American Women and Getting Paid

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

How often does the wife in your example gets laid? I mean REALLY gets laid? Because I guarantee you that hubby had his last boner when she started paying the bills.

Lina

He has probably never been laid properly by her...



Lina, you are living in the stone age on this issue. In you world , a powerful rich woman could only get laid properly if she married someone richer. She could not pay to get laid, basically like a woman can. What a crock.

Like I said, this is a culture issue with you...like arguing which God is best. I see your POV, all I wish is that you would open your eyes and see others.

[ForumPoster]

Originally Posted by WTF

He has probably never been laid properly by her...



Lina, you are living in the stone age on this issue. In you world , a powerful rich woman could only get laid properly if she married someone richer. She could not pay to get laid, basically like a woman can. What a crock.

Like I said, this is a culture issue...like arguing which God is best.

You do realize that pretty much ALL Russians from former USSR living in USA are Jewish, including yours truly?

All I am saying that one can't undo thousands of years of evolution in 50 years. If we want relationship to function well, then men and women should at least TRY and act as designed by nature.

It is not about who has more money. It is about male vs female roles in relationships. You can't expect a man to ACT like one if he is stay home dad who has to ask his missus for allowance.

Lina

[Can I Play Too???]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

You do realize that pretty much ALL Russians from former USSR living in USA are Jewish, including yours truly?

All I am saying that one can't undo thousands of years of evolution in 50 years. If we want relationship to function well, then men and women should at least TRY and act as designed by nature.

It is not about who has more money. It is about male vs female roles in relationships. You can't expect a man to ACT like one if he is stay home dad who has to ask his missus for allowance.

Lina

I know some Russians and some are Orthodox Catholic. There are exceptions to every rule.

So, I thought that's what feminism was about: having a strong, independent woman who brings home the bacon? But you are saying that it emasculates/neuters them, which is dependent on perspective. I think that in the home, men and women should have traditional roles, as we are better equipped for domestics and child nurturing, IMHO.

However, getting sex as a result of the promise of money is a rather Pavlovian social conditioning. What about love and "making love"? Do people do that anymore?

[Naomi4u]

This went well .

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by Naomi4u

This went well.

Why, yes, it did. It didn't change any minds, of course. But it was an opportunity for everyone to express perspectives, some of it was mildly interesting, and the general tone seemed about equally polite on both sides of the aisle. What more can you ask for in a thread here? Some may have found their opinion in the minority, but that's a given in any social group.

[ForumPoster]

Originally Posted by Can I Play Too???

I know some Russians and some are Orthodox Catholic. There are exceptions to every rule.

So, I thought that's what feminism was about: having a strong, independent woman who brings home the bacon? But you are saying that it emasculates/neuters them, which is dependent on perspective. I think that in the home, men and women should have traditional roles, as we are better equipped for domestics and child nurturing, IMHO.

However, getting sex as a result of the promise of money is a rather Pavlovian social conditioning. What about love and "making love"? Do people do that anymore?

You mean Russian Orthodox Christians? Yes, I know few too. My family got both Russian Jewish and Russian Orthodox Christian members. So I get to celebrate Passover and Russian Easter.

Feminism. Very touchy concept for great number of people. I think it started as great concept and evolved into something nobody intended. Men and women are not created the same, so we should not try to be the same. We should have EQUAL RIGHTS, but we should not BE EQUAL. Girls are just better

When men start bleeding every month and learn how to get pregnant we will talk about equality. Notice that there is virtually no culture that refers to Earth or Nature as males? It is always a SHE.

As for making love vs promise of money, when I work, I engage in exchange of services for financial consideration. When I am with my SO, I am making love and believe me there are no financial expectations. If he is flush, we go to nice places. If he is low on funds, we will go to 24h diner or stay home. But regardless where we go and what we do, he is the one taking care of the bill.

It works for us and I guess this is what it all comes down to. What works for each individual couple.

Lina

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

"career ladder twat" :-).

Nice turn of a phrase (you get stars for it not being in your first language). If you don't mind, I'll be borrowing it from time to time.

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

How often does the wife in your example gets laid? I mean REALLY gets laid? Because I guarantee you that hubby had his last boner when she started paying the bills.

Lina

That's a bullshit paragraph. You may have your stupid SO snowed on this, but I guarantee you, there are smarter males on this Board who won't buy your shit.

Originally Posted by WTF

Lina, you are living in the stone age on this issue. In you world , a powerful rich woman could only get laid properly if she married someone richer. She could not pay to get laid, basically like a woman can. What a crock.

Like I said, this is a culture issue with you...like arguing which God is best. I see your POV, all I wish is that you would open your eyes and see others.

+1. But attributing it to culture is BS. Lina's just greedy.

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

It is not about who has more money. It is about male vs female roles in relationships. You can't expect a man to ACT like one if he is stay home dad who has to ask his missus for allowance.

Lina

Your viewpoint of male v female is anachronistic and stereotypical. You need to stop living in 500 BC Russia.

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

When men start bleeding every month and learn how to get pregnant we will talk about equality. Notice that there is virtually no culture that refers to Earth or Nature as males? It is always a SHE.

As for making love vs promise of money, when I work, I engage in exchange of services for financial consideration. When I am with my SO, I am making love and believe me there are no financial expectations. If he is flush, we go to nice places. If he is low on funds, we will go to 24h diner or stay home. But regardless where we go and what we do, he is the one taking care of the bill.

It works for us and I guess this is what it all comes down to. What works for each individual couple.

Lina

This is an excuse, not fact. It may be mother nature, but it's father time. If that means we control the clock, then I'll time the session.

It's a shame you've emasculated your SO to the extent you have. He needs to grow a pair and find someone who will treat him not only as a man, but also as an equal partner in life.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

It's not so much what she offers as her apparent lack of respect for what he offers other than the financial. I take for granted that she brings significant value to the relationshp, in the eyes of her lover. I also assume that she feels he should respect her for those non-financial contributions. Is her lover also making non-financial contributions to the relationship? Although those other factors may be a prerequisite to a relationship, they apparently do not suffice for her respect of him.

To put it another way, it suggests either that: (a) the gentleman must always bring more to the relationship than the lady; or (b) the lady's non-financial contributions always should be more valued by him than the gentleman's non-financial contributions are valued by her. Both seem (to me) rooted very heavily in antiquated gender stereotypes, where the man always had the wealth and power and almost inevitably dated or courted below his socio-economic class. I enjoyed Pride and Prejudice, but it doesn't portray my life. I almost always dated social and financial equals, or even (slight?) superiors.

I don't criticize that perspective per se. It may accurately reflect relative value for the relationships she's been in. Same for Naomi and Lina. And I am not arguing an individual case, that my non-financial contributions are the equal of theirs. I have no idea, but assume they're not for the sake of argument. I just wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who valued what I contributed (other than financially) to be less than her value contributed, and insufficient for her respect, as an absolute rule. But she and I are not going to have a relationship anyway, so no harm, no foul.

If it's expressed on a case-by-case basis, or predicated on a significant imbalance in resources -- not as big of a deal. Then it's more about ability to pay than respect. The same, perhaps, if it's expressed as a social convention that a lady enjoys rather than a requirement, or something without which she cannot respect him.

Again, I have generally followed social conventions in this matter. But something that sounds like an absolute right or entitlement bothers me. It's a lady's attitude toward me that matters most, not the money. It seems degrading, perhaps a minor version of what women feel when they talk about treated as a sex object. An absolutist attitude seems to be treating men as money objects.

That's a very interesting and well written post Chevalier.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts

I agree with Nina that things are different in Europe with regards dating.
First of all we don't "date" in the way that Americans do...and I'm not sure where I sit on that. In the initial throes of dating here, "dating" is seen as something of a selection process...but it can involve a few people during the selection stage (which is why it's called "dating" right?)...but it can get a bit tricky. In Europe (or at least the UK) that's not acceptable. Take a woman on a date and don't take any other woman on a date until you have decided what you are doing with the first woman. If you are sticking with her, no more dates with anyone else. If you are not sticking with her, let her know before taking anyone else on a date. No crossover allowed...one at a time. It's a much slower but cleaner process. It eliminates the sense of having to compete for someone....which I see a LOT here.

That said, I find American men generally more chivalrous on a date. They seem to put more thought into it than their English counterparts. In England a date is much more casual. I have wondered about this (and why) for a long time and I think it may be because we are much less marriage-centric...so dating doesn't have the same kind of expectations there as it does here. Rather than moving into a sphere of relaxation it starts there.

I struggle in the US at times to pay the bill for male friends.
It's just not something they seem comfortable with.
My best friend here is male. He has been instrumental at helping me develop a project in the primary part of my life, knows my family well, knows what I do in this realm etc etc. He earns significantly more than I do..and likely always will...but our friendship feels very balanced. I feel we both put as much into the friendship as we take out. There are times when I wish he would let me pay for dinner..or at least go dutch...but that's not going to happen. It's nothing to do with finances either...it's just the way he was brought up. It's sort of odd in some ways because he has dated women in the same earnings bracket as him and allowed them to share equally with living costs...but when it comes to entertainment it matters not if you are a friend or girlfriend, if you are female he's paying. End of.

C x

[Naomi4u]

Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Attacking is another.

You can't change how someone thinks. It's not fair. We can't all think the same way.
Personally I agree with everything Ms. Lina and Ms. Ireland has posted :-). I really admire these women.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by Naomi4u

Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Attacking is another.

"Disagreeing" versus "attacking" is often perceived quite differently depending whether one is receiving or giving. Which is why in disputes often both sides feel they're behaving reasonably but the other is not.

Originally Posted by Naomi4u

You can't change how someone thinks. It's not fair.

Why not? No, seriously. You may not be successful in the attempt, and no one is obliged to change their mind to agree with someone else, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with trying to persuade someone. That, in fact, was what the OP discussed doing in her discussions with other women.

The way one tries to change how someone thinks may be objectionable in extreme circumstances.

[Chevalier]

Camille,

Thanks for the insights on European dating. We definitely have a different approach here in the US concerning exclusivity, although personally I tended to move toward exclusivity fairly early in the process. Come to think of it, though, I didn't do a lot of dating of any sort.

Regarding a lady wanting to pay, or at least share, occasionally -- my inclination might be to say "thanks but it's not necessary," but if the lady were financially comfortable and insisted, I would probably let her. Occasionally, anyway. If it's something important to her, refusing would be churlish.

On the other hand, I remember a time many, many years ago when the cost of seeing a particular lady had grown beyond my ability to keep up. (It wasn't that she was especially demanding or high maintenance; more a function of a long-distance romance with frequent trips between cities - all of which I was paying for, although our financial situations were roughly equivalent and far from flush.) I finally told her that I just wouldn't be able to continue seeing her; I literally was running out of money and maxing out my credit cards. I wasn't really trying to suggest that she share some of the costs, but she offered. I accepted, as the only way I could continue to see her. It was not a very pleasant feeling, but never seeing her again would have been worse. For me anyway; not sure about her perspective. I didn't expect her to offer, and if she hadn't, I wouldn't necessarily have thought worse of her. The story did have a happy ending, though.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

You do realize that pretty much ALL Russians from former USSR living in USA are Jewish, including yours truly?

Well then, that explains it....

Originally Posted by Naomi4u

Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Attacking is another.

.

Who attacked anyone?
I do think Lina has backtracked a bit but she has not attacked me, nor I her.

Originally Posted by Chevalier

"Disagreeing" versus "attacking" is often perceived quite differently depending whether one is receiving or giving. Which is why in disputes often both sides feel they're behaving reasonably but the other is not.

Good point....did anyone feel attacked? I did not. That is all I can speak for. I hope nobody felt attacked by Chevalie!

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

It works for us and I guess this is what it all comes down to. What works for each individual couple.

Lina

Exactly and this is where it seems you have backtracked. Leah seemed to have made a blanket statement. One that you agreed with at the time. I pointed out that will not work all the time in a Western progressive society. Not that it still does not apply but times are changing.

You and Naomi seem to think that the backward way of doing business is the best way.....what if we went back even further in tradition and advocated that women could not drive or vote as in some say Muslim countries. Their arguments are much like yours.....that great tradition is much better than a progressive approach.

I vote on the side of choice...if you want to sit around waiting on someone to pay the bills fine by me but that is not what I would teach my daughter even though my Mom was fine in that type of system.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

I think it depends largely on the respective parties' expectations. I can imagine a situation in which the lady was already secure financially and both parties were happy with occasional casual sexual encounters, no strings attached, and with no exchange of money. The same thing happens in civilian relationships, and may be less than a full relationship even though not secret. If both parties are happy with that, great.

.

You are right. For example if two people are married and cheat on each other with other married people. That would be such a scenario.
And i agree with what i stated.

What i meant specifically is a relationship like an escort client relationship where one party has more power to entertain the relationship than the other party. It then is just an escort client relationship unpaid. For the guy of course a big turn on, he can feel manly then to have convinced an escort to screw him for free and even love him. Boy what an ego boost. But for the woman in question most often pain than not. For example a man that cannot let a lady make suggestions for meetings because he is married and has to cheat. That limits the input possibilities. Or a man that cancels short notice because of wife. Such things i meant. I have seen escorts enter relationships like that and i always found it my duty to tell them that they let themselves be abused for a one sided need.
That does not mean that there are swingers or non-monogamous agreements out there that are not full relationships and still have equal input.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

How often does the wife in your example gets laid? I mean REALLY gets laid? Because I guarantee you that hubby had his last boner when she started paying the bills.

Lina

And i guarantee you that there are plenty of hubbies out there who had their last boner with their wives BECAUSE she never pays any bills. ANd is totally dependent and immature.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

What i meant specifically is a relationship like an escort client relationship where one party has more power to entertain the relationship than the other party. It then is just an escort client relationship unpaid. For the guy of course a big turn on, he can feel manly then to have convinced an escort to screw him for free and even love him. Boy what an ego boost. But for the woman in question most often pain than not. For example a man that cannot let a lady make suggestions for meetings because he is married and has to cheat. That limits the input possibilities. Or a man that cancels short notice because of wife. Such things i meant. I have seen escorts enter relationships like that and i always found it my duty to tell them that they let themselves be abused for a one sided need.

It would be incumbent on the man, I think, to be very clear about the limits of what he can and will offer to the "relationship." Certainly not lead her on actively, but not even lead her on by omission if she suggests an unpaid arrangement. Even then, she might agree to it -- but likely regret it down the road.

Actually, I did receive an offer like that once. I wouldn't characterize it as offered out of love; friendship or "fondness" might be more accurate. And it came under unusual circumstances, after I told her that I was "retiring" from P4P. Well, that retirement didn't last too long, as I almost immediately made exceptions for two or three favorite ladies, including her. But since she had offered under the impression that I was "retiring," I didn't feel it would be fair to her to accept her offer if I were still seeing (and paying) another lady. So I continued to see her but continued to leave the envelope. She took it reasonably well, I think/hope.