4 ms·

"Sleeping with a guy is a built in option women have to better their lives, that men don't have." This is a complicated issue, and there's a lot to unpack here

"Sleeping with a guy is a built in option women have to better their lives, that men don't have." This is a complicated issue, and there's a lot to unpack here. That technique may be used for women (and, heck, men too -- I'm the female 'breadwinner' of my household, although I didn't meet my husband at a sex party...) to better their lives, but those gains may be sporadic, and they depend on the continued cooperation of the man they're sleeping with. I was in a "trophy girlfriend" relationship when I was young and my entire life revolved around "keeping" this guy. After a while, he broke up with me, I had to ask my parents for rent money (I had taken a first class trip to Europe the month before, but what was I going to do, ask him to put the money into my emergency savings account instead?), my entire life sort of fell apart. I went to parties with his friends, lived in his apartment, had a credit card on his account. Making sure he was happy was a job, but the skills weren't entirely transferable and there was no security. Not a situation I wanted to be in again, and I didn't. Having a job, skills are easily transferable between employers, resources in my own name, and a relationship built on mutual respect and kindness, gives me far more freedom and security than sleeping with guys for the lifestyle perks. Even with alimony and child support in the picture (in which case you need to "get him" to marry you and/or have children) there is no facet of your life or lifestyle that is insulated from the whims of a single person. No, you may not starve after a divorce, but, especially if there's a pre-nup involved, the "betterment" in your life will always be temporary gain during the length of the relationship while his will be a permanent one. Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't go to these parties or sleep with these men if they want to, or that considering a man's private jet ownership when debating about whether or not you want to sleep with him is an immoral choice. But saying "This is a built-in option for women that men don't have... the rest of us poor schmuck dudes actually have to go to work everyday" is an incredible simplification that makes the two choices sound like equivalent things, when they're absolutely not. On a side note: The presence of these particular sex parties, and the fact that they're so closely intertwined with business in Silicon Valley, I think is an problem. As the article paints it, there's sort of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" issue that they're introducing for women working in certain companies or who are seeking VC funding.

nickthemagicman 9y ago
-""I was in a "trophy girlfriend" relationship when I was young and my entire life revolved around "keeping" this guy"" It's absolutely a job. Why wouldn't it be? My point is that it's always an option for an even marginally attractive women that average dudes don't have, (which may be the reason the homeless population of women is such a minority.) Not a lot of plump hairy average dudes wearing yoga pants with the word sexy and a midriff shirt trying to keep their rich man happy(gay or straight). So my point remains....it's an extra option always available to women. I don't understand how that could be considered "keeping women down". It's more like women always have an option available to them that the rest of us don't.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  I think the part that is keeping women down is the expectation that women will exercise this option you're describing.
ThrowAway3456 9y ago
I like this answer even if i strongly disagree with it. Hopefully we can engage in a polite discussion where i can contribute the male centric counter-part of your perspective. >That technique may be used for women (and, heck, men too -- I'm the female 'breadwinner' of my household, although I didn't meet my husband at a sex party...) Yes some men, but those case are very rare and fare in between. I don't have any better analogy than saying that's like talking about female on male rape or white people being also subject to police violence when talking about black life matters. > to better their lives, but those gains may be sporadic, and they depend on the continued cooperation of the man they're sleeping with. But isn't that true for 99% of the working population ? My salary depend on my continue cooperation of my company i am working for. > Having a job, skills are easily transferable between employers, resources in my own name, and a relationship built on mutual respect and kindness, gives me far more freedom and security than sleeping with guys for the lifestyle perks. Is this true for any jobs ? Or are you describing the reality for you (what i presume being a conventionally beautiful ,upper middle class American woman)? Is that true for any man ? or just the one you dated ? > Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't go to these parties or sleep with these men if they want to, or that considering a man's private jet ownership when debating about whether or not you want to sleep with him is an immoral choice. Yes, but you are implying that having those choices is not a intrinsic privilege mostly associated with being a (conventionally beautiful) woman and that pointing this privilege is something of a simplification. I am born with a relatively high intelligence. It's also usually comes with high propensity to anxiety and depression and social awkwardness and as such my intelligence doesnt by me everything in life, but all in all it's still a nice privilege to have in 2017. I see female beauty the same. If had to point an overarching theme on you answer, is that you seems to compare the "gains" from the sexual options of being a woman with those of very power man. We can agree on this (although there is something to be said on comparing a man in his late 35 and the fruit of his labor with the life style of a 20-something, but that a discussion for another time). I don't think that's the fair comparison. What we need to look at : while you were being a "trophy girlfriend" , how did you life compare to you less desirable friends, and to your male friends around you? Beauty, like intelligence or any other intrinsic quality is an asset; It can be used wisely or not, it can be very valuable or not, but it's still an asset... > the two choices sound like equivalent things, when they're absolutely not. Which two choices ? > On a side note: The presence of these particular sex parties, and the fact that they're so closely intertwined with business in Silicon Valley, I think is an problem. As the article paints it, there's sort of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" issue that they're introducing for women working in certain companies or who are seeking VC funding. I guess i can try to share the male perspective on this. It seems that there is wide belief that male sexuality is by nature predatory. Might be some truth to that and the news these days don't really help. But from anecdotal experience, and for having been to those type of parties. Trying to coerce women into coming to those type of party is always plan B. Plan A is always to find open minded women with common interest. And much in the same way that height and muscular bodies are attractive to certain women, money,weath and power is attractive to enough women that plan A i usually all one needs...

nickthemagicman 9y ago

-""I was in a "trophy girlfriend" relationship when I was young and my entire life revolved around "keeping" this guy"" It's absolutely a job. Why wouldn't it be? My point is that it's always an option for an even marginally attractive women that average dudes don't have, (which may be the reason the homeless population of women is such a minority.) Not a lot of plump hairy average dudes wearing yoga pants with the word sexy and a midriff shirt trying to keep their rich man happy(gay or straight). So my point remains....it's an extra option always available to women. I don't understand how that could be considered "keeping women down". It's more like women always have an option available to them that the rest of us don't.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
I think the part that is keeping women down is the expectation that women will exercise this option you're describing.

ThrowAway3456 9y ago

I like this answer even if i strongly disagree with it. Hopefully we can engage in a polite discussion where i can contribute the male centric counter-part of your perspective. >That technique may be used for women (and, heck, men too -- I'm the female 'breadwinner' of my household, although I didn't meet my husband at a sex party...) Yes some men, but those case are very rare and fare in between. I don't have any better analogy than saying that's like talking about female on male rape or white people being also subject to police violence when talking about black life matters. > to better their lives, but those gains may be sporadic, and they depend on the continued cooperation of the man they're sleeping with. But isn't that true for 99% of the working population ? My salary depend on my continue cooperation of my company i am working for. > Having a job, skills are easily transferable between employers, resources in my own name, and a relationship built on mutual respect and kindness, gives me far more freedom and security than sleeping with guys for the lifestyle perks. Is this true for any jobs ? Or are you describing the reality for you (what i presume being a conventionally beautiful ,upper middle class American woman)? Is that true for any man ? or just the one you dated ? > Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't go to these parties or sleep with these men if they want to, or that considering a man's private jet ownership when debating about whether or not you want to sleep with him is an immoral choice. Yes, but you are implying that having those choices is not a intrinsic privilege mostly associated with being a (conventionally beautiful) woman and that pointing this privilege is something of a simplification. I am born with a relatively high intelligence. It's also usually comes with high propensity to anxiety and depression and social awkwardness and as such my intelligence doesnt by me everything in life, but all in all it's still a nice privilege to have in 2017. I see female beauty the same. If had to point an overarching theme on you answer, is that you seems to compare the "gains" from the sexual options of being a woman with those of very power man. We can agree on this (although there is something to be said on comparing a man in his late 35 and the fruit of his labor with the life style of a 20-something, but that a discussion for another time). I don't think that's the fair comparison. What we need to look at : while you were being a "trophy girlfriend" , how did you life compare to you less desirable friends, and to your male friends around you? Beauty, like intelligence or any other intrinsic quality is an asset; It can be used wisely or not, it can be very valuable or not, but it's still an asset... > the two choices sound like equivalent things, when they're absolutely not. Which two choices ? > On a side note: The presence of these particular sex parties, and the fact that they're so closely intertwined with business in Silicon Valley, I think is an problem. As the article paints it, there's sort of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" issue that they're introducing for women working in certain companies or who are seeking VC funding. I guess i can try to share the male perspective on this. It seems that there is wide belief that male sexuality is by nature predatory. Might be some truth to that and the news these days don't really help. But from anecdotal experience, and for having been to those type of parties. Trying to coerce women into coming to those type of party is always plan B. Plan A is always to find open minded women with common interest. And much in the same way that height and muscular bodies are attractive to certain women, money,weath and power is attractive to enough women that plan A i usually all one needs...