my best friend and her other child, a developmentally disabled son. Much better paying, but dirty and extremely dangerous. The mother’s best friend on the Force was another single mother in a similar position; both of them are African-Americans from working-class families. Construction workers? Not a lot of women, but they’re not totally absent. Truck drivers? Yup, know plenty of Southern “redneck” women driving big rigs like the big boys. Waiting tables/bartending? Depending on the place, can be low-paying (when you have to support a family, anyway), dirty, and dangerous (robbery is ALWAYS a risk regardless of the time of day). I have had more female servers than male servers and I eat out a lot.
Did you have other jobs in mind besides the ones I brought up here? I agree with you somewhat, but those accusations of the “spoiled woman” needs to be applied to the appropriate group because not even most women in America fall in the middle-to-upper middle class white category.
This case isn’t about mere upkeep.
WHY NOT? That all child support is – he is not leaglly obligated to buy baby Armani, or a car, or anything beyong a resonable amount for food, shelter, upkeep, and heathcare.
That mommy wants 4,000 thread count sheets for the cloth diapers is of no importance.
Why does this child ‘deserve'(god, does anyone else HATE that ord as much as I do?) 1,500 dollars a day in child support while my youngest brother gets 100 a month? While I as a child got 300 a month? While alot of kids get nothing at all?
Can you even articulate a rational reason?
Were you a trust fund baby who daddy didnt love?
You seem a little insistant that this kid get a shitload of money for no decernable reason.
You seem insistent on not reading what I actually wrote. So I’m done talking with you. When you can read and comprehend what I said, then I’ll respond.
Um, are you stupid? Did you have an anyerism?
Here is what you wrote
So these are the cases where the mother of the “natural” child, figuring this kid isn’t going to inherit a lot in the end, secures what she can now.
I agree with Tonja,
This case isn’t about mere upkeep. (You wrote this one TWICE)
SO again
WHY NOT
It really is a simple enough question
WHY NOT?
The reason you dont answer is not becuase I am incapable of understaning what you wrote.
The reason you dont answer is becuase you have no answer
Maybe the child ‘actually needs’ to be removed from her version of ‘care’ and given to the father. At least the kid will see one of its parents if it stays with dad, but will only ever know a succession of nannies and drivers if it stays with the mother.
Maggie, thanks for the food porn. It’s been too long since I had sushi. There’s this place in Dallas, Sushiyama, that I actually found on a Japanese website. It was being recommended to Japanese travelers who find themselves in Dallas. I never get out of that place without spending at least $40, so I don’t go often.
Next time I’m in Dallas I’ll take you to dinner. 🙂
I’ll let you. And it doesn’t have to be Sushiyama (someday, I’m going to talk Middle Sister into doing some karaoke there).*
I honestly didn’t see this when you replied. I don’t know why; I usually see every comment. But I saw it tonight.
* For those of you who don’t know about Middle Sister, she’s not my sister. Her big sister is a cutie, her little sister is a hottie (she’ll never know that I celebrated her 18th birthday), and Middle Sister is an enigma inside a mystery wrapped up in a riddle.
Dear Sailor B, I noticed it and showed it to you yesterday.
You did indeed. In thanks, I’ll take you out to Lalibela. My treat.
Wait, wait come back! 😉
I agree that she’s used the system and is a whore. I also think this guy should pay her for having his kids and, a lot. He had her as her career went down. She gave her body, time and last of her youth to this guy and if he can easily afford this, why shouldn’t she get it? Think she’s going to easily remarry with 2 kids? I doubt it. I’m not implying its fair or a true amount of money. Maybe multi millionaires should be taxed more and that money should go to working single mothers or small monthly stipends towards the uninsured (for health care) for example, or underearnings. I wish things were more fair…We don’t live in a society like that though. I wish we did. This is the game very few women can play. A sick, plagued, unfair abuse of the system, untrue game with golden pussy syndrome all over it, but, alas, I think it’s ok. (I only wish whores could have sugardaddies not bail…. But, theres no such legal protection for women who are honest whores.) Maybe not 46k a month ok, but to get maybe half of that you have to ask for a lot, right? And kids really really do cost; private schools often run 20-50k a year, nannies, tutors, dance lessons (my friend paid 1000 a month on her kids dance lessons alone), food, extra $$ on rent for two bedrooms in an expensive city can mean the difference between say 2500 and 7500 easily, in NY at this level a driver would be the norm, probably designer clothes (she was a model right), she probably is a part of an expensive gym, vacations, etc…if they he was only paying half of the extras for his rich spoiled kids, I’m sure she’d be entitled to at least 8-15k a month. Her ability to work is more limited now as well, so, he should pay more, say at least 70-85% of all the kids bills (including extra for the fact that she needs a bigger home), so I think she should at least get 15k a month. At least!
Like you, I’m also not accustomed to this rich lifestyle and gawk at those numbers. I’m a high(er) priced call girl, but earn a modest amount monthly and also do other things for money too. I’m supporting my child single handedly, as my ex doesn’t help at all. So I say if the girl can get it, why the hell not!?! Expensive cities with kids isn’t easy. I find just with one 10k would be easier/better/more optimal, but I make it work with less. I’m crafty like that… Your post is good but a little too unrealistic. Kids are very very expensive, even if I agree that 46k a month IS excessive. At that level she’s banking money. Even at 26k she’s banking, but I personally think she should save some(not all) of the child support for herself since she will not work as much now.
Also a lot of guys lie to women and say they’ll help support the kids and don’t. Sometimes women want kids. Guys need to learn to step up to the plate.