My shopping cart
Your cart is currently empty.Continue Shopping
I don't mean prostitution.
The actuality of:
“sex for money” …
… or sex for advancement, “transactional sex”, is pretty accepted behavior universally. And it always has been, for centuries and centuries, for all of recorded time apparently, it’s all around us daily.
You doubt me, you look at the above statements askance.
Really now, seriously, from time immemorial that behavior is all around us.
Just let me expound a bit and all will become clear.
After all, isn’t the whole concept of historical Judeo-Christian marriage, where the man brings home the bacon (sic), and provides all of the workday effort (at least prior to the Women’s Lib movement in the 1960’s), for the security and shelter in life for the survival of the woman…
... so that the woman can provide SEX, and of course… .
Ain't this the entire raison d'être for marriage?
Like I said before, I can go way back in history, to ancient history, to pre Judeo-Christian times even, and then come up through the ages from there with justification for this line of thought. To begin:
“Antony and Cleopatra” as a love story?
Antony and Cleo were a failed attempt, by two doomed individuals, at a dynastic alliance to take over the world as it was known at the time.
“What’s Love Got To Do With It…”
Or perhaps better:
“All Or Nothing At All…”
And they got nothing.
To continue, and up the seriousness quotient a bit, I’ll quote from an online Psychology Today magazine article that gives this train of anecdotal societal rambling the intellectual heft it needs. The PT article was based on the writings of a respected family clinical research director, and was first published in PT in 2005, and again in 2016.
“Antiquity - Renaissance:
What's love got to do with it?
In early history, politics and money trumped emotions.
In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative — even if she has to divorce her husband first.
Wife-swapping as a career move —
Statesman Marcus Porcius Cato divorces his wife and marries her off to his ally Hortensius in order to strengthen family bonds; after Hortensius dies, Cato remarries her.
12th - century Europe: Marriage is good for loving... someone else — Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.
And on into the Victorian era:
18th - century Europe:
“Ladies' debating societies declare that while loveless marriages are regrettable, women must consider money when choosing a partner.”
And now about that fee charged in the modern age:
Today, there's the all-pervading sense (at least to me), that the power couples of the present come together for other reasons than love just like in the Victorian era, ancient Greece, or Rome. Just like Kimmy K married Kris Humphries (above), for material gain (and that wedding netted MILLIONS), her divorce from Kris 72 days later, and her second marriage to replacement husband, Kanye West, netted more.
And what of Queen Bee Beyonce and her Mighty Music Mogul husband Jay Z. What about the merchandising of her recent pregnancy, and of the birth of the “Beyonce Twins”…
Or what of the long-term marriage of Kris Kardashian/Jenner and Bruce, née Caitlyn, Jenner?
Oh what a “love”/family life those two must have had all those years together. Who could safely posit what went down there, in that “love nest”, daily:
“We’s gonna get together, swap spit, bump pussies, and giggle?”
But what a mega fortune that marriage in media/money heaven accrued for those two.
What a mega fortune.
As John Kander and Fred Ebb said in a song from Cabaret, that legendary Broadway Musical from 1966:
"If you happen to be rich
And you feel like a night's entertainment
You can pay for a gay escapade.
If you happen to be rich and alone
And you need a companion
You can ring (ting-a-ling) for the maid."
Ask a successful older person if they have ever used their money, or their position, to impress a younger person for personal gain, be it sexual conquest, simple momentary attention, or other interpersonal dalliance. Or, on the other side, ask a very beautiful, or handsome, youth, if they have ever used their physical attributes for advancement with an older individual. But do either as an anonymous exercise. It has to be an anonymous query as I doubt the people involved will tell the truth about their actions.
People will lie as this is very personal shit, and embarrassing to many. People will lie about their actions. But these actions are so ubiquitous, so “EVERYDAY” common, as to be completely unnoticeable in 99% of its daily occurrences. And all the participants involved will lie about what has occurred to not call attention to their now:
Never would I.”
But this stuff happens every minute of the day.
This isn’t just a male thing you know, women do it too, and throughout history. It’s been immortalized in popular song, like:
“Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered”…
from the Broadway Musical Pal Joey. That ditty was sung in performance by a wily, horny, wealthy, grand dame who was pining away for her penniless younger swain.
While in Stephen Sondheim’s more recent, Broadway Musical, Follies...
... a female lead sings lovingly to her adoring (sic), philandering, and somewhat abusive (psychologically), husband (who she married for money), the song:
“Could I Leave You”…
“Could I leave you?
No, the point is, could you leave me?
Well, I guess you could leave me the house,
Leave me the flat,
Leave me the Braques and Chagalls and all that.
You could leave me the stocks for sentiment's sake
And ninety percent of the money you make.”
And of course our heroine above had found sexual release previously in the arms of a younger man long before this aural outburst; just like in Victorian England of yore:
“Could I bury my rage
With a boy half your age
In the grass? Bet your ass.
But I've done that already -- or didn't you know, love?”
So if it ain’t about money, and:
“what can you do for me lately?”
What is it about?
So it’s proven, all male/female, and same sex, sexual relationships, and marriage, throughout all of recorded history, are:
… at some point.
All of them.
And today it all continues on anon, just as always before. Youthful paramours of any stripe will pay for ice cream sodas, or some other sweet folly of the moment to attain the attention of their desired other.
“Can I carry your backpack?
Present day studies have shown that the majority of all sex interactions between teenagers qualifies as transactional.
Today men frequently buy cocktails when they first meet their attraction du jour in a bar, or lounge. If a guy doesn’t reach for his wallet and pony-up cash, real quick, for those first libations, he don’t get no chance to pony-up the bigger dollars for dinner down the road. And with no dinner available, he’s sure to miss an opportunity to really…
Of course if that dinner goes well that next time the two are together, and dessert afterwards is rewarding to all, and the man has the opportunity to pay for more meals, and more desserts, he just might get the opportunity to pay for sex for the rest of his life.
At least that’s how it was before Women’s Liberation, and the 1960’s.
Love, life, money, sex, power in America 2018…
I wonder how the "ME TOO" movement percolating merrily along today will affect the above. Those guilty of sexual harassment, unsolicited, unwanted, "sexual transactions" are to be exposed and dismembered forthwith. All heinous, bad behavior, to female kind (and other), must be obliterated ever more. And finally, a half century plus after the birth of the modern Women's Liberation movement justice will be done.
Except, not so long ago, a strong plurality of women, if not "Me Too" compatriots exactly, voted in the Chief Perpetrator of Heinous Assaults on Womankind:
Mr. "Grab Em by the Pussy" himself, Donald Trump...
… into the highest office of the land. And, at the same time, that same female plurality gave control of 67% of the Statehouses and Governorships of America to The Donald's:
"Family Values", CHRISTIAN, Republican Party.
The whole transactional sex marriage/religious "fundamentalist" enchilada was empowered in one place so to speak. All of it in in one governmental pot...
So "Me Too" today, "Me Too" tomorrow, the majority of those REPUBLICAN power brokers ain't going away, not before the next election in 2020 certainly, and who knows if even then. History kind of supports the fact that a lot of women vote for these people, and support them often, year, after year, after year.
As to Me Too, the jury is still out on the charges against many of the perps still in power. And not all claims of injustice are equal, nor are all reactions to the differing crimes the same...
In fact. "many people" are looking at, and for, distinctions within the "Me Too" hysteria, and there could be blowback, a severe reaction to the steps forward being advocated by many to alleviate what is a heinous circumstance. But as some in the know say:
And The Donald has time in power, and the Republicans in the State Legislatures could win again...
Lord knows women have voted for all of them all before, and OFTEN; and again, and again, and again.
And well, there's all that ancient history, all of that past social behavior, "the human genome" perhaps to be dealt with if you will.
All of those past patterns to overcome.