What sort of female seeks a sugardaddy and other such questions?

[d'Arthez]

Who said that I condemn the practice of arranged marriages, moi? That would be the typical Western vision creeping through, would not it? Ethics is not about explaining history. Just as the murder of J.F. Kennedy has nothing to do with the aerodynamics of a spaceshuttle.

 

Do you want to accept the consequences of relativistic ethics, moi? If so, how can a Canadian comment with any right on the practice of the death penalty which exists in a number of states in the United States?

 

As for the quaintness, I accept that.

[moimeme]

Who said that I condemn the practice of arranged marriages, moi?

 

Um. Not me. However I am drawing a parallel between women 'sold' to husbands they don't necessarily love in return for financial gain and what these women are doing. It's just that there's no middlemen anymore. So if 'selling' a woman to a man is reprehensible if the woman herself does it, why isn't it if her parents do it?

 

Ethics is not about explaining history. Just as the murder of J.F. Kennedy has nothing to do with the aerodynamics of a spaceshuttle.

 

Neither statement makes sense. You claim there are 'universal' ethics; which means they transcend space AND time, no? Therefore they should apply to the past as well as now.

 

Do you want to accept the consequences of relativistic ethics, moi?

 

I'm sorry, but you are working from a bogus definition of relativism. Sadly, most folks have it wrong.

 

If so, how can a Canadian comment with any right on the practice of the death penalty which exists in a number of states in the United States?

 

A Canadian who is even moderately versed in logic can quite easily remark upon the hypocrisy of proclaiming a 'culture of life' which, apparently, only extends to certain select people. Brown people who live overseas and other 'undesirables', it seems, don't actually deserve to live after all in this 'culture of life'.

[lindya]

Bloody hell. From sugar daddies to moral relativism.

 

d'Arthez, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that moimeme is a relativist - and if so why? Moimeme - what is the correct definition of relativism?

 

My knowledge of philosophy is pretty much limited to Sophie's World, but I'd say whichever of you can produce an answer in layman's terms is the one who best knows what he/she is talking about.

[d'Arthez]

My statement does make sense, if you read in your remark:

So these ethics apply around the world? Gee. How would that explain arranged marriages that were common - um - everywhere?

a suggestion of a connection (suggested by the "that") between ethics and its explanatory power of a practice that was once common in certain parts of the world. My retort was as nonsensical as the suggested connection.

 

However, ethics are never absolute, and 'right' is never an eternal right; in that sense they are relative, but related to the level of civilization (attained). And not in the sense of 'as long as it does not hurt me, I am okay with it', which is the sense relativism is most used in. That is why I detest using the word 'relativistic.'

 

The only objection I made against the whole arrangement is, that having a sugar daddy possibly does not improve either the woman, or the man involved. That is the most important demand we make, of ourselves, and others. And yes, I believe abundance in certain aspects (material things) is actually detrimental to that.

 

to Lindya: I believe moimeme and I have had this confusion over moral relativism once before. She is no relativist, in the sense I used the word in a previous reply.

[lindya]

The only objection I made against the whole arrangement is, that having a sugar daddy possibly does not improve either the woman, or the man involved. That is the most important demand we make, of ourselves, and others. And yes, I believe abundance in certain aspects (material things) is actually detrimental to that.

 

to Lindya: I believe moimeme and I have had this confusion over moral relativism once before. She is no relativist, in the sense I used the word in a previous reply.

 

Thank you.

 

Who's to say there's no scope for personal improvement within these relationships? The sugar daddy/young girl arrangement could be mutually beneficial to both parties. Regular sex might help the old bloke's health in some ways. Also, he might have a greater exposure to pop culture and technical gadgetry than he would have without the young woman's involvement.

 

From the young woman's point of view, a rich old man's sex-toy will get a higher hourly rate than MacDonalds workers do. If she's a student, this will leave her with more time on her hands to pore over books and improve her mind. She might also have higher status amongst men in her peer group due to the unattainable air that an intelligent and sophisticated young women who has a discreet arrangement with an older man can exude.

 

Don't forget that an older man might be more likely to demand that she work on her mind and talents. The sugar-daddy/young girl of arrangement is by no means restricted to candy-floss haired 18 year olds and 80 year old porn kings - though the underlying motives are probably less variable than the type of participant involved.

[moimeme]

Since I last studied meta-ethics, there has been a fair bit of slippage in terminology, it seems. The purest concept of relativism seems to be referred to as 'cultural relativism' by some. Essentially, the theory is that ethics are relative to the moral norms of one's own culture.

 

My survey study of ethics in different cultures revealed that Eastern and Southern (that is hemispheres, not parts of North America!) were more focused on group rights and individual obligations with respect to the group whereas Western and Northern cultures are more focused on individual rights to the extent that the concept of concomitant obligations is all but lost.

 

IMHO, both viewpoints have merit and we in the West and North would do well to adopt some of the norms that are more common to the East and South. And vice versa.

 

However, unfortunately, the concept of relativism takes a beating when critics, as they will, examine only the negative examples that come from the East and South to make the argument that relativism is wrong. Which, in itself, is a form of relativism since it refuses to acknowledge the good in other cultures.

 

In essence, meta-ethics requires that the observer examine ethics from outside of his/her own ethical mores i.e. to be completely objective. However, since it is virtually impossible to be objective if you are the product of a culture, it's a challenge.

[westernxer]

Originally posted by lindya

Don't forget that an older man might be more likely to demand that she work on her mind and talents.

 

I'd love to see that...

[MySugaree]

The only objection I made against the whole arrangement is, that having a sugar daddy possibly does not improve either the woman, or the man involved. That is the most important demand we make, of ourselves, and others. And yes, I believe abundance in certain aspects (material things) is actually detrimental to that.

 

 

Why the elevation of the bourgeoise notion of "improvement"? Today's dictum is: "I improve, therefore I am." That's bunk. The very notion of "improvement" especially in the dynamic, contextual sense of an ongoing relationship, is a fiction.One likes the person thus one believes that this person , or one's positive "feelings" towards the other, "improves" one. It's the intellecual, moral and supreme arrogance of bourgeoise "romantic" love, which enjoys a hegemony on popular taste and consciousness. Another dictum: "I love a sexual partner, therefore I am."

 

Fortunately, the way folks actually live and structure their relationships are much more varied, nuanced, herterodox and rich than the tired Hallmark card nostrums of the Dr. Phil set. A sugardaddy relationship, which is actually a relationship where money (or other consideration) is exchanged for sex and companionship, is quite rational. Both parties have rational incentives: the older man, who has the disposable income, seeks sex, solace and conpanionship from a younger person, who does not. The younger person gets needed financial assistance as he or she starts out in life. Cash for strokes.

 

My question is not why they're sugardaddy relationships , but why they're not more. Rational incentives abound for such relationships, which are more honest than the romantic love hokum we get on Lifetime.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by MySugaree

Why the elevation of the bourgeoise notion of "improvement"? Today's dictum is: "I improve, therefore I am." That's bunk. The very notion of "improvement" especially in the dynamic, contextual sense of an ongoing relationship, is a fiction.One likes the person thus one believes that this person , or one's positive "feelings" towards the other, "improves" one. It's the intellecual, moral and supreme arrogance of bourgeoise "romantic" love, which enjoys a hegemony on popular taste and consciousness. Another dictum: "I love a sexual partner, therefore I am."

 

I don't believe that a pure rationalistic description of a human as an animal sex-machine, that decays with age, is adequate. If you do believe in that, however a sugardaddy relationship makes perfect sense. However, are there more sugardaddies than sugarmommies? That would make no sense from this point of view.

 

The second dictum is contradictory with the whole set-up of the sugardaddy relationship you described MySugaree. Such a relationship is not different from quite a few marriages, albeit with more honesty (if sugardaddy is not married and deceiving, and the woman is not deceiving a partner she might have), and less formal ties. The latter point can be advantageous to both people involved.

 

Remember, the women who actively seek for this kind of relationship (if I may base myself on the first few posts in this thread) are in it for the money, and not for the relationship itself.

 

The companionship is bought. The solace is bought. But the exchange is unequal. Companionship is given, because the purse was opened. But how can the companionship itself be mutually satisfying? It can't.

If one thing is bourgeois, it is exactly the sugardaddy relationship. You exchange unequals for each other. You pay money for companionship, solace and sex. That it appears perfectly rational to you MySugaree, points to the fact that you are more bourgeois than you may want to admit.

[westernxer]

Originally posted by MySugaree

My question is not why they're sugardaddy relationships , but why they're not more. Rational incentives abound for such relationships, which are more honest than the romantic love hokum we get on Lifetime.

 

Good way to look at it...

 

(I hope you don't watch Lifetime. )