cwt edt

There was once a guy on a radio talk show who said that it was a tacit agreement between a man and a woman that if all you bring to the relationship is your blond hair, your giggle and your boobs, when those boobs start to go south of the border, the man is entitled to find someone else who matches his initial expectation.

In other words, if you offered nothing but your looks and boobage, whilst he offers a nice lifestyle via his earnings, when you let those looks go it’s fair game. You must accept imminent dumping to make way for a younger model. The contract is null and void as he is still providing the lifestyle that you are not willing to work for for yourself and yet you are not providing him with the same aesthetic he was attracted to in the first place.

The thinking being that if you are a woman with your own income, interests, hobbies, general independent standing and built-up experience and you bring all this to the table surely you have nothing to fear.

Also the thought process is, if you look for a life partner rather than a bank you also have nothing to fear…maybe.


What say you??!!

1. Misogynist pig!

2. Hey! Fella has a point!


87 thoughts on “ONCE THE BOOBS GO, I GO.

  1. Very shallow thinking…..to find the right “compatable” partner one must go deeper…..
    Its not a “black hole” or “rocket science” just be yourself truthfully so.
    No relation should be for “life” but it can be a “life sentence”…..get the drift…..

    My relationships are an adventure…never ending.

    On and on and on…..boring.😂

    1. Hi Martha, supposedly for life eh? Doesn’t always work out that way! The other thing is the guy in question wasn’t looking for marriage. I think he was just looking for a beautiful partner that was eternally renewable!

      1. Yes….every one is different ….you me us two them…….not guilty ! Of generalisation/stereotyping….only half as flirtatious as you.
        100% macho male ..testo driven babes.😈

        Hugs Xxxxx

  2. Why are there so few women in politics ?
    Most remind me so much of the “political” classes (mostly asses)….he ha he ha !😅

    Hyprocites ! And they never answer a “direct question” ! Devil you do devil you don’t !😬

    In exasperation
    El toro….😈

      1. No….you are !
        Just making the comparison ……ask a woman a direct question …
        …do you love me ? Yes or no……or don’t know !
        No ifs or buts please…..isnt love unconditional …..you either love or you don’t.

        Ask a man the same question….he answers yes or no.

        Guess its the y z cromozones….help ?

      2. Since when has a woman been able to get a yes or no to that question from a man, generally speaking? You mean men who are notoriously bad at expressing their feelings? Those ones? Or do you mean some other men I don’t know about?

        Maybe they breed them differently over where you are! 🙂

  3. Misogynist pig, clearly. We’re talking about a form of prostitution, which is objectification, commodification of sex, and that is no sort of relationship. Everything about that arrangement makes me ill. A guy shouldn’t be able to rent her in the first place, so no, he shouldn’t be able to trade her in on the basis of age and physical attributes.

    On the same principle as always for me, I wouldn’t ban it, wouldn’t enforce it, but I would support any sort of move that would remove those sorts of guys’ insulation from my bad opinion of him. Those sorts of scum need to know they are, that we’re not all admiring him, that we don’t wish we were in his scummy shoes.

  4. The way he approaches the question says he thinks the entire universe centers on him. He hasn’t stopped to consider that if he’s the kind of man who’d get into a relationship with that kind of woman, he’s a shallow, pointless idiot. Do I sounds as objective and detached as I truly am? Oh, good. I hoped I would. As for the woman, sure she’s shallow. There are people like that on both sides of the gender divide. Somehow the man here thinks it’s only women.

  5. My opinion? A contract is a contract, tacit or otherwise. And in addition to defining expectations, a contract is supposed to ensure mutual benefit. (If it’s not mutual, negotiation is not finished.) If the contract says you have my money as long as I have your boobs, so be it– but that carries the implication that if the money goes south, Barbie (or Boobie?) is also entitled to look elsewhere.

  6. Well, if a woman refuses to contribute to the marriage due to laziness, or due to the fact that she’s decided she’s marrying the bank, and gets away with it, due to her boobs and giggle, then fair game. He has every right to tell her that he’s over her, if she doesn’t use his money to keep the boobs, tummy, bum, legs, big toe etc, pert and smooth all for HIS liking. (Remember she only married him for his money, and he only married her for her looks, sounds fair to me) Turn it around………….if he lost all his money, would she stay?? doubt it!

    If a marriage or partnership is not based on love and trust, then don’t do it. Money comes in, goes out, and looks are fading. Everything is changeful, nothing remains the same. But love and trust remain if they are sincere from the start.

    Marry the bank, but expect to pay HUGE interest. Or marry your heart with your heart, and know it’s safe to not even wear makeup.

    1. Nice line Lady D! ‘Marry the bank, but expect to pay HUGE interest.’ And you make a good point, the girl wouldn’t stick around long if he lost his money and he should be prepared to accept that.

  7. The thing is if you think of yourself as that in order to get a man don’t be surprised when he trades you in for a newer model….lol!! It goes the same when a woman goes after a younger man. When you allow yourself to be treated like an object expect to be treated like that always because that’s all that person will think of you.

  8. I think some women and some men do go into a relationship knowing that it is a superficial and based on looks and money. If this is the relationship then I think the radio caller has a point and I think, with the rise of the ‘Cougar’ it’s not inconceivable that some men are on the receiving end of the same treatment.

    Alas for my husband and I – my boobs have been fried after two rounds of breast feeding and my belly bares the trophies of two pregnancies.

      1. Tragedy is a strong word. Does it really apply in a situation where two consenting adults make a conscious decision to become a couple for reasons other than love?

    1. First, I wanna retract that first comment – I actually do think it’s an improvement if both genders feel the same sorts of pain. I guess when men start to feel abused, then something might change.

      As for ‘consenting adults’ though: that’s relative, isn’t it, ‘consent?’ Clearly it’s a situation where the concubine of either gender is in it because they need the money, and that makes their free will a bit fuzzy, wouldn’t you say?

      1. That’s an interesting point and not one I had considered. I guess, when I think of this situation, I think of two people of the same cultural background in which the younger (often attractive) one goes into a relationship with a wealthy (often older) person for the money and lifestyle this will bring.

        I’m not including relationships where a woman from a third world country marries a (comparatively) rich western man for the money and freedom this will provide her and her extended family.

        In the former example, I believe that consent isn’t compromised. In the latter, however, I would have to agree with you. The power imbalance is so great and the woman (or man I suppose) is incredibly vulnerable.

    2. yes, a different thing when you’re alone on a strange continent, for sure. The other one, the first group, I don’t suppose it’s illegal, nor should it be, but I’d want to discourage it. It seems to have nothing positive about it to me. A poor public example of objectification, of all manner of image issues.

  9. This kind of relationship calls for strict roles.
    The man has to be a pig.
    The woman has to be a player.

    If both actors stick to their role, then no-one gets hurt.
    Woe betide anyone who can’t stick to their role!

  10. This is a tough one because I think all women should try to have more to offer…just being ‘pretty’ isn’t really a qualification! Love is based on more than just physical attraction after all! An interesting one to ponder for sure…

  11. That first statement [keyword: all] leads me to answer #2; you have to understand you’re just an arm piece and enjoy your shift while it lasts. Or you could just keep getting new boobs! hahaha but they look extra creepy under older skin… *shudders*

  12. Are we missing something here…..heir to his/her throne.?👑
    Procreation ! Babies ?.
    Guess not…..gay marriages et al…😈😇
    Adopt an animal or an unwanted human …..sad lot !😅

      1. Most do…..few don’t. “mjority” rule OK with me.
        Outside “cosmetic” Inside “loving/caring”

        Take your pick.😯

  13. I’m going to say something perhaps unexpected here but I think if both parties understand what the relationship is going in, then neither should be surprised/upset if one person bails because the other is not living up to their part of the bargain; whether it’s she that loses the boobs/looks or he the money. Of course she’ll take him to the cleaners in divorce court any way but that doesn’t make it right.

    1. The truth is there are people like this and they should be together, why not? Trouble is that old human emotion thing gets in the way and what looks ‘good’ on paper initially is never quite same in cold reality.

      I’m thinking that if this chap has thought it out to this extent, I’m assuming he either wouldn’t get married or would be sensible enough to protect his assets.

  14. The question is: is there actually such a thing as a woman who has nothing to offer but her looks? Or is it just a convenient excuse for a man who was too shallow to see past the boobs in the first place?

    1. Good question. I thought about it and having been in the modelling world I would be inclined to say yes.

      If you don’t educate yourself to be able to say something worth hearing, if you can’t cook, don’t work, have acquired no skills, cannot help him in the office or add to the home dynamic other than draping yourself around it glamorously whilst spending someone else’s money then, yes. that equals nothing to offer but your beauty and the accompanying services thereof *wink*.

      Whereas I have met men who were equally lacking, (especially in the sport and entertainment world – dumb as rocks basically), but they at least had financial resource to bring to the table.

      1. But they had some talent (sporting or entertaining) by which they could earn money. Presumably there are women in equivalent situations. (Maybe untalented stupid men just stay poor…)
        But perhaps the original question is a question of whether you consider being a kept woman as a career, and if so, whether you can then complain when you are “made redundant”.
        Personally, I’d say don’t make yourself financially reliant on anyone you wouldn’t trust with your life.

  15. Us women can say the same type of thing about men: when their stomach’s are not so tight, butt sags and so does their balls, we don’t have to stay either. I would never say that but just saying that women can behave the same way.

    If someone wants a trophy partner, then don’t get married because it won’t last. Those people will end up alone even if they are not alone. They should also be up front about so the other person knows what they are in for. A real relationship/love is unconditional.

    1. I might be hanging around the wrong circles because although this is true and women can indeed say similar, I have never heard a woman say it, but I have heard plenty of men say this.
      I’m thinking that the set up of society plus knowing who holds the power in the relationship lends more to the man being able to make these demands than a woman.
      Because for example, I can see Madonna saying this.

      Also I don’t think finding oneself alone in a marriage is exclusive to trophy hunters.

      Also x2 is that do you know? Talking about being upfront. If these men openly put it in a contract and gave it to women to sign I think plenty would! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s