Say what now?
Did I just fall through a time vent into the 1950s?
12 Likes
I know someone in his mid 40s, got divorced (she wanted it, found someone else), so he bought bitchen car and went out to the bars and clubs. Evidently he has decent success picking up 20 something women. He isnât rich by any means, but he has decent job (freight truck driver). Decent looking and some confidence and finding people who just want to have a good time I guess works for him. Helps he is pretty funny too. I always joked he was the cool version of me because we constantly say things the other person is thinking.
3 Likes
This article is crazy well written.
The arguments folks give against it being âprostitutionâ seem like word games. Call it whatever lets you look at yourself in the mirror the next day, but these are transactional. That doesnât mean they canât also be intimate.
I donât think any of this would make me happy, but Iâm neither an attractive, homeless woman or a wealthy, sexually stunted old man. Thereâs a lot of things people do in their private lives that wouldnât make me happy. I imagine thatâs true for most of us. 
Wish I could âlikeâ your comment multiple times.
3 Likes
I was somewhat inclined to agree, but a few things about the article really bothered me. Ortbergâs response seems to crystallize some of my issues:
I think that what is âoffâ there is that the reporter is approaching her subject with contempt prior to investigation. She doesnât value the work that âTigressâ does and thinks sheâs incapable of making the right decisions for herselfâŚ
A commenter on Ortbergâs story also made a point that resonated with me:
Why the demeaning names for the women? Why the contempt for someone who finds they have a marketable skill and uses it to make money? I feel like there was a lot of sad, internalized misogyny being regurgitated onto the page.
7 Likes
Doesnât this apply also to engineers profiting from/being used for their brains?
9 Likes
Iâll cast my vote for Article #2. As it points out, Article #1 is pretty well done from a craft standpoint, but never really escapes the basic conceit of its type, which is âthere are fundamentally good (if imperfect) people, and there are fundamentally not-good (if fascinating/funny/smart/accomplished/sexy/etc.) people, and I the author am the former, and I presume that you the reader are also the former, and everyone I am writing about is the latter.â
15 Likes
I generally agree with the critique in Ortbergâs article. The whole article drips with condescension. But for me her conclusion at the end also really bugs me a lot- are mutually beneficial transactions really that baffling? âEveryone here is on the hustle, and everyone here thinks theyâre winning.â As it is when I buy groceries, or a car, or sell my own services or a used stereo in a garage sale. We engage in transactions every day in which both sides get the good end of the deal. That kind of lack of basic economic thought makes me doubt intelligence far more than geographic ignorance:
Iâve never been terribly comfortable with this kind of condescension. So he doesnât know there is a Naples in Italy? Does this make him a bad person? A Stupid person? Or merely someone who has been busy living his life and didnât happen to become interested in Italy?
6 Likes
Iâd personally be squicky participating on either side of such a transaction but thatâs just me, I donât revere nor sanctify everything everyone else does, and I donât expect other people to feel the same way I do about everything consenting adults do.
What I saw in the article was women who had a great deal of personal agency in determining how they made a living. If theyâve got the ability to do it, and keep their head about them, I think itâs better than working as some corporationâs wage slave, being told no theyâre not worth health benefits or maternal leave (which actually IS demeaning).
I think some women get upset at the ones who sell sex for money because theyâre violating some biological rule, that says the sex was supposed to be used to obtain relationships, something meaningful instead of ephemeral. Which I think demeans the rest of what a woman brings to a relationship. Not all women, obviously, would feel this way, and Iâm having to manguess about it, thatâs just an explanation I could reason my way to.
2 Likes
Iâm not sure if Universal Basic Income would wedge this sort of thing out or bring a wider section of society into the âmoneyedâ side of the relationship.
Iâm speaking from ignorance here, but I donât think it would make a huge difference. As long as some people are significantly more wealthy than others, the moneyed party will continue to be able to offer things that would normally be out of reach to the other party, universal basic income or no.
3 Likes
so it is like every other article on the net longer than a paragraph you say? Anyway, I skimmed it briefly as I scrolled down to comment on your comment.
2 Likes
âTransactional loveâ? Thatâs a terrible term. Itâs âTransactional fuckâ. Itâs just long term prostitution (which Iâm fine with, but letâs not be deliberately, misleadingly, euphemistic about the exchange). This also goes for older women with boy toys - they can have fun too.
Love.
The kind you clean up with a mop and bucket.
Like the lost catacombs of Egypt only God knows where we stuck it.
1 Like
Plus ça change, et cherchez la femme.
Not really just the fuck. Actual affection, genuine or close enough, seems to be bulk of that exchange.
Haters gonna hate.
1 Like
Yeah, that GQ article⌠the ickiest thing in it by far is the authorâs hostility to anything approaching honest open-minded evaluation, preferring to dig in those preconceived and judgmental heels. As said upthread, the final paragraphs reveal such a convoluted mess of denial that the author seems way too âuptight puritanâ to be useful for a grown-up discussion of sex or relationships.
4 Likes
I donât even know who âPinkâ isâŚ
Given that this is the Internet, it is that or Alabama.
1 Like
Are you a dude?
3 Likes
