|
On August 03 2011 03:20 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 03:13 Wire wrote:On August 03 2011 02:41 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post. That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms. How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society? Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion.
I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive.
Most of these girls I bet didn't go to community college either (which is pretty much all you need your first 2 years of college). So basically, they didn't care that they were accumulating debt until they had a lot and had to start paying it (like a lot of my young friends). And then they found the easiest way to deal with it. People are allowed to disagree with it, just like your allowed to agree.
|
On August 03 2011 04:33 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 03:20 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 03:13 Wire wrote:On August 03 2011 02:41 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post. That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms. How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society? Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion. I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive.
The unemployment rate and underemployment rate and poverty rate and gini coefficient and consumer confidence index would all disagree with your somewhat puzzling stance here.
Stating that every single person in a given group is "lazy" without any facts to back it up, and then labelling people who disagree with you as naive doesn't really contribute to any semblance of intelligent conversation.
I won't be replying to similar responses.
|
On August 03 2011 04:37 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 04:33 Wrongspeedy wrote:On August 03 2011 03:20 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 03:13 Wire wrote:On August 03 2011 02:41 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post. That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms. How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society? Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion. I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive. The unemployment rate and underemployment rate and poverty rate and gini coefficient and consumer confidence index would all disagree with your somewhat puzzling stance here.
way to come into a thread and talk about statistics you don't have that mean nothing and can be misconstrued to fit your purpose. You should become a college debater your soo good man.
Not everyone that disagrees is Naive. I said you are. Because you think these girls have "no other option" K LOL
|
On August 03 2011 04:33 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 03:20 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 03:13 Wire wrote:On August 03 2011 02:41 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post. That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms. How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society? Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion. I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive. Most of these girls I bet didn't go to community college either (which is pretty much all you need your first 2 years of college). So basically, they didn't care that they were accumulating debt until they had a lot and had to start paying it (like a lot of my young friends). And then they found the easiest way to deal with it. People are allowed to disagree with it, just like your allowed to agree.
How long ago was this?
I know for a fact that a job that pays the same as it did several years ago would not be enough to pay for college. Tuition has been going up every single year.
|
Go to a college you can afford then.
|
LOL at this Jennifer chick at the end of the article... Not a whore to get paid for having a "nice dinner" and sex? BS
|
On August 03 2011 04:39 Wrongspeedy wrote:
way to come into a thread and talk about statistics you don't have that mean nothing and can be misconstrued to fit your purpose. You should become a college debater your soo good man.
Not everyone that disagrees is Naive. I said you are. Because you think these girls have "no other option" K LOL
I suppose everyone must have become twice as lazy for some reason in 2009...
I've read demand and structural arguments as to why it's so difficult to get even a menial job nowadays, but this is ridiculous.
|
On August 03 2011 04:44 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 04:33 Wrongspeedy wrote:On August 03 2011 03:20 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 03:13 Wire wrote:On August 03 2011 02:41 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post. That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms. How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society? Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion. I work a part-time job, thats hard labor. Got it out of highschool and it pays for college. These girls are lazy, its not because they cannot get a job, you are naive. Most of these girls I bet didn't go to community college either (which is pretty much all you need your first 2 years of college). So basically, they didn't care that they were accumulating debt until they had a lot and had to start paying it (like a lot of my young friends). And then they found the easiest way to deal with it. People are allowed to disagree with it, just like your allowed to agree. How long ago was this? I know for a fact that a job that pays the same as it did several years ago would not be enough to pay for college. Tuition has been going up every single year.
I have had the job for 4 years last month. I got it 2 weeks out of high-school, they pay for class straight up, and offer their own student loans. Obviously I was lucky to get a good job (I think it is), but I cannot agree that these girls have no other options (while it is possible for this to be the case in rare occasions). Most of the time its just their own fault that they don't want to go out and get a little dirty (and not sexually) to pay off their debt. Or just their fault for letting the debt get out of hand, you don't have to go to school all year round full-time. You have time to get a part-time job, then seek assistance in whatever way you can (I don't want to stop you from being a prostitute, I just don't agree with it  )
|
On August 03 2011 04:52 Wrongspeedy wrote:
I have had the job for 4 years last month. I got it 2 weeks out of high-school, they pay for class straight up, and offer their own student loans. Obviously I was lucky to get a good job (I think it is), but I cannot agree that these girls have no other options (while it is possible for this to be the case in rare occasions).
There are currently five unemployed people for every job opening available in the United States. It's a mathematical impossibility, no matter how you lucked out and beat the odds.
On August 03 2011 04:52 Wrongspeedy wrote:
Most of the time its just their own fault that they don't want to go out and get a little dirty (and not sexually) to pay off their debt. Or just their fault for letting the debt get out of hand, you don't have to go to school all year round full-time. You have time to get a part-time job, then seek assistance in whatever way you can (I don't want to stop you from being a prostitute, I just don't agree with it)
Mind reading is an awesome super power. Evidence is mundane, boring, but useful. You don't have either.
|
On August 03 2011 05:00 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 04:52 Wrongspeedy wrote:
I have had the job for 4 years last month. I got it 2 weeks out of high-school, they pay for class straight up, and offer their own student loans. Obviously I was lucky to get a good job (I think it is), but I cannot agree that these girls have no other options (while it is possible for this to be the case in rare occasions). There are currently five unemployed people for every job opening available in the United States. It's a mathematical impossibility, no matter how a single person lucked out and beat the odds. Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 04:52 Wrongspeedy wrote:
Most of the time its just their own fault that they don't want to go out and get a little dirty (and not sexually) to pay off their debt. Or just their fault for letting the debt get out of hand, you don't have to go to school all year round full-time. You have time to get a part-time job, then seek assistance in whatever way you can (I don't want to stop you from being a prostitute, I just don't agree with it) Mind reading is an awesome super power. Evidence is mundane, boring, but useful. You don't have either.
You don't have statistics either. All I have is morals I guess. When you post a statistic you need a source and some actual information on how it was collected. Unless we know what constitutes and unemployed american and what constitutes a job opening, and how they collected all that info (which is doubt they did either, they collected some info then extrapolated it). You have not given me any reason to believe there aren't jobs out there, because I drive to work everyday, and I see people getting hired at my job and I see other businesses hiring. I also know a bunch of college schmucks who think they have it hard and don't want to get jobs, until they find out that they have to. So I'm going off what I know, your going off what someone told you.
|
Yep, my sister is doing this with her BF. I'm pretty sure she plans to dump him once they're all paid off (they almost are). I hate her.
|
On August 03 2011 05:05 Wrongspeedy wrote:
You don't have statistics either. All I have is morals I guess. When you post a statistic you need a source and some actual information on how it was collected. Unless we know what constitutes and unemployed american and what constitutes a job opening, and how they collected all that info (which is doubt they did either, they collected some info then extrapolated it).
I realize they might not have gone over this in high school, but "unemployed" and "job opening" have very specific definitions when it comes to the US economy. You should probably look them up.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf
Now, most people would want a nice graph that summarizes everything on two axes. Unfortunately, statistics doesn't work like that in the field. Luckily, you seem like the researcher type, I don't think you'll mind or screw up anywhere.
+ Show Spoiler +
On August 03 2011 05:05 Wrongspeedy wrote:
You have not given me any reason to believe there aren't jobs out there, because I drive to work everyday, and I see people getting hired at my job and I see other businesses hiring. I also know a bunch of college schmucks who think they have it hard and don't want to get jobs, until they find out that they have to.
This is the first time I've seen someone claim their anecdotal personal experience is clearly representative of the rest of the country...
|
On August 03 2011 05:09 Deadlyhazard wrote:
Yep, my sister is doing this with her BF. I'm pretty sure she plans to dump him once they're all paid off (they almost are). I hate her.
Man up and tell her boyfriend and if he refuses to believe you catch her on tape. No joke.
|
On August 03 2011 05:14 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 05:09 Deadlyhazard wrote:
Yep, my sister is doing this with her BF. I'm pretty sure she plans to dump him once they're all paid off (they almost are). I hate her. Man up and tell her boyfriend and if he refuses to believe you catch her on tape. No joke.
Can't really, she lives across the entire country and I don't know her BF's number. They never visit either.
And to be fair, the guy is a rich douchebag.
|
Guess I made a assumption and turned out to be a derp. Nevermind then, exploit douchebags huzzah.
|
Throughout history a woman's greatest weapon was sex, this was common in almost all of the different culture's. What is also ironic about this is the men(most of us reading this) are the people responsible for this happening. Am I surprised it is still happening today? No, why would women cash in the only weapon they have against us? Would you give up your physical strength for them? Most of us wouldn't.
|
On August 03 2011 04:37 caradoc wrote:
The unemployment rate and underemployment rate and poverty rate and gini coefficient and consumer confidence index would all disagree with your somewhat puzzling stance here.
These are, however, stats that represent the nation as a whole, and not representative of highly attractive girls from top-ranked universities. Said girls tend to have significantly better prospects than average, and are also highly likely to have their educations funded at least in part by their parents and the governments.
I'm not arguing that prostitutes in general have plenty of choices, but the specific 'sugar babies' we're talking about here usually do.
|
I don't know how they can assure the safety of something like this... it sounds as dangerous, if not moreso, than prostitution... but if that's what you want to do, who am I to stop you? It's not for me, but I guess some people feel they need to do this to pay off their debts.
|
On August 03 2011 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I don't know how they can assure the safety of something like this... it sounds as dangerous, if not moreso, than prostitution... but if that's what you want to do, who am I to stop you? It's not for me, but I guess some people feel they need to do this to pay off their debts.
It's safer, if only because crime, particularly violent crime, correlates inversely with wealth. The fact that the site verifies the income levels of the sugar daddies serves to ensure this is in play.
That doesn't mean it's the safest 'occupation' out there, but it does beat street prostitution by a wide margin.
|
On August 03 2011 05:17 sunprince wrote:
These are, however, stats that represent the nation as a whole, and not representative of highly attractive girls from top-ranked universities. Said girls tend to have significantly better prospects than average, and are also highly likely to have their educations funded at least in part by their parents and the governments.
Almost every profession still has more unemployment than the "normal" unemployment rate, though more progress has been made in the past few years for professions that require higher education.
College also costs a lot more nowadays than it did a couple years ago and government scholarships are significantly harder to get. Their parent are also more likely to have lowered wages or be unemployed. Blame the recession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/12/business/economy/economix-12jolts/economix-12jolts-custom1.jpg)
