Sugar daddies: 1 for every 10 women

[PolishKnight]

http://www.vancouversun.com/dated+sugar+daddies/6678356/story.html
"When I joined my first sugar daddy dating website five years ago, it
wasn't to find someone to help pay the bills or provide me with a
shopping allowance. It was because of an innocent penchant for the older
man.
Websites that promise to match older wealthy men - sugar daddies - with
young attractive women have been thriving in America for years; one of
the most popular - SeekingArrangement.com, which bills itself as a place
"where the attractive meet the affluent" - claims to have a million
subscribers, with 10 women for every man. It has just launched in the
UK, where it is already boasting 80,000 members.
In return for a no-strings but mutually beneficial relationship, the
women who sign up can get to be treated like a lady, showered with
gifts, taken on all-you-can-buy shopping sprees, and enjoy meals at the
best tables in town."

[dd...@bellsouth.net]

(Denise) I'm not the least bit surprised by this website. Heck, I
would be shocked if something like it did NOT exist. What I am
surprised by is that there seem to be so many young women wanting
sugar daddies than there are older men wanting to be sugar daddies.
Part of this might just be because women outnumber men in the
geriatric years. As Arianna Huffington pointed out in her first book,
"The Female Woman," that demolished the "Women's Lib" movement, women
live some 5-7 years longer than men a fact that is "very painful for
Women's Lib" since it means either that women's lives are in some
respects less stressful and more privileged or that there are indeed
important biological differences between the genders other than those
that are physically obvious.

[Tronscend]

<dd...@bellsouth.net> skrev i melding
news:a64c0fc4-7ff1-4789...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

On May 27, 6:54 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://www.vancouversun.com/dated+sugar+daddies/6678356/story.html
> "When I joined my first sugar daddy dating website five years ago, it
> wasn't to find someone to help pay the bills or provide me with a
> shopping allowance. It was because of an innocent penchant for the older
> man.
> Websites that promise to match older wealthy men - sugar daddies - with
> young attractive women have been thriving in America for years; one of
> the most popular - SeekingArrangement.com, which bills itself as a place
> "where the attractive meet the affluent" - claims to have a million
> subscribers, with 10 women for every man. It has just launched in the
> UK, where it is already boasting 80,000 members.
> In return for a no-strings but mutually beneficial relationship, the
> women who sign up can get to be treated like a lady, showered with
> gifts, taken on all-you-can-buy shopping sprees, and enjoy meals at the
> best tables in town."

>(Denise) I'm not the least bit surprised by this website. Heck, I
>would be shocked if something like it did NOT exist.

The weird thing is men going there.

[PolishKnight]

In article
<a64c0fc4-7ff1-4789...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

"dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On May 27, 6:54 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > http://www.vancouversun.com/dated+sugar+daddies/6678356/story.html
> > "When I joined my first sugar daddy dating website five years ago, it
> > wasn't to find someone to help pay the bills or provide me with a
> > shopping allowance. It was because of an innocent penchant for the older
> > man.
> > Websites that promise to match older wealthy men - sugar daddies - with
> > young attractive women have been thriving in America for years; one of
> > the most popular - SeekingArrangement.com, which bills itself as a place
> > "where the attractive meet the affluent" - claims to have a million
> > subscribers, with 10 women for every man. It has just launched in the
> > UK, where it is already boasting 80,000 members.
> > In return for a no-strings but mutually beneficial relationship, the
> > women who sign up can get to be treated like a lady, showered with
> > gifts, taken on all-you-can-buy shopping sprees, and enjoy meals at the
> > best tables in town."
>
> (Denise) I'm not the least bit surprised by this website. Heck, I
> would be shocked if something like it did NOT exist. What I am
> surprised by is that there seem to be so many young women wanting
> sugar daddies than there are older men wanting to be sugar daddies.

Denise, it's revealing that you didn't see how obvious this is.

> Part of this might just be because women outnumber men in the
> geriatric years.

Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer! SUPER wrong answer!

For starters, Denise, (most) rich sugar daddies are uninterested in
geriatric women so that's simply not a factor. They want younger and
even young women if possible. It's not uncommon for 50 year old rich
geezers to chase after women who just turned old enough to legally
drink.

The reason for the shortage is simple: There's not as many rich men in
the population (you know the term, the 1 percent?) as there are poor men
and poor women who would like to be rich. Most men simply cannot afford
the lifestyle as described in this news article of taking women out on
shopping dates and $300 restaurant dinners. In addition, those that do
are often not that desperate and either married or smarter at how they
spend their money. Even I, during my bachelor days, having a decent job
and car could get attractive women if I bought them a meal at a
moderately priced restaurant.

Thanks to feminism which often measured progress based upon parity
between women's and men's earnings and now women earning 70 cents on a
dollar largely due to women either being on welfare or quitting their
job to stay home to make babies (when that's an option), there's even
now more of a shortage than before in addition to chivalry now on life
support for the average man who can get hook ups much more easily than
stumbling through dinner dates.

10 to 1? I'm surprised it wasn't higher!

> As Arianna Huffington pointed out in her first book,
> "The Female Woman," that demolished the "Women's Lib" movement, women
> live some 5-7 years longer than men a fact that is "very painful for
> Women's Lib" since it means either that women's lives are in some
> respects less stressful and more privileged or that there are indeed
> important biological differences between the genders other than those
> that are physically obvious.

I respect Huffington for creating a successful, profitable leftist blog
and selling it off for millions for her personal profit at the expense
of other leftists. I'm not sure that's intentional or not, but perhaps
she simply was an opportunist all along being conservative and right
wing when married to her in-the-closet-gay Republican husband and then
switching ideologies later.

In any case, the Obama election has switched things up considerably as
race politics along with general economic choas is now trumping feminism
and pushing it to the back page. Feminism was demolished by it's own
lack of a future after having bitten the hand that fed it.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Kenneth S.]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:49:09 +0200, "Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no>
wrote:

I don't think it's at all weird for men to go to this website.
If you're a rich single man, finding a woman through such a website is
one step above paying an "escort" or a call girl, but it's not too
different. And, after all, no one thinks it's weird that men pay for
prostitutes, said to be the oldest profession. Immoral, perhaps.
Unwise, perhaps. But it's not weird.

What would be really weird would be for any of these sugar
daddies to MARRY one of these women, or to let themselves be trapped
into 18+ years of "child support" because one of the women got
pregnant. The latter is one risk that cannot be removed by any
supposed no-strings policy.

My own guess is that deals such as SeekingArrangement.com will
become more common as men -- particularly rich men -- realize all the
downside risks of marriage for them. I think it's strange that, in all
the fuss about the rules of marriage, no one ever seems to examine the
question of the steady erosion of incentives for men to get married. I
haven't seen any discussion of the growth in the serious drawbacks for
men that are implicit in community property laws and the continued
glass ceiling on paternal child custody.

[Tronscend]

"Kenneth S." <nim...@verizon.net> skrev i melding
news:musqs7ldcs7dl8j1i...@4ax.com...

>>
>>The weird thing is men going there.
>>
>
> I don't think it's at all weird for men to go to this website.
> If you're a rich single man, finding a woman through such a website is
> one step above paying an "escort" or a call girl, but it's not too
> different.

Agreed, only a golddigger is probably 10 - 20 times more expensive than a
prostitute, while delivering the same service (at best).

> What would be really weird would be for any of these sugar
> daddies to MARRY one of these women, or to let themselves be trapped
> into 18+ years of "child support" because one of the women got
> pregnant. The latter is one risk that cannot be removed by any
> supposed no-strings policy.

Agreed. Except sterilization, though.

> My own guess is that deals such as SeekingArrangement.com will
> become more common as men -- particularly rich men -- realize all the
> downside risks of marriage for them. I think it's strange that, in all
> the fuss about the rules of marriage, no one ever seems to examine the
> question of the steady erosion of incentives for men to get married. I
> haven't seen any discussion of the growth in the serious drawbacks for
> men that are implicit in community property laws and the continued
> glass ceiling on paternal child custody.

I guess the discussion is there, but restricted to men.
For the other side, it's a huge elephant in the room.

MVH,

T

[PolishKnight]

In article <musqs7ldcs7dl8j1i...@4ax.com>,

I was reading what they described as "dates" and found it amusing that
men would take these women out on "shopping" dates to spend money. When
my wife asks me to go shopping with her, I try to reschedule my dentist
appointment to get out of it. :-) I simply don't enjoy going to buy
clothes but women love it.

So if a man is paying an escort, why not pay for her to do things we
enjoy (besides the obvious sex, of course) such as play video games,
attend sports events, etc.

I remember a cute episode of Frasier where Niles accidentally goes out
with an escort thinking he got her through a "dating agency". All the
other characters are suspicious of her because she's gorgeous and loves
Niles and going to Proust readings with him and then he realizes it and
says "Oh my God! They have my credit card number!" :-)

For these golddigging women, it sounds like they hit the jackpot: Rich
guys paying for them to go out and do things women enjoy. Amazing.
That's what's wierd about it.

regards,
PolishKnight

[PolishKnight]

In article <4ZadnadeXrtpYFDS...@telenor.com>,

"Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:

> "Kenneth S." <nim...@verizon.net> skrev i melding
> news:musqs7ldcs7dl8j1i...@4ax.com...
>
> >>
> >>The weird thing is men going there.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think it's at all weird for men to go to this website.
> > If you're a rich single man, finding a woman through such a website is
> > one step above paying an "escort" or a call girl, but it's not too
> > different.
>
> Agreed, only a golddigger is probably 10 - 20 times more expensive than a
> prostitute, while delivering the same service (at best).

I know wealthy men and many were able to get sex for "free" or
relatively cheaply by displaying their wealth but not necessary paying
women for their time.

For example: They would invite the women over to their lavish homes and
have their butler make them expensive dinners or go out with them to
museums after picking them up in their expensive cars, etc. By
displaying the wealth, but not SPENDING it, they could easily get these
women into bed because the women would realize that they weren't going
to get the money unless they slept with him and tried to move the deal
forward somehow.

Or they needn't even bother dating and just wait for good looking
golddiggers to throw themselves at him.

[Kenneth S.]

Interesting anecdote, PolishKnight, and I'll add two of my
own, which relate to the issue of gold-diggers.

I have a close relative who, as a result of his success in
business, is very wealthy. Several years ago, his wife of many years
died, and there was a huge funeral service, which I attended. A very
long line of mourners moved slowly past the coffin at the front of the
church, and then paused to pay their condolences to surviving family
members. According to my relative, one woman in the line of mourners
told him that she was a longtime friend of his deceased wife (although
my relative had no recollection of ever having met her). She said
that she herself had recently lost her husband. So, she said, she
knew what he was going through, and she urged him to contact her. When
my relative told me the story, it was unclear to me whether he was
insulted, flattered, or amused. I was so taken aback that I didn't
question him about it.

The other anecdote points in the opposite direction from
yours. Some years ago, I had a passing acquaintance with a wealthy
lawyer who was divorced, but seeking to remarry and have a family.
When going on dates, he made a practice of concealing the extent of
his affluence, in order to discourage gold-diggers. He kept an old
beater of a car, which he used on the first dates with any woman he
met. (My suspicion was, however, that these tactics would weed out
only the more casual gold-diggers.) When I last saw this individual
several years ago, he had got married, and had a young child.

Of course, the practice of gold-digging sometimes cuts both
ways. In the nineteenth century, impoverished male aristocrats in
Britain were often on the lookout for rich American heiresses to
marry. That was one reason why Winston Churchill's father, Lord
Randolph Churchill, came to marry his mother, Jenny Jerome. But that
was under the old marriage rules. Divorce was extremely unusual, and
brides weren't necessarily expected to be deeply in love with the men
they married. People had more realistic expectations.

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <marek1965-0C2E0...@news.giganews.com>,
mare...@comcast.net says...

>
> In article <4ZadnadeXrtpYFDS...@telenor.com>,
> "Tronscend" <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> > "Kenneth S." <nim...@verizon.net> skrev i melding
> > news:musqs7ldcs7dl8j1i...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >>
> > >>The weird thing is men going there.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't think it's at all weird for men to go to this website.
> > > If you're a rich single man, finding a woman through such a website is
> > > one step above paying an "escort" or a call girl, but it's not too
> > > different.
> >
> > Agreed, only a golddigger is probably 10 - 20 times more expensive than a
> > prostitute, while delivering the same service (at best).
>
> I know wealthy men and many were able to get sex for "free" or
> relatively cheaply by displaying their wealth but not necessary paying
> women for their time.
>
> For example: They would invite the women over to their lavish homes and
> have their butler make them expensive dinners or go out with them to
> museums after picking them up in their expensive cars, etc. By
> displaying the wealth, but not SPENDING it, they could easily get these
> women into bed because the women would realize that they weren't going
> to get the money unless they slept with him and tried to move the deal
> forward somehow.

Paying the butler to make expensive dinners isn't SPENDING? (Beside
which, a butler's duties don't generally involve cooking dinners---
that's the chef's job--which also involves some spending.)(

>
> Or they needn't even bother dating and just wait for good looking
> golddiggers to throw themselves at him.

Of course, giving the gold diggers some opportunity to sense the prey
also involves some spending on charity events or something else that
scatters the chum in front of the target.

>
> > > What would be really weird would be for any of these sugar
> > > daddies to MARRY one of these women, or to let themselves be trapped
> > > into 18+ years of "child support" because one of the women got
> > > pregnant. The latter is one risk that cannot be removed by any
> > > supposed no-strings policy.
> >
> > Agreed. Except sterilization, though.
> >
> > > My own guess is that deals such as SeekingArrangement.com will
> > > become more common as men -- particularly rich men -- realize all the
> > > downside risks of marriage for them. I think it's strange that, in all
> > > the fuss about the rules of marriage, no one ever seems to examine the
> > > question of the steady erosion of incentives for men to get married. I
> > > haven't seen any discussion of the growth in the serious drawbacks for
> > > men that are implicit in community property laws and the continued
> > > glass ceiling on paternal child custody.
> >
> > I guess the discussion is there, but restricted to men.
> > For the other side, it's a huge elephant in the room.
> >
> > MVH,
> >
> > T
> >
> >

Mark Borgerson

[PolishKnight]

In article <MPG.2a4071442...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Assuming he has the butler already on staff, he isn't spending any
additional money on her (unless he gets the butler to impress women, of
course.)

Regarding whether butlers cook, time to google:

http://www.butlersguild.com/index.php?subject=43
Duties also include organizing special functions, like dinner parties or
receptions. Often it is appreciated if the Butler can do some light
cooking and he or she may be preparing wonderful meals for people
ranging from Royalty and Celebrities to Heads of State and important
business people. This is unlike many restaurants where you are expected
to do more with less.

Let's compare the notion of a man spending money on HIMSELF to attract
women versus spending it UPON women: Consider women buying sexy clothes
and makeup. They don't spend this money ON men but they spend it to
attract men. Of course, the most sexy women tend to be those that don't
need a lot of money to be sexy. :-) That's the irony a woman in the
fashion industry commented to me that fashion designers design clothing
for 17 year old girls whom outside of the runway can barely afford bus
fare to the mall to shoplift at Spencers. :-)

[PolishKnight]

In article <p3hbt7pt2giqfr35q...@4ax.com>,

Many women are insulted if a man pretends to be poor even if they aren't
necessarily golddiggers. They would much rather have him simply refuse
to go out on expensive dates and leave it at that. It's like a woman
hiring a private detective to snoop through your personal life to make
sure you're not a rapist. Some men wouldn't mind but others might feel
insulted and blow.

In addition, as you pointed out, more serious golddiggers can see past
such subterfuge and try to snare such a man anyway but... keep in mind
that his caution most likely will extend to kryptonite for golddiggers:
the prenup. If he's so determined to protect his wealth that he drives
a lousy car and takes her to red lobster then she may decide there are
better pickin's out there before seeing if he pulls out the pre-nup.
It's like having a car alarm in a bad neighborhood: You know they can
steal the car if they want to, but it makes you MUCH less of a target.
:-)

What's amazing really about golddiggers, especially in the states, is
how easy they are to avoid. I don't know of too many men that met women
who were seemingly healthy and normal that turned out to be golddiggers
and users. They always seem obvious to be nuts but the problem is that
in the states nearly ALL women here are nuts. :-) So learning how to
differentiate between golddiggers and just plain spoiled brats is a
challenge.

> Of course, the practice of gold-digging sometimes cuts both
> ways. In the nineteenth century, impoverished male aristocrats in
> Britain were often on the lookout for rich American heiresses to
> marry. That was one reason why Winston Churchill's father, Lord
> Randolph Churchill, came to marry his mother, Jenny Jerome. But that
> was under the old marriage rules. Divorce was extremely unusual, and
> brides weren't necessarily expected to be deeply in love with the men
> they married. People had more realistic expectations.

Keep in mind that these men weren't golddiggers in the traditional sense
of coming from a poor background and being handsome and charming. There
was a film with that theme, Barry Lyndon:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072684/

where a good looking rogue seduces an older, noble woman but sure, broke
men of higher means often married to save their reputation and fortune
but simulteously, keep in mind that a woman's reputation was saved as
well (better to marry a noble who lost his money gambling than a hard
working commoner. :-)

regards,
PolishKnight

[Kenneth S.]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:40:25 -0400, PolishKnight

I cannot let your comments above go unchallenged,
PolishKnight. "He drives lousy car and takes her to red lobster," you
say, as if Red Lobster is a place that serves lousy food. I have no
financial interest in Red Lobster, but when possible I eat there. It
is my considered opinion that the food in Red Lobster is every bit the
equal of other, much more expensive restaurants where I have eaten.

Such a frightful lapse in judgment raises serious questions
about everything else you say. However, I will charitably assume
that, outside the restaurant area, you are a man of discriminating
tastes, and I should pay attention to your comments on the subject of
gold-diggers.

My own observation is that some rich men KNOW they are being
targeted by gold-digging women, and don't mind. In the case of my
relative, it sometimes seems that, having grown up in modest
circumstances, over the years he has come to enjoy demonstrating the
fact that he can make almost any problem disappear by throwing money
at it. By contrast, it sometimes seems that other very wealthy people
find it very difficult to make new friends, because they are always
aware of the danger that people are seeking out their company for
ulterior motives.

I agree with your comment about the difficulty in the U.S. of
distinguishing between women -- particularly women in the older age
brackets -- who are gold-diggers and those who are just plain nuts.

My perspective is that of someone who spent the first half of
of my life living outside the U.S. So I ask myself why the situation
in the U.S. is the way it is. One answer is clearly that 40+ years of
unchallenged and relentless feminist propaganda has had an impact on
social attitudes in the U.S.

However, even before the feminists got started, European men
recognized that American women had certain characteristics. Many
years ago, Somerset Maugham said,"Perfection is what American women
expect to find in their husbands... but English women only hope to
find in their butlers." A joke, of course, but there's many a true
word spoken in jest.

I think I'll just have to take your earlier advice and depart
for Thailand soon. Or was it someone else who was extolling the
virtues of Thai women?

[PolishKnight]

In article <16a9u7dslv2bur61s...@4ax.com>,

Nonetheless, red lobster is hardly a place that will impress a
golddigger. And yes, I've been to Red Lobster twice and was
disappointed and my friends also have a low opinion of the place.

Seafood is a challenging cuisine to prepare and if not done well, is
just awful. If not served fresh, it gets limpy almost immediately (if
not also a health hazard!!!) If the restaurant is not kept meticulously
clean, the place can become smelly. More moderately priced (and even
cheap) restaurants can get away with less stringent culinary standards
when preparing steak, burgers, and even italian food but seafood is a
special challenge and my wife and I have discerning tastes. My
apologies for any unintended slight but quite frankly, maybe you are
just more hardy than we are? OK, or maybe you just got lucky with your
Red Lobster experience. Also, well, my wife can get down and dirty
sometimes at the peir which makes me retch but even she acknowledges
it's not fine dining.

Some family or moderately priced restaurants get it right. They know
how to prepare the seafood fresh, keep the restaurant well ventilated
and clean, and have a steady supply of customers to keep volume high
enough to keep prices low. They tend to not be chain places though.

Overall, the expensive restaurants often do seafood decently and even
well because they have higher standards overall and their prices match
customer expectations.

My wife has been crying the last few months because those Red Lobster
commercials have been coming on over and over again and my reminding her
of the last 2 failed experiments we went through is competing with her
faded memory and the delicious way those lobsters appear to be steaming
on the plates. I'm going to take her up on it in the near future and
that should shut her up about it for the next 3 years or so. :-)

> Such a frightful lapse in judgment raises serious questions
> about everything else you say.

Really? Not my other stuff? Not the rape apologist stuff, the
generalizations about leftists, and my horrible spelling? Bashing Red
Lobster? :-)

> However, I will charitably assume
> that, outside the restaurant area, you are a man of discriminating
> tastes, and I should pay attention to your comments on the subject of
> gold-diggers.

I've acknowledged that perhaps your Red Lobsters are better. They are
probably independently owned and operated. I had fond memories of one
when I was a child but keep in mind that our perceptions of life as kids
is not the same as the same place as adults but again, maybe that Red
Lobster really was a lot better. The two we went to in our area were
awful and my friends have said similar things.

There's also a crab shack that advertises heavily here but my co-workers
told me to steer clear of that too. I think the only way to get around
this is to yelp and google around for some family place with some good
reviews.

> My own observation is that some rich men KNOW they are being
> targeted by gold-digging women, and don't mind. In the case of my
> relative, it sometimes seems that, having grown up in modest
> circumstances, over the years he has come to enjoy demonstrating the
> fact that he can make almost any problem disappear by throwing money
> at it.

Certainly people often feed their insecurities with the thing that makes
them insecure (Fat Bastard ate because he felt bad and he felt bad
because he ate :-) In general, money does help a lot of problems go
away if you can find a way to do so without running out of it.

> By contrast, it sometimes seems that other very wealthy people
> find it very difficult to make new friends, because they are always
> aware of the danger that people are seeking out their company for
> ulterior motives.
>
> I agree with your comment about the difficulty in the U.S. of
> distinguishing between women -- particularly women in the older age
> brackets -- who are gold-diggers and those who are just plain nuts.

I can't speak for the younger women because I'm off the market and
that's out of my generation by 1 or now even two generations.

I notice the younger women often have a lot of tattoos and smoke even
moreso than I was younger and bleah! If I was a young man with a decent
income I wouldn't pay these women to valet park my car much less pay for
a date at Red Lobster. :-)

But I also notice some women have femmed up moreso than the 80's and
90's so perhaps we have a butch/femme thing going on? Some women have
"given up" or gone nuts and some other younger women are playing for
keeps?

> My perspective is that of someone who spent the first half of
> of my life living outside the U.S. So I ask myself why the situation
> in the U.S. is the way it is. One answer is clearly that 40+ years of
> unchallenged and relentless feminist propaganda has had an impact on
> social attitudes in the U.S.

We also combined this with seething reverse racist against whites that
combined into a superstorm of white male bashing in general. Since
white women were often affluent and highly protected (and still are
moreso than any other group, they are the least likely to get a traffic
ticket compared to anyone else) this has caused a dynamic where being a
woman trumped other special interest groups... until recently (Obama and
Hillary in the Democrat primary)

Young white women are discovering a new era where they are now number 2,
and falling, in the importance in the Democrat big party tent and I say:
Welcome to the world of the proletariat working man, dears! They tossed
us under the bus 60 years ago! :-)

Another factor perhaps is the pioneer era and shortage of women to marry
(apart from Squaws) and American women grew to develop an aggressive
attitude about marital entitlements that wasn't so heavy in more gender
level Europe (heck, the men coming to the states probably generated a
man shortage!)

> However, even before the feminists got started, European men
> recognized that American women had certain characteristics. Many
> years ago, Somerset Maugham said,"Perfection is what American women
> expect to find in their husbands... but English women only hope to
> find in their butlers." A joke, of course, but there's many a true
> word spoken in jest.
>
> I think I'll just have to take your earlier advice and depart
> for Thailand soon. Or was it someone else who was extolling the
> virtues of Thai women?

All cultures have their challenges since there are golddiggers and
opportunitists everywhere and much like when tourists spoil one area
(try to go to Croatia now and avoid all those damn British tourists!)
others are still somewhat pleasant (Bulgaria!!!)

regards,
PolishKnight

[Kenneth S.]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:17:23 -0400, PolishKnight

So, PolishKnight . . . . prejudiced against British tourists
in Croatia -- easily identified in Mediterranean countries because
they turn lobster red after a few days -- AND prejudiced against the
very worthy Red Lobster restaurants in the U.S.?

I see a very clear pattern of thought here. Have you looked
into the possibility that your mother was scared by a lobster while
she was pregnant?

Nevertheless, despite your regrettable prejudices, you raise
an interesting point about the shortage of women during the pioneer
days in the U.S. And perhaps the shortage of men in several European
countries after the slaughter in World War I plays into the situation
too, resulting in different attitudes in the two areas. There may be
an interesting academic monograph here. However, I won't look to the
National Organization for Women for financial support for the
research.

[PolishKnight]

In article <tprfu71tubf4dpesl...@4ax.com>,

I was just picking on the Brits because they make such an easy target
ironically because they appear to be amazingly well traveled. It's kind
of a back handed compliment.

> Nevertheless, despite your regrettable prejudices, you raise
> an interesting point about the shortage of women during the pioneer
> days in the U.S. And perhaps the shortage of men in several European
> countries after the slaughter in World War I plays into the situation
> too, resulting in different attitudes in the two areas.

Also consider the difference in attitudes between mainland Europe where
bloody wars that took men's lives were more common because the armies
could just march in versus the British who enjoyed a natural barrier and
literally sent their men off for slaughter. It's a different mentality
when one is sending young men to die versus having them killed by an
invasion.

[PolishKnight]

Kenneth,

I wanted to state that my wife and I went to Red Lobster tonight and a
had a great time. The food was good, the restaurant clean, and the
waitstaff pleasant.

I acknowledge that my experience was biased because of a bad experience
we had in a different branch. This can happen with any restaurant
chain, of course.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Kenneth S.]

PolishKnight --

For a variety of reasons, I have been off the air for a while,
as far as this news group is concerned. So I have only just seen your
message above. Somehow I now feel like a gallant Victorian gent who
has successfully defended the honor of a helpless maiden -- but
doubtless I'm showing my age.

At all events, in regard to this important matter, my work
here is done.