chica
v2.0
I've been contemplating changing my job, and/or doing fewer hours a week. This article sparkled my interest:
"Few things are less appetizing than a man four years my father's junior, a dumpy, pasty, greedy-eyed man in a gray suit who says he doesn't care to screw fat women because they're harder to overpower, asking me over a big bowl of warm apple crisp if I like anal sex. But since he's just offered me $3,000 a month plus perks -- gifts, dinners, shopping sprees -- to get naked with him once a week, I keep my tight young ass in its place, laugh politely, and pick up my fork.
I learned about SugarDaddy.com when an acquaintance I'll call "Kim" recommended it to my friend, who's had trouble finding a job despite (or because of) earning her master's in media arts several months ago. Kim collected $900 every time she went on a date with one of her sugar daddies; another gave her $3,500 in less than a week before announcing that he had to quit her because his wife had found out. Kim's best friend "Jill" had two sugar daddies giving her a combined $8,000 a month until one got jealous of the other. Jill has blond hair, amazing lips, and is 19."
Then they collected some of the readers' comments:
"It's not surprising that men with lots of money are eager to spend some of it procuring sexual favors from attractive young women. Nor is it surprising that Web sites like SugarDaddy.com have sprung up to facilitate this process. But what does it say about our society when a young, educated woman can make a far better living doing sex work than in most other professions?
Many readers came to the defense of the sugar daddy set-up, arguing that these arrangements take place between consenting adults and are, therefore, none of our business. Libertine writes: "It's all out in the open, no one is trying to fool anyone about the true nature of the transaction, and the participants are all consenting adults ... everyone who gets involved in this knows full well what they're getting themselves into; it doesn't occur under duress, so I see no reason to complain about it."
Dano M points out that trading sex for money is no different than other financial transactions: "I see little philosophical difference between this type of body for rent and other skills for rent professions."
Almhco writes: "Is there any real difference between this and the housewife who simply sticks around for the house and car and credit cards, doing her "duty" as needed? Why does a piece of paper make one situation morally correct and the other morally wrong?"
Goeswithness disagrees, pointing out that equating marriage to prostitution is unfairly dismissive of the work done by homemakers. "Actually I think the "comparison to housewife" bit is an unfair cliche. If women married men solely for material possessions, meaning to live disconnected lives, maybe. But in marriages at least people do try to make a life together, make a family together, share the important events in life, support one another. And one might presume that there is love. Furthermore, working at home and raising kids is doing her part towards contributing to make that collective life."
SabrinaMorgan also defends sex work as a worthwhile and fulfilling profession. "We do it because we're reasonably well paid and enjoy the work. We get up and do the job when we'd rather be out with our friends. We get up and do the job when we want to sleep in, or when we're not feeling well. It's not a joke. It's not a lark. It's a job."
But other readers have a very different view of sex work. Linden writes that "The ability to make your own money equals empowerment, but it still matters what you do to make it ... The idea that women constitute the "sex class" is inherent to their oppression ... ""
As for me, I think sex work is my dream profession. It is empowering and liberating for a young woman such as I, and all who wish me well should support me in pursuing this career.
"Few things are less appetizing than a man four years my father's junior, a dumpy, pasty, greedy-eyed man in a gray suit who says he doesn't care to screw fat women because they're harder to overpower, asking me over a big bowl of warm apple crisp if I like anal sex. But since he's just offered me $3,000 a month plus perks -- gifts, dinners, shopping sprees -- to get naked with him once a week, I keep my tight young ass in its place, laugh politely, and pick up my fork.
I learned about SugarDaddy.com when an acquaintance I'll call "Kim" recommended it to my friend, who's had trouble finding a job despite (or because of) earning her master's in media arts several months ago. Kim collected $900 every time she went on a date with one of her sugar daddies; another gave her $3,500 in less than a week before announcing that he had to quit her because his wife had found out. Kim's best friend "Jill" had two sugar daddies giving her a combined $8,000 a month until one got jealous of the other. Jill has blond hair, amazing lips, and is 19."
Then they collected some of the readers' comments:
"It's not surprising that men with lots of money are eager to spend some of it procuring sexual favors from attractive young women. Nor is it surprising that Web sites like SugarDaddy.com have sprung up to facilitate this process. But what does it say about our society when a young, educated woman can make a far better living doing sex work than in most other professions?
Many readers came to the defense of the sugar daddy set-up, arguing that these arrangements take place between consenting adults and are, therefore, none of our business. Libertine writes: "It's all out in the open, no one is trying to fool anyone about the true nature of the transaction, and the participants are all consenting adults ... everyone who gets involved in this knows full well what they're getting themselves into; it doesn't occur under duress, so I see no reason to complain about it."
Dano M points out that trading sex for money is no different than other financial transactions: "I see little philosophical difference between this type of body for rent and other skills for rent professions."
Almhco writes: "Is there any real difference between this and the housewife who simply sticks around for the house and car and credit cards, doing her "duty" as needed? Why does a piece of paper make one situation morally correct and the other morally wrong?"
Goeswithness disagrees, pointing out that equating marriage to prostitution is unfairly dismissive of the work done by homemakers. "Actually I think the "comparison to housewife" bit is an unfair cliche. If women married men solely for material possessions, meaning to live disconnected lives, maybe. But in marriages at least people do try to make a life together, make a family together, share the important events in life, support one another. And one might presume that there is love. Furthermore, working at home and raising kids is doing her part towards contributing to make that collective life."
SabrinaMorgan also defends sex work as a worthwhile and fulfilling profession. "We do it because we're reasonably well paid and enjoy the work. We get up and do the job when we'd rather be out with our friends. We get up and do the job when we want to sleep in, or when we're not feeling well. It's not a joke. It's not a lark. It's a job."
But other readers have a very different view of sex work. Linden writes that "The ability to make your own money equals empowerment, but it still matters what you do to make it ... The idea that women constitute the "sex class" is inherent to their oppression ... ""
As for me, I think sex work is my dream profession. It is empowering and liberating for a young woman such as I, and all who wish me well should support me in pursuing this career.
)
