Skip to main content

What happened? Is it ME? Am I too old? Or did i just wake up and its been like this for years and I never noticed?
I caught last night an episode of the Gasteneau Girls On E! Another doc/reality following Lisa Gastineau and her daughter Brittany trollop around the country trying to impress rich men, get rich men to pay attention and ultimately spend $ on them... while they sashy to every 'event' and wear anything fashionable to impress...again with the aim of appearing bling bling. I always noticed this over here more than Europe.. I would tell American co workers that I met a bloke and the first thang they would say was "what does he do for a attorney, keep hold of him gurl!" .. whereas my Brit gals would say "ooo u met a bloke 'ave u shagged im yet, has it gorra big one". I know one should just generalize .. but am thinking that the media really is lionizing all that is wrong and really is taking a big turn back... Women like the model-ho who married the ugly comb over Trump is cover news in such a way that her life is just such an inspiration to all women of America. But EVERYONE knows Trump would get NO speed if he didn't have any $! On this show Lisa Gastineau was grooming her lil ho, i mean daughter how to 'catch a rich man'.. I thnk it has gone on for years cos really women sort of had to marry rich for security and stability.. but nowerdays.. women CAN make their own $ just as much as a man... so why do we still want to push in the media how fab it is to be just chasin' ugly men for $. It IS prositution yet its now the American dream.... and these tv shows just really push 'how fantastic' it all is... sorry to vent but i just think that young women nowerdays in middle America shouldn't just want bling-ice or allimony but should want their own independance.. then they won't have to look at an ugly mans pinga just for cash... but as Lisa Gastineu said last night "oh i much prefer diamonds to sex anyday" - oh how different we are......
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

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???
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.
Last edited by Karen M.
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.
Last edited by seven
"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.
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.
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.
Just reading through this topic; as thoughtful and valuable as everyone's comments are on here, what we don't see are the boy ho's on the tube every night of the week. I still rarely (if ever) see anyone I identify with on the tellytube; guys who, as was pointed out earlier, provide sexual relief, collect the cash, and move on. Some of these producers should read the "Tools of the Trade" ads I was posting on Craig's List when I was between jobs! Naked handyman, anyone?
I don't view too much teevee but it seems to me there are no real dynamic, virile, male figures anywhere on the cathode or plasmascapes that one could respect for being intelligent, fit, and with an admirable menu of libidinal predelictions. All the males are either simpering with their foibles or preposterously trying to ape the hard guy prototype from the age-olde modernist hollywood icon, Humphrey Bogart. Sure there are plenty of pin up hunks with pecs and square jaws, but too much hair gel, laughable acting chops and lame scripts to follow. All the males on teevee are just testosterone versions of Barbie. So I guess you are right, there is an abundance of male ho's on the screen but nobody you would want to really do and be seen in public with.
Last edited by seven
I have to say i actually was happy that Richard (Virgin) Branson had a telly show.. i caught it once or twice and he was really solid.. yes it was a corney show and not my speed.. but he was honest/fair/slightly off kilter wacky but really a good rolemodel ... i can't stand Trump who is just bankrolled by the mob, an egomaniac with so little intelligence.
So thats MY vote for TV 'hunk'
Had a real affirmation that women have stepped ten times backward last wkend. I was visiting a casino for the weekend and due to a business contact I was checked in and given 'high roller' status! (what a hoot!) I was allowed to use the VIP rooms, check ins, private lounges etc. Can I just say that I was the only 'normal' chick in there... the only women there were just total HO-style overly tanned, overly blonde, tight clothes, hollywood boobs jobs and not the ones who were the VIPs but were the VIPs Ho's!! It was just depressing.... Where are all the chick shot callers? It was just so odd and depressing to see.... all these stepford-ho's.
People who came up during the 80's and 90's, they weren't taught to be independent and self sufficient. They were taught to be parasites and lackeys, sexually too. Being a self-alienating slave with zero self-esteem is now seen to be a great personal achievement. And in an increasingly insecure world there is security in clinging to someone else's stack of credit cards. When was the last time you saw an example of a self-respecting successful woman in the media who wasn't depicted as being a kind of successful whore, from Madonna to Angelina Jolie? Even Martha Stewart is done as a kind of Madame of another sort. The only one who had any real integrity in the recent past was Roseanne Bar. She was smart enough to have her say and then get out.

So Anna Nicole Smith is at the Supreme Court pleading her case... I honestly hope that she wins! I think its terrible that she has to 'prove' her relationship with him was based on love. How many of these Upper East Side tight faced bitches married these guys for LOVE... oh come on!! Look at any of these wealthy men.... most of them are fat and fugly don't tell me if these chicks saw them accross the bar in jeans would they wanna be with them.
Poor Anna cos she doesn't look all UESide she is punished... bless her I hope she gets the dosh and spends it on the tackiest house in Vegas that one day becomes an even tackier museum!
I hope she wins as well. It's gorgeous that her case has actually been bumped all the way up the chain to the Supreme Court where she can plead her case showcasing platinum falls and giant fake boobs in a plunging neckline before the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia. I love her sunglasses and posing on the courthouse steps. You know John Roberts, closet fag, is probably peeing in his panties while self-loathing Clarence Thomas sees the blonde venus of his demented dreams. The son of the late billionaire (fighting Anna) is a Mormon or something, probably a real J.R. Ewing in church clothing. There is a second son who is not really even in the picture, from what I understand.

Mind you I don't think she deserves the old geiser's entire fortune but that's not what she's asking for anyway. The old coot must've married her to spite his son, otherwise why marry anyone at age 86? GO ANNA!
Last edited by Luxury Lex
Agreed! I don't think she should get ALL of his dosh but just a wee slice of that big cake. Back in the days an ole mate of mine (whom some of u know) was her PR-PR and she was 'seeing' this ole geezer then but she wanted to make her own $ B4 she married him.... that was her thing... then she did with the Guess gig and THEN she married him.... They knew each other and he lavished her with gifts for years! I think she deserves just as much a slice of the cake as say Ellen barkin for marrying Ron Pearlman. et al... I just hope she says 'sober' on the stand.... but then again this so shouldn't be about if she is messy or not ... its about what the ole geezer would have wanted.....and don't forget this ole geezer had married a stripper (or was she a prozzie) before Anna too! So this was his thang! U go Anna!
Originally posted by seven:
Goldigga for sure.

I want to add Barbara Bush who famously once said, "The only thing I ever did was marry well and bare children."

Yeah. I always thought she was a professional vagina.
Just look at the abomination(s) she puked out of her bilious gash.
I go to the t-friendly clubs in NYC, and most of the time, I am dressed in clean, simple clothes, (no bling, etc.) and have no trouble attracting tgirls. I find that they just want someone who treats them with non-judgmental dignity, which they have a pretty good idea is what they're getting if you've shown up (I guess the fact that you've paid a hefty cover might tip them off, too). Just being well-groomed goes a long way. Style is as much in how you speak as how you dress.
Last edited by 6
I thought this article in todays UK press The Independent was interesting

West is accused of double standards on female circumcision
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 17 July 2006
A leading doctor has accused Western plastic surgeons who perform cosmetic surgery on the vagina of undermining the battle against female circumcision in other parts of the world.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, Ronan Conroy, senior lecturer at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, says the growing acceptance in Britain and elsewhere of so-called "designer vaginas" was exposing Western double standards.

"The practice of female genital mutilation is on the increase nowhere in the world except in our so-called developed societies," he writes. "Designer laser vaginoplasty" and "laser vaginal rejuvenation" are growth areas in plastic surgery, representing the latest chapter in the surgical victimisation of women in our culture."

At least three London clinics offer "vaginal tightening" after childbirth, "cosmetic vaginal surgery" and "labioplasty" - reduction of the size of the labia, advertised on the internet. Some British women travel to the US for treatment, which is carried out by gynaecologists specialising in reconstructive surgery, using a scalpel or laser.

The World Health Organisation defines female genital mutilation as: "All procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons."

Mr Conroy writes: "It is Western medicine which, by a process of disease mongering, is driving the advance of female genital mutilation by promoting the fear in women that what is natural biological variation is a defect."

There was an assumption by Western critics that in the developing world the practice was forced on young girls. In fact, it was often welcomed as the mark of entry into adulthood and they were proud of it, he said. "The high moral tone with which those in richer countries criticise female genital mutilation would be more credible if we in the North had not practised and did not continue to practise it," he added.

I think this is back to that whole new thang of women now no longer looking like REAL women but these strange praying mantis with huge fake lips and fake breasts and botoxed faces and tidy labia cunts. It's all rather alien.... funny how the pinga plastic surgery didn't catch on as much!

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.