Welcome to The Purse Forum, the Internet's #1 community for handbag lovers and shoulder fashion fetishists! Over 150,000 members have contributed over 8 million posts in 339,000+ threads about the hottest 'it' bags of the seasons, they've evaluated eBay sellers and other online stores and discussed a variety of other topics...

You currently are not logged in and are viewing the Purse Forum as a guest. This enables you to read most of our content. If you would like to actively participate in current threads or create your own, view or post pictures, vote in polls, privately interact with any of our members or use all the other features of this site, you will need to register for free with a valid email address and a user name of choice. Join our fast growing community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 07:50 AM   #1
Global Moderator
 
Prada's Meadow's Avatar
 
Location: New York New York
Arrow When Did It become Acceptable To Be A Gold-digger?

I found this article interesting.

When did it become acceptable to be a gold-digger?

After all, isn't a woman who sleeps with a man for money - or at least for extensive use of his credit card - called something else?
But then, 'prostitute' doesn't have quite the same glamorous, diamond-encrusted platinum ring to it, does it?

A new French film opens in the UK this week called Priceless.
It tells the story of a woman who selects her mates entirely on the basis of the size of their wallets.

Who needs sexual chemistry when you can have cold hard cash?


Determined: Audrey Tautou in the new film Priceless
Audrey Tautou is predictably Gallic and gamine in the lead role, but underneath the pretty tousled hair and shiny Chanel handbags, the message is an ugly one.
A man exists not as an equal partner in a kind, loving, relationship, but merely as someone to be fleeced for as much money as possible.

How depressing and how insulting to the millions of women who don't live their lives according to these mercenary rules.
While we are the majority, the sad fact is, we are all judged as a result of movies like this.
It makes us all look cheap. Priceless cannot be blamed alone.
The message it delivers is one that has been subtly gaining currency in recent times and not just on film.
A string of high-profile divorce cases - most notably that of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, where she walked away with £24 million, but also that of Susan Sangster, who amassed a fortune of £18 million from three marriages (before ex-husband number four successfully got a judge to call a halt to her divorce trolley dash) - contribute to the growing view that women are for sale and men are to be used as human cashpoints.

There is also, of course, the whole WAG phenomenon, predicated almost entirely on a cynical pact between rich, bored, badly behaved men (Ashley Cole comes to mind) and the women who want to live off them.
The gaggle of wannabe WAGs hovering outside any nightclub frequented by Premier League footballers is proof that there is an increasing number of women who believe that far from having their own life and their own job, the notion of being a human leech is to some degree a preferable career.
As evidence that bleeding a man dry is on the up, there is now a fashion label called Golddigga and even websites such as www.golddiggers. uk.com, devoted to ways of hooking a rich guy.
Click on www.sugardaddyforme.com and the deal being struck is clear.
A glamorous-looking young woman appears on the screen. 'Attractive, ambitious, insatiable,' it reads.

In other words, she's offering sex on tap. When the picture of the tastefully greying man floats into view, it says: 'Affluent, caring, generous.'
Yet, we're not supposed to call these women prostitutes. That would be rude.

But the line between the girl who asks for cash up front and the one who is taken to a designer boutique to choose the latest handbag is surely now as thin as the strap on a La Perla push-up bra.
I write as someone who could have taken the gold-digger route on two occasions.


On the first, I met a chap on a plane. He was sitting next to me in business class. We chatted politely and then the subject moved to shopping. 'I like to buy nice things for ladies,' he said.

I noted the plural.

'Would you like me to take you shopping when we land?' he asked.
That was too naked a business deal for me, which was what I presumed he would expect in return, so I declined. On the second occasion, I met a man at a very posh party. He dealt in diamonds.

He was persistent and persuasive and, in the end, I agreed to have dinner with him.

When he arrived, his chauffeur gave me a look as I got in which said: 'So, you're the new one?'

At the restaurant, the maitre d', who clearly knew my date well, did the same thing.

Before the starter had even been served, my dinner partner took a small packet out of his pocket, carefully unwrapped it and slid something across the table, with the words: 'So what does it take to become your lover?' I looked down and saw it was a diamond.
I could have taken it. I didn't. I felt insulted, cheapened. I pushed it back across the table.

Looking back, I should have walked out, but the whole episode felt so surreal that I didn't feel fully enraged until afterwards and a small part of me also thought it would, perhaps, be rude to walk out.
But a growing number of women would slip that diamond straight in their handbag.
Let's not get this out of proportion.
Of course, it is still only a tiny percentage of women that would dream of behaving like this; it's just that percentage - which is rising - think what they do is so acceptable. Listen to Sophie Sharp, a dancer from Bromley in Kent, who says: 'I've always been into expensive clothes and accessories and think nothing of paying £400 for a dress.
But on my earnings it was hard to afford everything I wanted.' Well, um, yes it would be. Still, Sophie's solution was not to visit Primark but to get herself a sugar daddy instead. 'My friends told me to go to Chinawhite (the fashionable club in London),' she reveals.

So she put on her best low-cut black frock and, hey presto, she'd hooked herself a Dubai businessman. 'I didn't find him attractive,' she admits.

Even so, she accepted his offer to take her shopping.

A total of £2,500 later, she says, he flew back to Dubai with nothing more than a chaste peck on the cheek in return, to which it's tempting to say, is a likely story.

Sophie's current sugar daddy is a personal trainer with a celebrity client list. He runs a chain of gyms.

He has given her a one-bedroom house of her own near Bromley and presented her with a brand new £18,000 Toyota MR2 sports car just two months after meeting her.

They do have sex, and she says: 'I love him,' although whether she'd love him if he was a street sweeper is an open question.


Is Audrey's character is an insult to women ?

In Sophie's world, being a golddigger is par for the course. All Sophie's friends are doing the same.

'I have friends who are dating rich men just to get designer clothes and jewellery, and one who was seeing a 50-year-old just so he would pay for her to have breast implants,' she says.
__________________
Prada's Meadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 07:53 AM   #2
Global Moderator
 
Prada's Meadow's Avatar
 
Location: New York New York
Default

Rachel MacLynn is head of global membership for millionaires-only networking service Seventy Thirty.
'There are gold-diggers everywhere in London and other British cities. I'm constantly approached by young women,' she says.
'They are desperate for me to match them with our millionaire members.

'One posh girl in her early 30s approached me at a swish members club in West London and said she'd be willing to date any man up to the age of 80.
' What's interesting about the new breed of gold-digger is that they tend to be well-educated and come from good families.


Jess Kent, 23, a promotional assistant, is the daughter of a surgeon and a teacher from Northampton. She was just 17 when she told her parents she was flying to the Mediterranean for a modelling job. In fact, she had arranged a liaison with her 52-year-old boyfriend, who spent a small fortune with her at the roulette tables in Monte Carlo.

Or what about Natalie Parker, 24, who's studying French and Spanish at university in Southampton? Her parents - a property developer and a housewife - live in a four-bedroom, four-bathroom house with a gym and a pool in Spain.

'I've always dated wealthy men, even though I've not really been attracted to them,' Natalie muses.

So, has she ever had to offer sex with a sugar daddy to secure a lavish gift?
'Some of these men do want more at the end of the night,' she concedes, without actually answering the question.

It is worth saying that the men are not blameless in this unpleasant sex for designer clothes/ jewellery/breast implants transaction. A man who buys a woman is no better than the woman who agrees to sell herself. It all reduces human interaction to the level of a business deal.
Still, it is the women's attitudes that are so shocking. It's as if feminism never happened. Did it ever occur to Sophie or Heather or all the other young women who now aspire to be golddiggers, that they could work to provide a life for themselves rather than just expect a guy to buy it for them?

Looking further ahead, do these girls know the sort of deal they are doing? They are not only throwing away any moral sense, but also their independence, control of their own lives and self-respect.

If the deal is sex for money, the man with the cash may decide to go shopping himself elsewhere.

In Priceless, Audrey Tautou is locked out of her hotel room by one wealthy lover, leaving her standing shivering in a bikini. In the real world, a relationship where there is such an imbalance of power, where one partner has basically bought the other, might just about work if things go well.
But if Mr Rich tires of Ms Golddigger, he simply trades her in for a younger, firmer rival.

I didn't take the gold-digger route because I think it is wrong. It is insulting to men and it cheapens women. Every woman who does it polishes an image of womankind that the rest of us then have to try to argue against.

It makes us all look as if we are for sale for the price of a pair of Gucci shoes. I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had with men where they have said that basically all a woman is interested in is how much money they have and the size of their car.

When I explain that I have never dated a man for his money, nor have any of my girlfriends, that we have jobs and homes of our own and we wouldn't dream of expecting a boyfriend to provide either, they look at me with disbelief.

The image of womanhood that the gold-digger propagates is one of a greedily acquisitive airhead. She never reads a book or a newspaper, but knows the ticket price for the latest designer handbag.
Consumption replaces affection.

Her diamante sandals may be lovely and sparkly, but she tarnishes all of us.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...olddigger.html





Additional reporting: Sadie Nicholas
__________________
Prada's Meadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 08:19 AM   #3
Take me to LV
 
mellecyn's Avatar
 
Location: 300 km from LV somewhere in Europe
Default

Very interesting article, thank you Prada.

I think that feminism has given the choice to women, the choice to live their lives as they want. A few may be Gold diggers....not sure if it“s more than before though.
I couldn“t think of a life as a business deal, I believe in love...love...love !!
As the article mentions who can blame these women for throwing shame on women in general, the men they meet are exactly the same....throwing shame on men. They meet each other and do their business and so what.
__________________
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete" Buckminster Fuller
mellecyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 09:40 AM   #4
Bonjour!
 
IntlSet's Avatar
 
Location: Chicago
Default

In my opinion, what a woman chooses to do is her choice as an individual. I think it's beyond silly to say that these movies and these sort of women "reflect badly on all of us," as the writer of the article stated. I don't believe women are here to judge other women's lifestyles, just as we prefer for them not to judge ours... that's what feminism is: a freedom of choice, and the fitness of that choice is justified only by your own judgment.

And frankly, if the women want money, and the men want women, then what's the problem? Sounds like a good match to me!

I have MORE than a few girlfriends who date men for their wallets, and their men are happy to have a hot girl on their arm -- and willing to more or less pay for it. Does this make them prostitutes? No. It makes them women who have prioritized money over love. We can debate over the merits of money and love, but at the end of the day, there's no point in criticizing how other women choose to live.
IntlSet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 10:14 AM   #5
Member
 
Jahpson's Avatar
 
Location: The Playground
Default

^^ Intlset, get out of my head!!

thats the first thing that came to my mind. That woman does NOT reflect me.

Some women choose men for the superficial and empty reasons. Others (such as myself) choose them for the purpose they are...partners in all aspects
__________________
Amazingly Sophisticated




Happy Holidays to all my TPF friends!
Jahpson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 10:23 AM   #6
Member
 
Default

I agree with IntlSet.

Alot of men gladly pay to have some hot chick on their arm and I view it as a win-win situation. He gets the arm candy, she gets the goods. It's not prostitution. Come on, alot of girls have sex with their boyfriends and their bfs give them presents and stuff, too. What's the difference?

It's a matter of personal choice
gucci_advocate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 10:27 AM   #7
christmas in 22 days
 
imashopaholic's Avatar
 
Location: Australia
Default

Each to their own I say. If the girl's happy to be bedding someone grandpa's age, and he's willing to pay her way so be it. They know what they're in for so nobody's getting hurt.
imashopaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 10:33 AM   #8
Hmmmph
 
nataliam1976's Avatar
 
Location: all around Europe
Default

but then in all fairness, isnt being an arm candy and sleeping with someone for the wallet only a sort of one man escort/prostitution?

To clarify I have nothing against prostitution as long as its voluntary and conscious choice and I think it should be legalized, but I dont see much difference between the two, to be honest. They are just selling themselves to one man instead of to many, but the fact stays.
__________________
"Buy me, Lady" said the frock, "and I will make you into a BEAUTIFUL and WHOLE and COMPLETE human being".
"Do not be SILLY", said the Man, " for a frock alone cannot do that".
"TRUE" said the Lady. " I shall have the Shoes and the Bag as well".







nataliam1976 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 10:41 AM   #9
Member
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nataliam1976 View Post
but then in all fairness, isnt being an arm candy and sleeping with someone for the wallet only a sort of one man escort/prostitution?

To clarify I have nothing against prostitution as long as its voluntary and conscious choice and I think it should be legalized, but I dont see much difference between the two, to be honest. They are just selling themselves to one man instead of to many, but the fact stays.

But alot of girls sleep with their boyfriends and they give them gifts too, right....? I don't know, both situations seem similar to me- just that in one situation, the man is rich, and in the other, the man is the average Joe.

By the way I read a university reading which said that stay-at-home wives are like legalized prostitutes (no offence to home makers- I'm just quoting what the article said). You perform wifely duties in exchange for money from your husband.

Just sharing an interesting viewpoint...
gucci_advocate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 10:42 AM   #10
Hmmmph
 
nataliam1976's Avatar
 
Location: all around Europe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gucci_advocate View Post
I agree with IntlSet.

Alot of men gladly pay to have some hot chick on their arm and I view it as a win-win situation. He gets the arm candy, she gets the goods. It's not prostitution. Come on, alot of girls have sex with their boyfriends and their bfs give them presents and stuff, too. What's the difference?

It's a matter of personal choice
I think the difference is that the presents from boyfriends are an extra to the relationship and not a necessity and even more so, priority for the relationship to exist, KWIM?

Presuming you have an SO and he gives you expensive gifts...if he didnt would you still be with him if you felt loved and happy?
__________________
"Buy me, Lady" said the frock, "and I will make you into a BEAUTIFUL and WHOLE and COMPLETE human being".
"Do not be SILLY", said the Man, " for a frock alone cannot do that".
"TRUE" said the Lady. " I shall have the Shoes and the Bag as well".







nataliam1976 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 10:44 AM   #11
...is rebooting
 
~Fabulousity~'s Avatar
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntlSet View Post
In my opinion, what a woman chooses to do is her choice as an individual. I think it's beyond silly to say that these movies and these sort of women "reflect badly on all of us," as the writer of the article stated. I don't believe women are here to judge other women's lifestyles, just as we prefer for them not to judge ours... that's what feminism is: a freedom of choice, and the fitness of that choice is justified only by your own judgment.

And frankly, if the women want money, and the men want women, then what's the problem? Sounds like a good match to me!

I have MORE than a few girlfriends who date men for their wallets, and their men are happy to have a hot girl on their arm -- and willing to more or less pay for it. Does this make them prostitutes? No. It makes them women who have prioritized money over love. We can debate over the merits of money and love, but at the end of the day, there's no point in criticizing how other women choose to live.

Great Post! I totaly agree
__________________
Every adversity, every failure, and every heartache carries with it the seed of an equal or greater benefit

- Napoleon Hill
~Fabulousity~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 10:47 AM   #12
Hmmmph
 
nataliam1976's Avatar
 
Location: all around Europe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gucci_advocate View Post
But alot of girls sleep with their boyfriends and they give them gifts too, right....? I don't know, both situations seem similar to me- just that in one situation, the man is rich, and in the other, the man is the average Joe.

By the way I read a university reading which said that stay-at-home wives are like legalized prostitutes (no offence to home makers- I'm just quoting what the article said). You perform wifely duties in exchange for money from your husband.

Just sharing an interesting viewpoint...
Again i have no problem with any of it, but to me its more like a business deal than a true relationship, hence not really comparable, KWIM?

I think SAHMs is a completely different situations and since its usually related to raising children, I find comparing it to prostitution a very long and inadequate shot.
__________________
"Buy me, Lady" said the frock, "and I will make you into a BEAUTIFUL and WHOLE and COMPLETE human being".
"Do not be SILLY", said the Man, " for a frock alone cannot do that".
"TRUE" said the Lady. " I shall have the Shoes and the Bag as well".







nataliam1976 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 10:55 AM   #13
Member
 
Default

Frankly, I do think there are sacrifices when dating rich men- in Malaysia, for example, the Sultans have more than one wife (no different from rich men in the West who have mistresses, I believe).

There are 20something year olds who marry these 50 or 60 year old-princes and sultans because of their wealth (I assume). These girls have weighed their pros and cons- they know money can buy,say, 98% of things in the world and they can live without the remaining 2%- and decided to go for it.

It all depends on what you value, I guess. We can judge these girls all we want, but who knows, they may be very happy- probably happier than we are

Oh well, God knows.

Last edited by gucci_advocate; Jun 13th, 2008 at 11:00 AM.
gucci_advocate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 11:04 AM   #14
Hmmmph
 
nataliam1976's Avatar
 
Location: all around Europe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gucci_advocate View Post
Frankly, I do think there are sacrifices when dating rich men- in Malaysia, for example, the Sultans have more than one wife (no different from rich men in the West who have mistresses, I believe).

There are 20something year olds who marry these 50 or 60 year old-princes and sultans because of their wealth (I assume). These girls have weighed their pros and cons- they know money can buy,say, 98% of things in the world and they can live without the remaining 2%- and decided to go for it.

It all depends on what you value, I guess. We can judge these girls all we want, but who knows, they may be very happy- probably happier than we are

Oh well, God knows.
Just to clarify I am not judging anyone for choosing the way they want to live, more power to them if they dont need love to be happy. But I dont believe my relationship with SO is similar in any way to theirs with their sponsors .

Also I apologise for lack of knowledge, but I dont think the girls marrying sultans have similar opportunities to study, develop and be as feminist as western women.
__________________
"Buy me, Lady" said the frock, "and I will make you into a BEAUTIFUL and WHOLE and COMPLETE human being".
"Do not be SILLY", said the Man, " for a frock alone cannot do that".
"TRUE" said the Lady. " I shall have the Shoes and the Bag as well".







nataliam1976 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13th, 2008, 11:25 AM   #15
Bonjour!
 
IntlSet's Avatar
 
Location: Chicago
Default

I think part of the danger in all this is the initial assumption: that these women are with these men because of their money.

But wealth is often a consquence of other traits: intelligence, dedication, ambition... all of which are very attractive. Add power to that, since it often partnered with wealth... Power can be equated with charisma, and of course, security.

Relationships are a very individual choice for which there is no right or wrong. People always have a reason for what they do, and there's always a backstory we can't know.

And at the end of the day, if someone thinks someone else is less of a girlfriend than a prostitute -- well, what can you do? They are entitled to their opinion, and they have their own reasons for coming to that kind of conclusion.

There's always give and take in every relationship, so women have to choose what it is they value, and act on that. If what they value is money and security, or luxury and power, then by all means -- date men who can give you these things.

And who cares what anyone else thinks! If it's not a boyfriend's money, it's something else. People will always find a reason to talk and speculate.
IntlSet is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Purse Forum » The Playground » Relationships & Family  

Thread Tools