Why do people glorify the parasitic lifestyle?

Post Reply New Topic

Kim D
I was trying to be ironic. Who is this "people" that glorify parasitic lifestyle? Are the poor parasites or the futile ladies dressing 150000 thousend dollars "haute couture" dresses for charity dinners?

Sorry for that Starkid . Anyway I believe read my message.

After 30 years of slavery to the corporate world, I can assure you that there is no difference between employment and "the parasitic lifestyle." The corporate world takes all you have, including your values, your family, your health, etc. There's no job security for either occupation. The only thing the corporate world can offer is a possible tolerance for wrinkles.

"Sorry for that Starkid . Anyway I believe read my message".... I meant I believe you read my message.

I understand the original post to be about people who don't really want to work deliberately trying to mooch money off people they don't care about, while pretending that they actually do.

To oversimplify, I think that both people who really want a lot for basically nothing (and I don't paint "the poor" with a broad brush as lazy, greedy, selfish, or whatever) and those who play the Hollywood/rich and famous glamour game are pretty sad. HOWEVER, I also acknowledge that whatever my opinions are, someone, somewhere, is itching to bash me for being a Commie/Socialist/tax-and-spender, or an insignificant busybody who doesn't have the right to decide how anyone else should spend their money, so I hereby present my disclaimer to them. I see multiple sides to this sort of thing.

Sorry I didn't get your sarcasm. We're cool?

..., huh...

I feel similarly to the OP about it.

But, the whole sugar daddy arrangement is such a common thing that there is a website designed to match women with sugar daddies. I think I saw it on some tv news program. It's at least a national Canadian website, but I think it included the USA as well. I remember them reporting on the average monthly "allowance" girls were given in each city, how many wealthy men were on the site for each city, and how many girls seeking wealthy men.

It's almost prostitution, considering the girls get money and the guys get (in most cases) sex - but it's not quite as dirty or stigmatizing, I suppose. In some cases there is no sex, just dates/arm candy or even companionship and conversation. Bizarre to me, but whatever, if that's how these ultra rich guys want to spend their money and how these girls want to earn it.. well, to each their own.

I guess for the guys it's the bragging rights of having some hot young thing to call on and show off to their buddies, and for the girls it's some older successful businessman with deep pockets to do the same thing with. If they're all mutually consenting adults, then whatever.. but yeah, no, not for me. Even if I had a LOT of money I couldn't imagine ever entering into this sort of arrangement with someone. It's just... creepy? It'd feel like a prostitute/John scenario to me, and that's just not something I'm personally comfortable with.

One of them is seekingarrangement.com. There are sugar mommies and sugar daddies looking for sugar babies of either sex, but mostly daddies. A friend of mine knew a young guy who had an older sugar daddy who would give the younger guy things, sometimes just for physical affection. Sad.

obsession with hierarchies.

That's how I feel about it. It's like a business arrangement.

I've been accosted of being a parasite because I was on SSI & latter SSDI because of physical disabilities I was I was born with. I tried my hardest to find a job but I was very limited with my disabilities. I had no choice but to live with my parents who resented me living there. I live with my girlfriend now who's on SSI & has Section 8 housing voucher & I'm alot happier. It's not that I don't want to work; I averaged over 55 hours a week when I was allowed to make over-time. I try not to think of myself as being a parasite but it's hard not to sometimes when people like my parents look down on me & pressure me about not working.

I think the latter is somewhat of a new idea in some cultures/history...though not all. But historically females have depended on their husband or other males to take care of them financially. In fact its fairly recent that a majority of females are working and living more independently...so I imagine the conditioning or whatever hasn't entirely worn off the face of society. So that could be a factor...Then of course said person could always decide they don't want to be with someone they'd be taking care of financially, but I have seen males express being perfectly willing to do that more than once.

But yeah I think that lifestyle could suck, especially if the guy ends up being a total jerk or even abusive and than holds your dependence above your head, or in some cases one party could put on an act about how much they care and bla bla bla when they're just taking advantage and don't really care about that person, more what they get out of that person.

Would you define a housewife as "parasitic", or do you only mean somebody who catches a guy with money just because he's got money and wants to spend it on her? That's basically a lease agreement with a whore. It's longer term than turning a trick, but that's all that basically is. I'm not saying that to be mean to girls who do that, I know one lady who survives that way and has for 20 years, but I'm just wondering if you put housewives in the same category, considering that we bring no financial help to the table, we just clean it and cook the food that goes on it.

Perhaps....

But WE ARE ALL viewed as commodities. To your government, you have no value beyond that of a CONSUMER. Once you cease to serve that purpose, they'd just as soon be rid of you.

The bias is that we can call it "bad" when women are subjugated but seemingly ignore that EVERYONE (including men) are objectified on some level and viewed as a resource to be consumed and then discarded.

Yes, there are hundreds of radio talk shows who disparage "welfare" without realizing that one of the very first acts of the Continental Congress was to pay government-assistance benefits to those veterans and their families of the Revolutionary War who were killed or injured because they had contributed to the nation's military security. Well, those who have contributed to the nation's economic security today should argue that the government owed them some assistance, too. Contributed security shouldn't matter what the condition of the contributor was or is.

agree.

Subjugation isn't the same thing as objectification, and neither one of them is the same thing as commodification. You are stretching the boundaries of the subject to fit in your own point, which is irrelevant to my point and irrelevant to the point to which I was responding (which was about womyn getting husbands to take care of them financially). I hope you don't imagine that you are describing my bias. If you want to see true bias, try tracking all the times someone chimes in with "that happens to men to!" (even if it doesn't) whenever someone mentions some negative aspect of womyn's lives (hint, hint).

I'm about done with WP. You are not living in reality if you think womyn's problems of any type generally get more attention or are viewed as worse in relation to men's.