Being a HO... the new aspiration for women.

Golddiggers. I think that is an American word.

Personally I look for a man whose wallet is just as impressive as his dick. I live for a man who can turn me out, BUT as I get older, I have to say, a guy with no loot is really very limited. I work hard for my coins and live the way I want to live. If a guy can't keep up, no matter how much dick he has, more sooner than later, I get very bored. I would NOT have said this even five years ago. After awhile sex can't be everything. So many of my girlfriends have a broke assed man with nothing but alot of dick laid up in their bed. Unless he is selling the dick (which is NOT appetizing to me anymore either) he is just a fuck with no future. Then I have to think, who is the Ho', him or me???

Believe me... i have no time for a broke ass man too.. but theres a huge dif. in being a 'golddigger' and not wanting a looser. Sure its fab meeting a bloke who could financially take care of you.. but that for me could never come before everything.

The sad thing about thinking a man (or woman's for that matter) $$ will make you happy, is that it seems the opposite could be true. Remember that Eagles song (don't remember the title), "You can't HIIIIDE yer lyin' eyes..." about the girl who married the rich guy but was lonely & would sneak out to see her unrich young lover? Seems like there was a bunch of pop psychology about this phenomenon for a while ("My Mother/Myself" by Nancy Friday I think), about the thing where women go after guys who will "take care of them" just like mommy, but instead end up feeling invisible, erased, and TRAPPED. i.e You gotta have your OWN THANG goin on, or love don't work.

ON THE OTHER HAND...there is NOTHING unsexier than meeting a guy (or girl) at the party, and he looks all sexy in his club clothes and a spot of eyeliner, and he's p.c. and funny and has "big hands" and he knows all the lyrics to the best music......and he can't even buy you one P.B.R.("next time" he says.) Next thing you know he's all cozy in your bed, saying yes, his half of the rent will come, just give him a few more days. BLECH.

True, it's not a new concept. Before the term "golddigger" became popular, a woman with money in mind was called an "adventuress."
And it's not just a girl thing of course-- look at the legions of boys who surround Calvin, David and Barry.
I have some slight regrets that I never was much of one. But really it's a lot of work.

I think my point is... that these women really aren't into sex at all really.. its the $ that makes them hot... cos Lord only knows Trump doesn't exactly have a 'hot vibe' that overides that bloated combover head... nor do Barry or Calvin!! I think women are so far away from wanting to be with a bloke cos of much more than security. U would think by now that things would have changed.

Actually, that is what has saved me from a lot of what could have turned in to really bad relationships. People liked doing me, but soon the fact I had very limited resources sent them on their way. I guess its a bit flattering, they really wanted me for me, for the sex I provided, not for my -non-existent- moola.

But make no mistake, I think most men who get latched on to by a predatory woman know that is what they are getting. And of course this goes on across the gender-orientation spectrum but it largely is an outcome of heterosexual loneliness, straight women's ideas about self-worth, and a desperation for the perceived priviledges of social mobility. And really, signs of social mobility proclaim social defeat. The objects acquired ( a rich man included ) simply show how one has been subjugated by the social order.

But, Seven, moola aside, surely some golddiggin ho would want to latch onto you just for the wealth of SYLLABLES you possess!!!

"Shit I don't want my man workin' at no MACDonalds. I wants my money from da nigga who knows what day I get my hair did and what day my nails need doin'. Make sure I have me my drink on when he takes me to da club, AND my ass is up in some fly shit, AND damn sure better be havin' some dick when my pussy need turnin. Now THATs a man." Sweetie "Crunk" Jones

I've been on both sides of this situation before. Completely supported my one boyfriend for two years while he sat at home and watched soaps and ate junkfood. Then a couple years later I ended up living off a boyfriend.

Honestly both situations were really sucky. Now I look for someone who can be somewhat of an equal for me. I mean one of us can pay for more than the other of course, but as long as we're both putting something on the table. This goes for all regards really too though...financially, emotionally, physically.

Our culture approves of gold digging but looks down on outrght prostitution. At least a hooker can finish, take her money, and go have a life. If you marry for the money it's like selling yourself into slavery. What good are nice things when you have to roll over and see Donald Trump every morning? I've seen him and that whore at many parties and they both always look unhappy. Then again maybe they just see it a time thing. A few years and then a divorce. Look at Ivana.

Ok, I'm a wee bit tipsy at the moment so I'm gonna be overly outright honest at the moment. I agree completely with what you said Miss Understood. I did my time in the escorting industry and while it was far from the acceptable ideal of society...I did my job, I made my money, and I went on with life.

I had a very dear friend who disapproved greatly of what I was doing, yet spent every day looking for that man to take care of him. He would spend countless nights going to dinners, shows, parties, and most of the time end up sleeping with these men to try and get one to take care of him.

Now...I'm moving on in my life. Getting other things together and I'm taking care of myself. Yet he is still stuck in the same rut, because everything is bought for him...taken care of for him...but he can never do it on his own.

So who really ended up selling themselves?

I see this situation/problem as much more complex. Remember, the U.S. is a non-socialist society with no real safety nets and our politicians are constantly working hard to gut and destroy what few we have (welfare, Social Security, public education, etc). Unlike in Europe, people here pretty much have to fend for themselves and cannot rely on the government to bail them out in the event of personal economic disaster. (In Germany for example, unemployment is a huge issue because many people have realized that it's more lucrative to live off government checks than to work) Women on average are still paid 1/3 less in the workforce than their male counterparts, and to boot many women on entering their 30s feel a strong urgency to have children, so achieving security through a career becomes less of an option or less important because society says women belong with the kids. And since western culture values younger women much more than older ones, the older a woman gets the more fragile her economic security becomes, especially in a capitalist world. No one wants to face old age living on cat food or at the mercy of state health care workers. But for women such a fate is likelier than for men (statistically speaking). American girls may not have pensions and Social Security to fall back on by the time they're old enough to collect it but still need time to raise the kids. So landing a man who can provide well seems even more important.

Men don't have the same experience because we are taught from childhood that breadwinning comes first and we can procreate at any age. A lifetime spent in the workforce is expected of us. Women on the other hand are taught that marriage and motherhood come first and careers come last. This explains to some degree why men who live off their girlfriends/wives are thought to be losers but no one thinks anything of a woman being supported by a man.

Let's remember also that it has only been since the twentieth century that women married principally for love at all. Prior to that marriages in Eastern and Western cultures (Europe included) were most often arranged by parents, guardians or ranking family members on behalf of the bride with the criteria of desirable suitors ranked by monetary wealth and/or class. The girl's looks were the primary bait for the richer suitors and if she didn't have beauty then her family had to have a slammin' dowry, and lots of times the pickier suitors required both. It is no accident that hundreds of years ago Shakespeare depicted Juliet's parents as ready to marry her off to the highest bidder despite their own wealth. Who the girl actually "loved" was the last priority. In olden times Charles and Diana would still be married because Diana wouldn't have the expectation of loving her husband. Therefore it's hardly surprising or new that a hideous-but-rich bore like Donald Trump gets the prettiest rose in the flower shop. He gets reaffirmed status by virtue of her eye candy-ness, and she gets a lucrative annuity she can live off someday when she gets old and he dumps her. It's business.

Thrown in on top of all this mess are the anti-sex Puritan values this country was founded upon coupled with the constant images of consumerist trappings we are fed through the media. It is not enough to marry someone nice, we must marry a "winner". We must own this house, that car or this dress otherwise we aren't worthy. Yet because hetero men still place a huge value on a prospective wife's so-called virtue, prostitution is vilified. Women have to make their living the "honest way" and that means landing a good catch but without their families helping them to arrange the marriage. They have to land that man by campaigning alone and the competition is tough. So a certain predatory instinct comes out.

Today's women are struggling to make sense of all these old and new values being thrown at them and that's very hard. Give them a break.

Hey Big Boy, I'll give you a break, but first show me your credit cards!

I agree with so much that you wrote Lex.. but my point is that in this day and age we really haven't much moved on since Shakespeares times...

Perhaps it's just the nature of humanity then and not a "new aspiration". Right or wrong, fair or not, it is what it is. Maybe things only seem uglier now because we have TV and the information age to magnify the vulgarity a thousand fold. Prior to the 1950s we couldn't see the gold diggers. Now they each get their own 15 minutes of fame ... every night in our living rooms.

Think about the Jane Fonda days or the Working Girl movie days... back in the 80s it seemed that it was all about Sistas doing it for themselves... no?

Sure, but now, here, culturally, a lot of culture is in a wholesale regression to
pre-1950's social mores and the idea of booty capitalism (both booties baby, the one about easy jackpots and the one about trading on one's booty for booty). And hypocrisy is a big part of it all, like where gangsta rap stars get on stage at an awards ceremony to give thanks and the first person they mention is Jesus.

Agree with the clarity there Seven.......

Just want to add another name to the Goldigger list.. of talentless women with men for $...

Kimora Lee Simmons ....total HO with no fricken talent