Is Dear Prudence going through menopause? What a fucking cunt!

I have a weakness for Emily Yoffe who writes as Dear Prudence over at Slate, and I usually find something to disagree with in her “advice”, but she really takes the cake in today’s column!  Seems like Prudie has been hitting the haterade a little hard these days.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/01/01/manners-i-wish-this-bitch-would-get-some/

Here’s the first letter:

I’m a 28-year-old male and have a 4-year-old daughter with my partner of nine years (we’re not married but completely committed). My daughter was not planned and I had serious reservations about having a child at such a young age, but there’s a lot of love in our family and everything has worked out. But since taking a new job several months ago, I’ve started feeling differently. All of my co-workers are young and I’ve made a few good friends, but I often have to decline invitations to events I’d really like to attend because of my family obligations, or because I can’t afford it. I’m the only one with a full plate of adult responsibilities, including supporting my partner, who is an artist and doesn’t bring home a paycheck every week. So I have to say no to joining them on road trips or at exclusive restaurants, because my weekend consists of toddler birthday parties and visits to the playground. It’s making me rueful that I’ve missed my 20s and worried I will wind up bitter no matter how much I love my family. How do I get out of this funk and regain happiness with my circumstances, and how do I face my co-workers every day when they’re a constant reminder of what I’m missing?

-Longing for Lost Youth

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2013/08/dear_prudence_i_missed_out_on_everything_by_having_a_kid.html

Okay, so Prudie starts off her answer by pointing out that while the letter writer has jumped the gun on the having kids stage of life, sooner or later most of his co-workers will catch up with him, and he can have a good chuckle at their bleary eyed shock when they find out babies aren’t really fond of the whole “sleep for eight hours on a corporate schedule” thing and then blissfully enjoy sleeping through the night.

Fair enough.  That’s what I would have answered, too.  You get your twenties or your forties, and quite frankly, there’s something rather nice about having the energy to take care of your children because you had them young enough, and knowing that by the time they are off to college, you yourself will still be young enough to do all those things you missed out on when you were younger.

Not to mention that couples who have their children while still relatively young are unlikely to find themselves facing the utter heartbreak of “Oops!  We left it too long and the eggs done flew the coop!” Infertility is a brutal sorrow, and the couples we know who decided that material possessions and fabulous experiences were far more important than children are now left with the bitterness of an album full of great vacation pics and a nursery that will never hold anything more than dreams.

But rather than point out all that, Prudie goes off onto a rant about how his lazy-ass partner better ruck up and start earning some cash, mostly to protect herself from the inevitable day when the letter writer decides to leave his child to starve in the gutters.

Now that you have a child, you two need to be more deliberate about what you want out of life. It’s fine if your child is an only, but if you want to expand your family, that’s a discussion you should be having. Being an artist can be a dream career, but since your partner is not make a living at it, it’s time she applied her skills to more remunerative endeavors, especially as your daughter gets ready for full-time schooling. If something happens to you, your partner will be completely financially vulnerable.

Oh, it’s time she applied her skills to more remunerative endeavors, is it?

Fuck you, Prudie.

And if by “something might happen to you” Prudie meant the letter writer might die or become disabled, she might have suggested the precaution of some insurance policies.  The implication is that the woman is vulnerable simply by virtue of being dependent on a man.  Because you know men, right? There’s nothing they enjoy more than walking off into the sunset and leaving a beloved child to suffer wretched poverty and a broken heart.

Rather than expressing gratitude for a man who is supporting his family and allowing the woman to whom he is committed to pursue her artistic dreams, Prudie instead insults both of them by casting her as a leech and him as someone not to be relied on.

Nice.

And it gets better!

Here is another letter:

My husband’s friend is a perpetual bachelor. He dates a girl for a few months, introduces her around, brings her to group functions, etc., and then dumps her once it has gotten too serious. Because the friend and my husband are close, I become the new best friend for the girlfriend du jour during camping trips, double dates, sports games, and happy hours with our group. The bachelor is charming and has the women believing everything is perfect until the breakup blindside. Then they are devastated and I end up having to deal with tearful phone calls and get-togethers while they ask me what went wrong. The most recent breakup involved a fragile woman with no close friends or family in town. I felt rude for not returning all the frantic calls and texts of this woman, but I’m frustrated that this draining duty always seems to fall on me. I’ve talked to the bachelor about it, and he says no one is forcing me to become friends with his girlfriends. That’s true, but it’s hard not to act like a decent human being to these women. How can I avoid this pitfall in the future?

—Sick of the Bachelor

A charming man dates women, introduces them to his social circle and has a habit of NOT stringing them along endlessly when he discovers they are not The One.  If the ladies in question are “blindsided” by the breakup, that strongly suggests that no lengthy period of playing games and putting up with squabbles and quarrels simply to get as much sex out of each relationship as possible is going on.

Bachelor dates women, and the minute he realizes he’s not with the right one, he breaks it off.

I dunno.  Seems to me to be EXACTLY how dating should happen.  When you know the relationship is not going to work out, put an end to it and move on.

What does Prudie think?

As was said of one character on King of the Hill, “He’s going to make some woman very happy. Until he makes her very sad.” You’ve talked to the bachelor about this problem, but I think you should bring this up with your husband. I hope by this point he’s getting a little squeamish about his friend’s manipulative and even sadistic pattern, and is willing to have a frank discussion. Whatever happens, you could also request your husband see the bachelor alone for lunch more often, for example, and have fewer group outings with him and his latest. But if inevitably there will be occasions when you’re with the new Patsy, I think you should give it to her straight. Do that thing where women go off to the bathroom in pairs. While there, as soon as she makes some noises about what a great guy Dick is, let her know he’s a cad. Explain you’ve been through this with endless women. He charms and misleads them and when they think things are going somewhere, he dumps them. That’s how he gets his thrills. Say you’re being so blunt because you just can’t stand to nurse anyone else through the inevitable. She’ll probably dismiss you because she knows this time it’s different. She might even report what you said back to Dick. If he brings it up with you, just tell him you look forward to being proven wrong.

Let’s take this apart, shall we?

As was said of one character on King of the Hill, “He’s going to make some woman very happy. Until he makes her very sad.”

Oh goodie.  Let’s begin with a reference to a very popular, very funny show about god-fearin’ ‘Murrican trash! We know what Prudie thinks of this whole crew right off the bat.

You’ve talked to the bachelor about this problem, but I think you should bring this up with your husband. I hope by this point he’s getting a little squeamish about his friend’s manipulative and even sadistic pattern, and is willing to have a frank discussion.

Manipulative and sadistic.  Manipulative and sadistic?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Nope, nope, nope.  Stringing women you have ZERO intention of pursuing a serious relationship with is manipulative and sadistic.  Keeping the booty call on stand-by while you scout for new talent is manipulative and sadistic.  Letting someone believe there is potential when there is NOT is manipulative and sadistic.

Finding a long series of women inadequate is neither of those things, but it sure pisses Prudie off, doesn’t it?  It’s almost like the Bachelor is working his way through some women who suck, and he refuses to settle.

What an asshole!

Whatever happens, you could also request your husband see the bachelor alone for lunch more often, for example, and have fewer group outings with him and his latest.

Oh, yes.  Interfere with your husband’s relationship with his friends.  Make him really uncomfortable and start determining where, when and under what circumstances he is allowed to see his friend. And if hubby doesn’t agree, you can always ground him or take away his phone privileges.

Excellent advice, Prudie.  I’m sure her husband will be thrilled.

But if inevitably there will be occasions when you’re with the new Patsy, I think you should give it to her straight. Do that thing where women go off to the bathroom in pairs. While there, as soon as she makes some noises about what a great guy Dick is, let her know he’s a cad. Explain you’ve been through this with endless women. He charms and misleads them and when they think things are going somewhere, he dumps them. That’s how he gets his thrills. Say you’re being so blunt because you just can’t stand to nurse anyone else through the inevitable.

Wow.

No.

Just no.

Do not do this.

First of all, you are betraying your husband by betraying his friend.  Why the fuck should you care what happens to the Bachelor’s women?  Where do your loyalties lie?  With other women deemed unacceptable?  You will stab your both your husband and his friend in the back to protect some woman that means nothing to you in the long run?

I can’t believe Prudie would suggest this.  And how does she know that the Bachelor gets his thrills by dumping women?  How does she know he is a cad?  And what is a cad anyways?

cad 

/kad/

Noun

A man who behaves dishonorably, esp. toward a woman.

Synonyms

scoundrel – boor – scamp

Again, how is it dishonorable to dump women you are no longer interested in?  Prudie just can’t wrap her mind around the fact that lots of women are simply not worth a man’s time.

I wonder what the Bachelor does for a living?  How exactly does he find all these women?  Who wants to bet he has a fairly high social status in his group?  A good income?  A bit of nice property?  Speculation, but no amount of screaming in the world is going to change the fact that men tend to value beauty and women value status.  If Bachelor has women lined up, it’s a pretty safe bet that he has something that women value.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402851/A-womans-beauty-really-IS-important-thing-man–women-social-status.html

And who is behaving dishonorably here, again?

She’ll probably dismiss you because she knows this time it’s different. She might even report what you said back to Dick. If he brings it up with you, just tell him you look forward to being proven wrong.

She MIGHT report what you said back to Dick?  Oh, honey, she most certainly WILL.  And no, you should not respond with some smug cunty statement like “I look forward to being proven wrong”.  All you are doing is making it clear that YOU think Dick the Bachelor IS a dick, and again, you are not going to please your husband or Dick by insulting him to his face.

You might just get your husband wondering why HE wasn’t a little more picky.

Here is what Prudie should have said:

Dick’s romantic life is really none of your business, and as an adult, you should assume he knows what he is doing and is perfectly happy with how his relationships work. If and when discarded ladies text or call you, you respond with this:

I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.

 

I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.

 

I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.

 

I’m really sorry things didn’t work out, but I am not the person you should be talking to.

Repeat until she gets it.  Refuse to comment on anyone’s love life but your own.  And as an aside, you should make a special effort to welcome any woman Dick decides to introduce you to.  It’s actually a compliment.  He wants to see how the women he dates interact with the people he loves most, and whose company he values.

I hope Sick of the Bachelor ignores Prudie and decides that Bachelor really is capable of handling his own affairs.  She will be making a big mistake to interfere with her husband’s friendship and the Bachelor’s love life.

You know, even if I have this dead wrong, and the Bachelor IS the kind of guy who is thrilled by the chase and loses all interest once it is over, the letter writer should STILL back the Bachelor.  You never takes side against your husband’s friends.  Not ever.

The people we marry come to us in a web of relationships, and it is not up to us to decide on our partner’s behalf which friends are acceptable and which are not.  I wouldn’t necessarily pick all my husband’s friends as my own, and some of my friends grate on his nerves, too.

I have, in fact, let friendships lapse because I could see that Mr. JB wasn’t particularly enamored of the friend in question. But that was MY decision. I am the one who stopped to consider if his dislike was grounded in any facts, and when I discovered that he had a REASON to dislike the person, I chose to let them go.

Because I know where my loyalties lie.

And that’s what it comes down to. Be loyal. Anything less is hard to forgive.

I place an enormous premium on loyalty. If someone betrays me, I can forgive them rationally, but emotionally I have found it impossible to do so.

Richard E. Grant

And don’t listen to Dear Prudence.  Her advice sucks.

Lots of love,

JB

Of course pretty girls are entitled to rich men! Duh! Also, stop celebrating marriages that have lasted. It’s not fair to all the fuck-ups. In other news, I must stop reading Dear Prudence.

 

Prepare to be gobsmacked! I certainly was. Two letters from Dear Prudence have left me feeling like a coked-up Dr. Freud: what the hell do women want, anyways?

 

 

Here’s the first one:

 

I’m recently engaged to the most honest, thoughtful, and loving man I’ve ever met. He has supported me through many hard times, including losing my job and being assaulted. Here’s the but about him: He makes no money. He has ambitions, and he’s smart, but will likely only bring a middle-class income at best. I have an OK job and I’m self-sufficient. Now here’s the but about me: I’m really, really pretty. My whole life people have told me I could get any man I want, meaning a rich man, and are shocked that I’m engaged to my fiancé, nice though he is. I’ve never dated a rich man, but it does make me curious. So part of me thinks I’m squandering my good looks on this poor man, and the other part of me thinks that I’m so shallow that I don’t even deserve him or anyone else. Am I a fool for thinking that a poor man can make me happy, or an idiot for believing a sexist fantasy?

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2013/05/dear_prudence_i_m_too_pretty_for_my_fiance.html

 

 

Run, Forest, run! That is seriously the very first thought that popped into my mind.

 

Let’s see: honest, thoughtful, loving, supportive, kind, intelligent, ambitious and nice. When you have a man like this, and he has expressed the desire to be honest, thoughtful and loving to you for the rest of your life, a girl responds by heaving a giant sigh of relief and thanks the gods for watching out for her, right?

 

Not this bitch. No way. Honest, thoughtful, loving, supportive, kind, intelligent, ambitious and nice are not nearly enough.

 

He’s not rich.

 

 

Or handsome.

 

 

And chicky is pretty! She’s pretty, damn it! P-R-E-T-T-Y! Super cute, and HER LOOKS WILL NEVER FADE. Ever. Why she’s squandering them! SQAUNDERING, I tell you. A girl as pretty as she is deserves a rich man. Any man she likes! Everybody says so, so it must be true, right?

 

Granted, she’s never actually dated a rich man. Hmmm. That’s kind of curious, isn’t it? I mean, everybody knows rich men are the biggest bunch of superficial assholes to ever walk the earth, and they only care about PRETTY and nothing else, and why the hell aren’t rich men lining up for this paragon of beauty?

 

Because she’s an A-One cunt, maybe?

 

the other part of me thinks that I’m so shallow that I don’t even deserve him or anyone else.

 

 

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner, folks! Well, sort of. She gets the shallow part right, but fails to understand that it is not HER that is the undeserving one. No man alive deserves to be inflicted with this kind of narcissistic, self-absorbed, totally clueless little bitch.

 

I am seriously doubting Mr. Fiancée is as intelligent as she claims. Either that, or she is a liar of the most impressive skill. Entirely plausible.

 

So what does Prudie say to her?

 

It’s a delicate thing to sing “I Feel Pretty” and keep the audience charmed. Many people will be repelled by your acknowledged superficiality and wish that a string of rich men use you, then dump you when you start to lose your looks. But surely your fiancé delights in the fact—and surely his friends have noted—that he’s nabbed one the prettiest girls in the room. When considering possible life partners, people should bluntly assess each other’s intangible and tangible qualities. Of course character is central, but if the person you’re dating is a wholly admirable person who doesn’t attract you physically, that’s a serious problem. So, too, is being with someone who gives you pleasure in and out of bed, but who’s hiding from creditors. You have asked an unattractive question about monetizing your beauty. But I think there’s a more accurate way to look at what’s troubling you.

You’re really wondering whether you can be happy in the long run with a guy who treats you great, but who’ll never satisfy you financially. “Middle class” is a very elastic term, but I assume you mean that while you and your fiancé will be able to meet your basic needs, you’ll mostly be living paycheck to paycheck. You say he’s smart and ambitious, and I’m assuming you both are young, so you haven’t made it clear why these two qualities can’t propel him further professionally. Maybe he’s prone to pipe dreams the marketplace rewards with minimum wage. It’s fair to want a fully contributing partner in life, but if you think the bulk of a couple’s earning should come from the man, you either need to re-examine your assumptions, or clue in your fiancé. You and he need to discuss what kind of life you’d both like to lead and how each of you can map out career choices that will make this possible. Of course there are no guarantees of financial success, just as there are no guarantees that good looks will lure a guy with a bulging wallet (or that he’ll stick with you into middle-age). But if you’re filled with dread over the certainty that marrying your boyfriend will consign you to forever dreading when the bills come, this will tarnish your perception of his sterling qualities. You’re not a shallow fool for thinking that a life of scraping by won’t be so pretty.

 

Money, money, money. It’s all about money, as far as Prudie is concerned and she lets MissPrettyBitch know that she is … not a shallow fool for thinking that a life of scraping by won’t be so pretty.

 

 

Way to miss the boat, Prudie. This isn’t about money, except as a corollary. It’s about power. PrettyBitch wants to have power, absolute power, especially over her man. Let’s flip the story around. Here is a man who appears to have little intention of wasting his life scrabbling for nothing but cash, only to see it waltz out the door with his shallow little wife when she grows tired of pretending to love him.

 

You’ll note that PrettyBitch never once says she loves him.

 

He gets all the benefits of a hot wife without having to pay the usual fee of a bulging wallet. Who has the power here, again?

 

 

Could it be that PrettyBitch is nervous about her man’s unwillingness to dedicate himself to paying for her beauty? He refuses to acknowledge the fact that her beauty entitles her to all the fruits of his labor. A middle class salary at best. Average, in other words. In which case, doesn’t he deserve an average wife?

 

I’m thinking Mr. Fiancée is actually a very smart guy. He’s on the verge of landing a woman he can enjoy fucking, all the while getting her to foot her own bills. The power of beauty has no power over him.

 

Clever man.

 

There’s a bit of equality I’ll bet a lot of women won’t be all that happy about.

 

Let’s move on the second letter.

 

At our upcoming wedding, my fiancé and I would like to have a display with wedding pictures of our parents, grandparents, and others who are dearest to us. The snag is that my parents divorced when I was 5 years old, and my father has been with his current wife for over 20 years and they have two preteens. (All parties are on amicable terms.) I adore my mom and dad’s wedding picture, but displaying it might be strange, given that they haven’t been together since 1985. I also don’t want to include a picture of my father with his current wife, because A) it’s awkward to have a picture of the same man marrying two different women, and B) while we get along, I’m not terribly fond of his wife. I’m not intending this as a snub—she’s just not in that circle of intimates for my fiancé and me. Should we give up on the display and eliminate the awkwardness? It would be a shame not to admire photographs of the beautiful marriages that have lasted.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2013/05/dear_prudence_i_m_not_homophobic_but_my_date_thought_i_was.html

 

 

First of all, I think this woman is incredibly lucky to be surrounded by people who are in lasting marriages. That in itself is unusual, and absolutely worth celebrating. It’s a shame her own family was broken by divorce, but the fact that she has enduring marriages to turn to for inspiration and confirmation bodes very well for her own future. On the day she unites herself in matrimony to her husband, she would like to be surrounded by images of couples who have honored their vows and created long-lasting happiness for themselves and their families.

 

A beautiful sentiment.

 

One that her own parents will be left out of, by their own choice. Too bad, so sad.

 

But, oh no! That might be bizarre and awkward. Here is Prudie’s response.

 

I’ve never seen this done before, but what a wonderful tradition it could be as long as the photos get an exegesis with sticky notes. On your parents’ you could post, “Came asunder in 1985.” On others you could write, “Still crazy about each other despite the bickering you’ll hear when Harry has a couple of drinks.” Or you could forget this whole idea since the point of it seems to be to rewrite history and pretend your parents are still together when in fact they’ve been divorced forever and you have two half siblings (who you’d apparently like to write out of existence). No one is stopping you from admiring beautiful marriages that have lasted, just do so without making a bizarre and awkward display.

 

Again, way to get the whole thing wrong, wrong, wrong. The bride to be does not want to pretend that her parents are still together. I think she understands perfectly well that they tried, and failed, and that’s life.

 

What she wants to do is begin her own journey by celebrating those who have succeeded. She isn’t spending her wedding day thinking about divorce. Not her divorce, and not her parent’s. That is exactly the right mindset, too. Celebrating the long-term success of other couples is a pretty strong indicator that she sees her own marriage as long-term, and I think that’s a beautiful sentiment.

 

 

Put the two letters together and Prudie’s view of marriage becomes pretty clear. It’s a set-up, whereby men are responsible for earning all the money (especially if the bride brings beauty), and it’s a scenario designed for upgrading. Couples who have celebrated their 60^th anniversaries are bizarre and awkward.

 

Oh, but aren’t they just. Why it almost seems like they took the words they spoke seriously!

 

…to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

 

Women have long used marriage to create their own financial security. Indeed, it’s the BEST way for women to be financially secure.

 

http://www.thompsonlaw.ca/pdf_folder/millcouple.pdf

 

Divorce culture allows women to break their marriage vows and still walk away with their husband’s wealth and usually his children, too.

 

http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/propertydistribution/f/propertydistr.htm

 

Women’s entitlement to men’s labor is the foundation of our civil society, and when it came with an set of obligations for women (fidelity, commitment, kindness, gratitude), it worked brilliantly. For those who understand that men’s work to support their families comes with duties and responsibilities, it still works brilliantly.

 

 

But for women like PrettyBitch, who can’t quite grasp that they aren’t OWED a man’s money, a nervous tic is entering the cultural dialogue.

 

Men are catching on, ladies. They aren’t going to foot the bills all by themselves anymore, only to have their lives ripped out from under them. The lads are sick of this shit. You wanted equality? Looks like you got it. Men are not willing to be women’s ATM cash dispensers any more.

 

No matter how pretty you are.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

 

Mom and Dad pissed that their daughter earns thousands of dollars a day legally. Also, Harvard economists are retarded. Dismal science, indeed.

 

SOME IMAGES NSFW. REPEAT. NSFW.

On the upside, NO KATE HARDING!

 

 

So, before the pukefest at Chateau JB, we were marveling over the wisdom of Emily Yoffe, who writes as Dear Prudence over at slate.com.

 

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/30/sulky-little-bitch-cant-manage-her-money-threatens-her-husband-with-divorce-if-he-doesnt-give-her-more-sulky-bitch-is-clearly-also-a-stupid-bitch/

 

The first letter in the column was rather interesting, too.

 

My only daughter recently came out to me as a stripper. For years she had said she worked in a standard office job. I feel as if I’ve been slapped in the face for all the years she lied to her father and me. I love her so much and this revelation has turned my world upside down. I had to tell my husband and he is furious and refuses to talk to her. Not only am I unsure as how to take this, but I don’t know how to handle my husband. I don’t want my family torn apart by this and I do not support her career choice. Help?

 

I wonder if Mom and Dad have seen this?

 

 

http://now.msn.com/stripper-posts-picture-to-reddit-showing-cash-she-says-she-earned-in-tips

 

THAT’S ONE NIGHT. And perfectly legal, in case Mom and Dad need reminding. Kind of like, oh, working for Enron or Lehman’s, except without devastating the retirement plans and savings of all the employees, and basically destroying the economy.

 

Bankers? Okie-dokie!

 

Strippers? Good god almighty NO WAY!!!

 

Why not? What, exactly is the objection to young ladies displaying their bodies?

 

Nothing to see here, right? Rapey rape rape protesters. Or whatever. All’s good here.

 

 

Mr. Putin, you sir, are an asshole. Here are my tits to prove it!

 

 

All y’all are assholes in the Ukraine. Let me paint my breasts to demonstrate how so!

 

 

Fur is bad! Here are some more naked ladies to make the point!

 

 

Female genital mutilation is bad. Let me soak my crotch in corn syrup and jello powder to prove it! Circumcision? What’s that? Shut up already. We’re only protesting the mutilation of GIRLS. Penis owners will have to take care of themselves. Jello dick, anyone?

 

 

Bullfighting is bad. More boobs!

 

 

Cellophane packaging is bad? Wait…wha?!?! Oh never mind. Boobies!!!

 

 

We need more bicycle lanes. For naked riders with piss poor attitudes, apparently.

 

 

Uhm, I have no idea. Something in SanFrancisco is bad. Maybe that bush? Who knows.

 

 

So all that shit is fine. Empowering even. Rah! You go grrrrrrrl!

 

This is good. Oh yeah.

 

 

This is even better.

 

 

This is nigh unto perfect!

 

 

But this!

 

OH HOLD UP NOW! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?

 

 

 

What is the difference between all the pictures that precede the one above?

 

Desire. Specifically, male desire. The “protest” pictures are designed to taunt, to flaunt, to provoke. But not a positive reaction. On the contrary. They are aggressive and designed to enflame, but not in way that admires or invites desire. They are meant to aggravate rather than alleviate.

 

And you know, fair enough. If yanking your tits out makes you feel powerful, go for it. Bounce those puppies from here to Mars and back if you think it helps whatever cause you are supporting (although a good bra would offer hella more support!).

 

 

(That bra is hand’s down the best sports bra ever!!!)

 

http://www.victoriassecret.com/bras/sports-bras/showtime-by-victorias-secret-sport-bra-vsx-sport?ProductID=114716&CatalogueType=OLS

 

But why should we admire, esteem, even valorize topless fur protesters and then bring down the wrath of pearl-clutching god on young ladies who decide to bare their breasts and bodies for the purpose of gratifying male desire?

 

Would Mom and Dad freak the fuck out if their daughter said she was a full-time activist for PETA and regularly posed naked? I doubt it.

 

 

Instead, she gets on a stage every night and dances to music while removing her clothes to the delight of her customers. Her male customers. Who pay her handsomely for the pleasure of seeing her body.

 

 

Being a stripper doesn’t make you a woman of loose morals. It doesn’t make you psychologically damaged. It doesn’t make you a crazy slut in any way, shape, or form. Are there crazy sluts who strip?

 

Oh hell yeah. Show me any job that doesn’t have a couple crazy sluts tossed in the mix. Whether you stock shelves at Walmart, work at an accounting firm or fold shirts at the Gap, there are gonna be crazy sluts.

 

 

Stripping is no different, but if you think every woman peeling off her pasties on a pyrotechnic stage is a crazy slut, you have got another think coming.

 

Things You Should Know About Strippers

 

1. A third of them are paying tuition with that cash
2. Most of them just want to dance
3. 10 % of them are married
4. 20% have dated customers

 

 

http://www.11points.com/Dating-Sex/11_Eye-Opening_Statistics_About_Strippers

 

In a way, it’s kind of understandable why Daddy isn’t thrilled his baby is stripping, but that kind of falls in line with Daddy not being thrilled that his baby might be getting used by a man and getting her heart broken. The football Captain she stripped for in private could be a douchebag, and maybe that lawyer she was dating, too.

 

Actually that lawyer for sure. Yech. No lawyers!! Jesus, have some standards.

 

 

(kidding)

 

Daddy needs to take a step back and consider the fact that a woman who is stripping to pay her tuition is, in fact, making a very smart investment. Her sexual appeal is at its peak, paying interest on loans SUCKS, and avoiding debt at all costs is a very smart thing to do, depending on the ROI, of course.

 

 

Now, let’s be clear. Debt, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, depending on the RETURN ON INVESTMENT you will get from taking on that debt load. An extended payment plan on a loan of $25 000 will result in a student repaying $52 000. $25 000/ year over the course of a four year degree and you are repaying $208 000!!! And when you used that money to buy yourself a women’s studies degree, which will earn you around $15 000/year as a Starbucks barista, and it will take you a good 14 years just to break even.

 

Hey! Good investment!

 

 

People are afraid of debt (except for all the people who SHOULD be – yes, I’m talking to you, idiot humanities majors), but that is actually a very short-sighted approach to wealth building.

 

I know, I know. Every head up their ass economic pundit out there disagrees with me. Well, guess what? They’re all wrong.

 

Here’s a couple of jerkwads you should NOT TRUST ever.

 

 

They’re a couple of Harvard economists who are pretty much singlehandedly responsible for the “austerity” measures that have been sweeping across the landscape of modern Western democracies, based on the idea that once you have a debt ratio that is more than 90% of GDP, growth slows dramatically.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/meet_the_economics_whiz_who_outed_rr_partner/

 

Apparently, they never heard of the Marshall Plan.

 

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/magazine___journal_articles/ferguson_johnson.pdf

 

So according to these two, the best way to get economic growth chugging is to restrict the supply of money, fail to invest in public infrastructure and let all the bridges and highways crumble into rubble, and pay down debt rather than get money circulating through job creation.

 

Kind of like saying the best way to ensure your home increases in value is to never do a lick of maintenance, but pay down the mortgage as fast as you can. Don’t use your money to replace the leaky roof and upgrade the furnace, just pay off that mortgage. There might be some good reasons to do that, but they won’t increase the value of your home. And if that leaky roof ends up as dry rot, you will actually have DECREASED the value of your home, although, hey, it will be paid off!

 

Harvard economists, like all economists everywhere (except maybe Captain Capitalism) can spit out some fancy-pants language and back that up with some even fancier mathematical models, but their advice comes down to bullshit the average person can see through in ten seconds.

 

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2013/04/is-us-cooking-books-on-gdp.html

 

Using clear, sharp analysis and comprehensive data, Reinhart and Rogoff document that financial fallouts occur in clusters and strike with surprisingly consistent frequency, duration, and ferocity. They examine the patterns of currency crashes, high and hyperinflation, and government defaults on international and domestic debts–as well as the cycles in housing and equity prices, capital flows, unemployment, and government revenues around these crises. While countries do weather their financial storms, Reinhart and Rogoff prove that short memories make it all too easy for crises to recur.

 

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8973.html

 

Sharp analysis and comprehensive data?

 

Oh, oops. They made a tiny mistake in that comprehensive data, and left out Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Denmark. Spreadsheet fuck-up. Forgot to capture a few cells.

 

That can’t have any real impact, right? I mean Canada and Australia only contribute most of the natural resource commodities. How valuable can that be?

 

When that tiny little error is accounted for, instead of seeing -.01% growth at a 90% debt to GDP ratio, we get +2.2% growth rate.

 

Ooops!

 

Ask any person with a house if they should replace a leaky roof or pay down the mortgage in order to increase the value of their home, and you will be hardpressed to find anyone who doesn’t see the answer. Maybe if Harvard economists live in that house, you’ll see them running to the bank to pay the mortgage instead of hiring a roofing crew, but those people are clearly a special kind of genius.

 

 

Aside: ALWAYS HIRE A ROOFING CREW. Mr. JB, JudgyAsshole and my brother decided to replace the roof on our house last summer. Mr. JB ended up “managing”, which basically consisted of wandering around with a cold beer yelling at the guys to put four nails in every shingle, and JudgyAsshole and my brother did all the work. I’m not sure it ended up being any cheaper after they both insisted on being paid in cases of Scotch.

 

 

The difference between paying off the mortgage and fixing the roof has to do with time and value. The value of the house has nothing to do with how much is left on the mortgage and everything to do with whether or not the roof leaks. And the roof problem is not going to get better over time, it will get worse.

 

This brings us back to our stripper. She has something of value that is peaking, and that value is not going to get better over time, it will get worse. So sad, too bad.

 

Now, the traditional feminist explanation for why stripping is bad and de-valuing is that men always have the upper hand in the power equation between the sexes. That’s called “patriarchy”.

 

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/14/there-never-was-a-patriarchy-and-there-isnt-one-now-in-related-news-mr-jb-cant-do-shit-without-running-it-by-me-first/

 

All men, everywhere, at all times, are more powerful than all women, everywhere, at all times. Well, except for all those women who are more powerful than men, but ssssssh. Don’t complicate the argument with facts. You know, women like Angela Merkel, Hilary Clinton, Dilma Rouseff, Melinda Gates, Jill Abramson, Sonia Ghandi, Michelle Obama, Christine Lagarde, Janet Napolitano, Sheryl Sandberg …..

 

http://www.forbes.com/power-women/

 

That is WHY the ladies have to pay the men to watch them take off their clothes.

 

Oh wait. No, it’s the other way around. Men pay women for the pleasure of seeing them dance in very little clothing. Who has the power again?

 

The reality is that young women, especially young fit women, have an enormous power they can exploit for significant gains, and that power makes an older generation of ladies very, very uncomfortable. Firstly, it does not fit with the powerless victim narrative and secondly, it is a power than wanes as times goes on. Sexual appeal follows an economics, and the value of one’s sexual appeal will depend enormously on the investment one puts in to it.

 

Which makes it impossible to escape the reality that women have quantifiable, tangible sexual value.

 

What did Prudence say to our stripper’s concerned mother?

 

I understand that hearing that your daughter makes her living by taking off her clothes for leering men is a shock, but think of what it took for your daughter to finally reveal the truth. You and her father need to talk out your hurt and pain together, so that you can then go to your daughter and jointly say how hard you know it must have been for her to tell you this and that you appreciate her honesty. Then you can start a conversation about her life. The point you want to make—and which surely she knows—is that her job is not a long-term sustainable one. Say that you two want to support her in helping to figure out how to integrate back into the more traditional workplace so that she can find a more satisfying career. So put aside the judgment and the outrage. Slapping down your daughter will only make her regret coming clean.

 

Except for the “leering men” bullshit, Prudie doesn’t do a bad job here. She gets one thing absolutely right: the job isn’t a long-term sustainable one. The value of the income-generating asset will depreciate over time, but that doesn’t make this a bad choice at all.

 

 

It all depends on how the income is being invested. Paying tuition is an excellent use of the money generated by a young woman’s sexual desirability. Just please.

 

Not economics.

 

Or law.

 

And by the looks of it, you should steer clear of Harvard.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB