Sugar Daddies and sugar angels

KomradeBishop

Amica wrote: »

so you think that the economic gap would be widened if it was socially acceptable for people to choose a partner based on money? Can you explain why?

I didn't say that, but I think that if the economic gap widens (economic inequality tends to vary a lot over long periods of time, and there are probably lots of ups and downs to come throughout the future, in this regard) - if it widens, I think the social dynamics that complete acceptance (even approval) can create, would cause a greater negative effect on society when an economic gap is large enough (and I don't think it'd need to be that large to cause problems either).

Amica

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not really interested in the wider discussion of comparing attraction to looks with attraction to status etc.; the point of what I'm saying is that attraction to status, depending on the type of status, has a lot of conscious choice behind it.

comparing attraction to looks with attraction to status is central to this thread topic! You only want to talk about the situation from one perspective. Saying you're "not interested" in seeing things from the other side is the surest way to a biased one-sided opinion

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why do you think it would be bad? The only caveat I can see is that the wealthy partner in the relationship may be in a position of power over the other depending on the circumstances.

I think on an individual basis it doesn't really make a difference, but on a society-wide bases (with full social acceptance, or even approval), it would be a lot different, and bad.

KomradeBishop

LordNorbury wrote: »

There are women in the media, Irish "model-celebrity" types and I'm not going to mention names but there can be no reason other than wealth that could be behind the decision of women to date these men. One woman has a well known track record of only dating wealthy men and has been known to work the "celebrity" circuit for years to that end, this women herself is not particularly accomplished whatsoever in her own right in terms of her career or earning capability.

There is nothing new to this in my view, if you go back 200 years in Ireland, Lady XYZ married Earl ABC, and Countess this married Duke that, it was in fact very rare for women to marry outside of their class, as anyone who watches Downton Abbey can attest to.

I didn't say there was anything 'new' to it...

Amica

jimgoose wrote: »

It is perfectly socially acceptable to choose a partner based on money, money has married money from time immemorial and always will. This is one of the ways in which the economic gap does widen.

How does this widen the economic gap? I'm not saying it doesn't. I just don't see the argument

There's a lot of vague claims that women choosing men for money will widen the economic gap. I'd like somebody to explain that argument. So far nobody has made one

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think on an individual basis it doesn't really make a difference, but on a society-wide bases (with full social acceptance, or even approval), it would be a lot different, and bad.

You've not said why.

jimgoose

Amica wrote: »

How does this widen the economic gap? I'm not saying it doesn't. I just don't see the argument

There's a lot of vague claims that women choosing men for money will widen the economic gap. I'd like somebody to explain that argument. So far nobody has made one

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's simply that people choosing marriage partners from the same socio-economic demograph as themselves tends, at the macro level, to maintain the status quo. And that's one major reason it's done! :pac:

KomradeBishop

Amica wrote: »

comparing attraction to looks with attraction to status is central to this thread topic! You only want to talk about the situation from one perspective. Saying you're "not interested" in seeing things from the other side is the surest way to a biased one-sided opinion

I made a very specific point, that I think attraction to status (depending on the type of status) has a lot of choice involved - which is what the line of discussion between the two of us started on - so I don't want to be dragged into another tangent (among the many that I'm already trying to keep on top of), when you haven't contradicted that.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've not said why.

I have, but it's probably lost in the speed of replies here:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure on this, as I haven't thought of it in detail before, but if it became completely accepted and not judged, it would have the potential then (over a very long time) to become something that could even be approved of, and/or become adopted on a wide scale.

I think then, that any worsening of economic inequality issues in society, would have a kind of complicated dynamic, that would worsen how those issues affect social inequality as well; I think it'd create a lot more distance between people, over economic differences.

There is a fair bit of other discussion branching off from that too.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I have, but it's probably lost in the speed of replies here:

There is a fair bit of other discussion branching off from that too.

I've reread your posts and you haven't beyond a vague reference to social dynamics.

Amica

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I made a very specific point, that I think attraction to status (depending on the type of status) has a lot of choice involved ... I don't want to be dragged into another tangent...when you haven't contradicted that.

I have contradicted that! To repeat and simplify, I said that attraction to status has a lot of choice perhaps for men, but not so much for women.

Amica

There's a lot of vague claims that women choosing men for money will widen the economic gap. I'd like somebody to explain that argument. So far nobody has made one and now that claim has morphed into "it will disrupt the status quo". I'm starting to suspect that the real worry here is that, if women en masse started to primarily choose men with money, the power gap between rich men and poor men to select a mate would widen - i.e. poorer men would have far less choice when it comes to finding a partner, if women en masse married for money rather than romance

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've reread your posts and you haven't beyond a vague reference to social dynamics.

The one I quoted for you there...I think it'd create a lot more distance between people, over economic differences, if it became completely accepted and even approved of.

Lets say a situation like we have now, where there is high unemployment and a lot of people struggling financially, many of whom - through no fault of their own - will have little prospect of a future career, simply due to the jobs situation.

That already limits them socially in a huge way, and in a potential future society where it is acceptable or even encouraged, to turn sex/relationships into something that is more prevalently monetized, has the potential to create a lot more distance/segregation in society - particularly for people who become monetarily disadvantaged like that (through no fault of their own).

So, as various forms of monetization of sex/relationships become more prevalent, I think it can worsen the effects of economic issues, on society, like this.

jimgoose

Amica wrote: »

...I'm starting to suspect that the real worry here is that, if women en masse started to primarily choose men with money, the power gap between rich men and poor men to select a mate would widen - i.e. poorer men would have far less choice when it comes to finding a partner, if women en masse married for money rather than romance

What has me slightly confused is, you're talking as if this isn't already widespread, even normal! :pac:

Amica

jimgoose wrote: »

What has me slightly confused is, you're talking as if this isn't already widespread, even normal! :pac:

I'm not the only one. Most of us in this thread are talking about this as not widespread/normal but as a possible future

KomradeBishop

Amica wrote: »

There's a lot of vague claims that women choosing men for money will widen the economic gap. I'd like somebody to explain that argument. So far nobody has made one and now that claim has morphed into "it will disrupt the status quo". I'm starting to suspect that the real worry here is that, if women en masse started to primarily choose men with money, the power gap between rich men and poor men to select a mate would widen - i.e. poorer men would have far less choice when it comes to finding a partner, if women en masse married for money rather than romance

I already told you earlier I didn't claim that. Anyway, trying to reply to you is unconstructive and going in circles with me having to repeat myself a lot, so I'm not going to reply further to you.

jimgoose

Amica wrote: »

I'm not the only one. Most of us in this thread are talking about this as a possible future

So both men and women do not in fact, currently, select mates based on socio-economic status, education, employment, prospects, etc? Well that's a new one on me!

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The one I quoted for you there...I think it'd create a lot more distance between people, over economic differences, if it became completely accepted and even approved of.

Lets say a situation like we have now, where there is high unemployment and a lot of people struggling financially, many of whom - through no fault of their own - will have little prospect of a future career, simply due to the jobs situation.

That already limits them socially in a huge way, and in a potential future society where it is acceptable or even encouraged, to turn sex/relationships into something that is more prevalently monetized, has the potential to create a lot more distance/segregation in society - particularly for people who become monetarily disadvantaged like that (through no fault of their own).

So, as various forms of monetization of sex/relationships become more prevalent, I think it can worsen the effects of economic issues, on society, like this.

That's what I was after. Some of this is already happening in the UK. I made a reference earlier to Manchester. Someone I worked with once told me she considered escorting to pay off some of her debt. I don't think that this is massively relevant to the discussion though. We're discussing the sugar daddy/mommy arrangement itself rather than how it evolves with the contemporary economic situation.

boosabum

A friend of mine made a huge mistake by paying loads of money for an auctioneering business in 2007 in Dublin.
When the arse fell out of everything, he told me the only houses which were coming for sale were from couples where the good times had ended and she wanted out.
He said it was the same story, well dressed man with younger elegant wife but she was moving on now the gravy train had run dry.
It's naturally hard-wired into a percentage of the population, looks and money are top of the list in a partner, love can be found elsewhere

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's what I was after. Some of this is already happening in the UK. I made a reference earlier to Manchester. Someone I worked with once told me she considered escorting to pay off some of her debt. I don't think that this is massively relevant to the discussion though. We're discussing the sugar daddy/mommy arrangement itself rather than how it evolves with the contemporary economic situation.

Ya, agreed - this wider discussion, mainly branches off from me saying, that while I think these arrangements should be perfectly legal and such, I think it's appropriate to still - depending on specific circumstances - have social judgement against it.

Amica

Feel like I'm talking to the can't see (jimgoose) and won't see (Komrade Bishop, I'm looking at you) here!

So both men and women do not in fact, currently, select mates based on socio-economic status, education, employment, prospects, etc? Well that's a new one on me!

Once again, you have completely changed your claim. This time
Claim A:it is normal and widespread for women to choose men primarily for money
is changed to
Claim B: Both men and women select mates based on socio-economic status, education, employment, prospects etc

Do you see that those two claims are not the same?

jimgoose

Amica wrote: »

Talking to the can't see (jimgoose) and won't see (Komrade Bishop, I'm looking at you) here!


Once again, you have completely changed your claim. This time
Claim A:it is normal and widespread for women to choose men primarily for money
is changed to
Claim B: Both men and women select mates based on socio-economic status, education, employment, prospects etc

Do you see that those two claims are not the same?

No. At worst, I see "Claim A" as a facet, sub-clause, extension, even symptom, of "Claim B"!

Amica

...so you think that both men and women primarily choose mates for money?

boosabum

jimgoose wrote: »

No. At worst, I see "Claim A" as a facet, sub-clause, extension, even symptom, of "Claim B"!

How many years did men pick women on the basis of their "dowry". It was the norm in ireland for possibly 100 years.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya, agreed - this wider discussion, mainly branches off from me saying, that while I think these arrangements should be perfectly legal and such, I think it's appropriate to still - depending on specific circumstances - have social judgement against it.

I disagree personally. While it's not something I want for myself it should be down to the individual to choose who they enter relationships with and why.

jimgoose

Amica wrote: »

...so you think that both men and women primarily choose mates for money?

That is a primitive, simplistic way of putting it. I'd have said mates of either gender are chosen primarily for socio-economic advantage, whether we realise it or not. Ten thousand years ago that was the biggest club, the driest cave, the best set of childbearing hips, etc. Today, in this world we have made for ourselves, it is social status, education, employment/prospects, and a few other bits-and-pieces all mainly concerned with the acquisition of money. Some people are merely more, shall we say, highly-focused and direct than others.

Amica

jimgoose wrote: »

That is a primitive, simplistic way of putting it. I'd have said mates of either gender are chosen primarily for socio-economic advantage, whether we realise it or not. Ten thousand years ago that was the biggest club, the driest cave, the best set of childbearing hips, etc. Today, in this world we have made for ourselves, it is social status, education, employment/prospects, and a few other bits-and-pieces all mainly concerned with the acquisition of money.

I agree that in the past, money (or, if you find it more elegant :rolleyes: socio-economic advantage) was a primary factor when selecting a mate but I disagree that that is the norm nowadays. Maybe you're from an older generation than I am though

Korat

The Golden Rule is: In this world it's not always only about the money, but it's always about the money.

jimgoose

Amica wrote: »

I agree that in the past, money (or, if you find it more elegant :rolleyes: socio-economic advantage) was a primary factor when selecting a mate but I disagree that that is the norm nowadays. Maybe you're from an older generation than I am though

I'm 43, and I assert that you can have all the emotional sensitivity and social justice be playsin' you, you can have a stoating great emotional sensitivity and social justice cake-sale in the middle of town with little furry critters and pink flamingoes, and it won't make a bedamned jot of difference because it's about the same thing it was about ten thousand years ago whether anyone consciously realises it or not. It is deep, base-of-the-monkey-brain stuff.

jimgoose

Korat wrote: »

The Golden Rule is: In this world it's not always only about the money, but it's always about the money.

An elderly family friend had an Anglo-Irish Gentry-type brother-in-law living with her for a few years after his wife died, and he used to say "Dear lady, money doesn't talk, no no no - it roars!!"