Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it's founded, look it up. In fact, it's becoming such a problem, federal law enforcement agencies and the courts are examining if its technically prostitution to try and stop the pandemic. There are over 14,000,000 fourteen million women aged 18-25 listed on the top sugar daddy websites. All the major talk shows have done series on it. It's gotten out of control! Look it up!
How it it irrelevant? You are ranting about this "pandemic" of woman seeking money from men. You know, the one on "all the talk shows". 58% of young women aspire to this, according to you!
You disclosed that you gave a woman a large sum of money: "I was out some $120,000 for a woman that looking back on it, should have been nothing more than a one night stand. She was a mess and slowly but surely made me a mess for a very long time. Her problems were always my problem."
So.....how is it irrelevant again, Alaska Boy Toy?
the women that want commitment will settle for men not willing to give it becuase the men that are are not seen as desirable.
You guys are so full of it! Women go for stable guys who are into commitment. Some will make the first move on the shy guys, even shy nerdy guys. Few women "settle" for guys not willing to provide commitment. Some women aren't into commitment themselves, but that's not "settling". Total nonsense you're posting. Did you get this from another men's blog?
How it it irrelevant? You are ranting about this "pandemic" of woman seeking money from men. You know, the one on "all the talk shows". 58% of young women aspire to this, according to you!
You disclosed that you gave a woman a large sum of money: "I was out some $120,000 for a woman that looking back on it, should have been nothing more than a one night stand. She was a mess and slowly but surely made me a mess for a very long time. Her problems were always my problem."
So.....how is it irrelevant again, Alaska Boy Toy?
hmm...that would explain how he came to give such a huge sum to a head case of a woman... And why he knows so much about this "pandemic".
You guys are so full of it! Women go for stable guys who are into commitment. Some will make the first move on the shy guys, even shy nerdy guys. Few women "settle" for guys not willing to provide commitment. Some women aren't into commitment themselves, but that's not "settling". Total nonsense you're posting. Did you get this from another men's blog?
How it it irrelevant? You are ranting about this "pandemic" of woman seeking money from men. You know, the one on "all the talk shows". 58% of young women aspire to this, according to you!
You disclosed that you gave a woman a large sum of money: "I was out some $120,000 for a woman that looking back on it, should have been nothing more than a one night stand. She was a mess and slowly but surely made me a mess for a very long time. Her problems were always my problem."
So.....how is it irrelevant again, Alaska Boy Toy?
LOL. Aspire? Show me where I stated "aspire" see this is what people like you do, throw in your own aggregated adjectives to make your "case" seem stronger when nobody ever said aspire. then you come along and blame everyone else for engaging in the same thing YOUR doing! That is called hypocrisy.
I said, 58% of young women (the survey was done on college campuses) said they would take on a sugar daddy and did not see any moral issues with it.
As for my entirely DIFFERENT POST ON A DIFFERENT THREAD. that you seem to want to bring over here, and you're trying to use against me, it actually strengthens my point here. haha. You are making a fool of yourself.
And to answer your question.
Dr. Phil, oprah, Fox news is doing a series on it, CNN, just to name a few. It's all over the news.
Well, if you read no further I think you should go to college. However, have romantic relationships gotten better or worse...compared to when?
I would say romantic relationships have gotten better compared pre-history up until about the Victorian Era where marriage was for the majority a barter for exchange among all social classes. Then it got better during the Victorian Era when you have a sizeable middle class growing out because of the industrial revolution. This middle class had the luxury to pick and choose who to marry with less consideration of money although there was still a sizeable nobility and poor who still saw marriage as a way to maintain property and social status. Then around the time of the great depression and World War I and II relationships are better then as women developed an inkling of equality among men and began to enter the work force. At around that time marriage was a form of dependency and as women became more independent it started to get accepted that marriage should not be a form of dependency. Well, relationships get better after World War II when America becomes a superpower, college education for women becomes acceptable, but then it gets kind of weird in America as it becomes very patriarchal for a period of time i.e. you can get an education but your place is at home taking care of your husband and family. Things don't change much until the sexual revolution of the seventies where now because of the availability of contraception a woman can enjoy her sex life without getting pregnant--contraception always existed to a certain extent but wasn't readily available until then. So the ability to have an active sex life leads to a more romantic conception of love and marriage as again women become less dependent on men. I mean the general premise is that with greater freedom there is greater capacity to choose who to love, when to love, how to love, what is love. Then things get weird in the eighties because there is a reactionary movement against the movement of the seventies. I'm not conservative or liberal but that's about the time when you begin to hear family value speeches and whether a woman should work what constitutes a marriage and the like. In other words, marriage is not about romance it's about raising a family, living up to community standards, being part of a larger organized community, service to country. I have a feeling by the nineties women and men who married out of a sense of duty and not romance and love had long term problems. Depending on where you live now you will still see this dynamic but I think more and more women are rejecting it and I think that is a good thing.
This is now my speculation. I think women now expect more from a man than previous generations. They can now. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is a good thing. They have careers, education, control of their sexuality, financial independence. Probably for one of the first times in history they can pursue romantic love as opposed to love as a material proposition or what have you. We've talked about romantic love since the Victorian era but very few were able to experience it. Authors like Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte and the like wrote to a small literate audience of noble women and not to the masses. So, there is no period of time I would rather live then now.
So, do I think romantic relationships are getting better? Sure. More people can experience it then ever before. Does this mean it's better for everyone? I'm optimistic and I think it's better for most.
lol! Then how do you explain all the married couples? Marriage is commitment. The majority of people marry.
Duh.
Same way you explain all the single people and divorcees. Duh.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.