Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Shouldn't it be Heather Mills paying Paul McCartney?
In a fair world, Lady Mucca, aka Heather Mills, would be charged with perjury and assault for her behaviour in the courtroom, and instead of getting any money at all in her own name (as against for her daughter, of course) ordered to pay back Sir Paul McCartney some of the large amount of money she has made off the back of his name; and to pay an additional amount as consideration for her lying attempts to damage his reputation, and to cover some of his loss of income through the blunting of his creative edge as a result of the marriage.
Some commentators have compared Mucca to a prostitute, but this is being very unkind to that profession. Unless you're as daft as Mr Spitzer, prostitutes are a lot cheaper than Mucca's hourly rate (several hundred pounds based on the £24 million for the short marriage). What is more, prostitutes ask for the money and negotiate up-front. It's only at the bottom end of the market that the service can fall way short of that promised, and it is only the criminals amongst them who, after providing the service, pretend their fee is higher than what had been negotiated.
What is promising about the judgement in this divorce case is the small fraction of the ex-husband's assets that have been awarded to the ex-wife. If such a ratio was applied in the cases of ordinary mortals, then the gravy train of divorce would really come off the rails.
The one justifiable basis in fairness (as opposed to law) for Mucca to get any award at all is that the case was initiated by Sir Paul. The great majority of divorces are initiated by the wife. If we had divorce law that properly rewarded unjustified breach of contract with no money at all, then what a better world it would be. You could go much further. Marriage for the great majority of wives is a clear benefit, in that they are supported to fulfil evolved natural roles as mother and home-maker. For men, unless they are in the small minority who really do enjoy their jobs, marriage is much more like a cost. Isn't there a case that a wife who for no good reason leaves the husband who has been consistently providing for her, owes her husband a refund?
Messenger on the move… Text MSN to 63463 now!
Some commentators have compared Mucca to a prostitute, but this is being very unkind to that profession. Unless you're as daft as Mr Spitzer, prostitutes are a lot cheaper than Mucca's hourly rate (several hundred pounds based on the £24 million for the short marriage). What is more, prostitutes ask for the money and negotiate up-front. It's only at the bottom end of the market that the service can fall way short of that promised, and it is only the criminals amongst them who, after providing the service, pretend their fee is higher than what had been negotiated.
What is promising about the judgement in this divorce case is the small fraction of the ex-husband's assets that have been awarded to the ex-wife. If such a ratio was applied in the cases of ordinary mortals, then the gravy train of divorce would really come off the rails.
The one justifiable basis in fairness (as opposed to law) for Mucca to get any award at all is that the case was initiated by Sir Paul. The great majority of divorces are initiated by the wife. If we had divorce law that properly rewarded unjustified breach of contract with no money at all, then what a better world it would be. You could go much further. Marriage for the great majority of wives is a clear benefit, in that they are supported to fulfil evolved natural roles as mother and home-maker. For men, unless they are in the small minority who really do enjoy their jobs, marriage is much more like a cost. Isn't there a case that a wife who for no good reason leaves the husband who has been consistently providing for her, owes her husband a refund?
Messenger on the move… Text MSN to 63463 now!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Spitzer and prostitution
The appeal of prostitutes is simple: it satisfies universal male desire for novel sexual partners. It's a desire which usually cannot be met through the women a man can get by virtue of his status -- most men are not high enough in status for women to find them attractive enough to agree to no-strings sex. (Most men have to promise reliability to make up for their low status, by agreeing to a life that, pejoratively speaking, is as the wage-slave of a wife.)
If, on the other hand, like Spitzer you have status by the bucketful, then it's a very different problem that prostitution solves. Casual sex partners for these men are readily available, but the women are liable to want more than casual sex, of course. They'd like to convert the casual sex into a relationship. And they have a lever with which to do this: the threat to tell the wife -- with a hefty dose of exaggeration to make out that the full-blown affair they're after has already come into being.
Hence the old adage that paying a prostitute is not so much paying a rent for temporary use of her body than it is paying her to go away afterwards.
If, on the other hand, like Spitzer you have status by the bucketful, then it's a very different problem that prostitution solves. Casual sex partners for these men are readily available, but the women are liable to want more than casual sex, of course. They'd like to convert the casual sex into a relationship. And they have a lever with which to do this: the threat to tell the wife -- with a hefty dose of exaggeration to make out that the full-blown affair they're after has already come into being.
Hence the old adage that paying a prostitute is not so much paying a rent for temporary use of her body than it is paying her to go away afterwards.
With prostitution, men are of course happy to be relieved of any pretence they might have to make to a casual sex partner that the sex is anything other than casual. But that's not a desire for some different form of sex. It's just a desire for less hassle, and to be allowed to be honest. The feminist myth that prostitution is exploitation by men of women -- rather than the reality that it is exploitation of men by women -- extends to imagining that men want through prostitution some sort of overtly exploitative interaction that they can't get normally. They want nothing of the kind. Such notions are complete baloney.
Extra-pair sex with novel sexual partners is exactly what it seems. It's sex. It's as simple as that.
_________________________________________________________________
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox.
