2008-10-23

Love ... or Con Part IV: Golddiggers are EOE

Love or con?

It's sort of like the question Eddie Izzard asks in his comedy routine, "Cake or death?" Of course you're going to choose cake! And of course you're going to choose love, not con. But in the current relationship climate ... which is which?

My mom and dad used to use, "Back in my day ..." as a preamble to a rant about everything they felt is dysfunctional about modern relationships. Back in their day, a man never asked a woman to go Dutch when they went on dates. He didn't ask to borrow money to fix his car. And it was unthinkable for a man to ask a woman for a large "loan" or to arbitrarily invest in his business. Not even if the couple were married. A man who tried to pull this shit was considered scum of the scum, and he quickly acquired a reputation in his community. Women warned each other to stay away from this gent. Polite society closed its doors in his face. You get the idea. Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver ruled.

The women's movement came along in the late 60's and early 70's. Equal rights in the workplace. Free love, birth control, a woman had control over whether she bore children or not. Sounds like a really good deal for the gals, doesn't it? I picked up a copy of "The Women's Room" just to see how it was back in the day. Women had their pursuit of higher education, career goals, and desire for financial independence validated by society. They no longer needed to wait around in the ivory castle of their parents' home for some man to "rescue" them. They worked like men and fucked like men. That seemed to be the objective -- to have all the advantages of men, but none of the liabilities.

When this happened, gender roles blurred and traditional relationship boundaries eroded. Today, men and women now ask questions such as, is it okay to go dutch on a first date? If a woman works, how much should she be expected to contribute financially? Is it okay for a man to be a stay-at-home husband? While everyone stood around scratching their heads over these questions, a brand new industry was forming for the male golddigger, aka, the "sweetheart swindler," aka, the Love Con: Women With Money & Stuff, Inc. Of course, all malingering men aren't sociopathic bastards. There's just a lot of women out there complaining that they have to support their men.

Which goes to show you. Even if you've made significant strides as a gender, there's always going to be something that comes back to bite you on the butt. But I digress ...

Men have been falling prey to golddiggers for decades, nay, centuries before women were permitted to own their own property. (Speaking of property rights, here's a factoid -- in some states, women had to petition the court to handle their own real property until the early 1970s.) I'll bet the little box of Italian chocolates beside me that there are more men reading this blog who can tell you stories about women who tried to use them to get ahead than could women. I wouldn't even be surprised if you guys have evolved with "golddigger compasses" hardwired into your psyches. Look at our literature, it's filled with women with one thing on their minds. My favorite sociopathic golddigger is the character of Mildred in Somerset Maughm's "Of Human Bondage." Kee-rist, what a piece of work; she shows up in the life of kind-hearted doctor-in-training Philip Carey whenever she needs money or services rendered, and she was about as obvious as they come. I found myself skipping ahead in the book just to see when she'd rear her nasty head.

When you think about it from a sociological perspective, it's no surprise that women are now juicy prey for male golddiggers. The characters in "The Women's Room" were highly critical of the women they used to be -- Stepford drones bound to their husbands only because they provided a livelihood. How sweetly ironic, then, that there's a new breed of men out there, con artists types, that bind themselves to women for that very same reason. Men might be more obvious about it. They might not share the same emotional engagement as would a woman, and they definitely plan on flying to coop. It's still the same M.O. Whenever you stay with someone because you can't make it on your own, it's usurious. Whenever you take advantage of someone's financial cushion without a serious commitment involved, that's usurious, too.

While today's post-movement woman expects herself to be economically sound and independent, why does she still lead with the heart rather than a honed intellect and enlightened consciousness?

If the modern woman really believes in totally equality, then the man who asks to be treated like an adult dependent at her expense, contributing little or nothing in return, should be the first one voted off the island. Doncha think? Love is love, and business is money. If women wish to "do business" with men, they need to execute it with professionalism -- with background and credit checks, solid contracts, business plans, anything that will cover their asses, and not trust blindly in the promise. The fact that many women are being taken by con-artists on fraudulent "partnerships" indicates to me that perhaps we really haven't learned all we need to learn ...

Equality between the sexes is good. It helps us get ahead, as individuals, as couples, as families. I'm sure a lot of you also know couples who started businesses together, each contributing what they could. They share equally in the profits and losses, and if they're wildly successful, it's a success for both. If they go bust, they share the same liabilities. You probably know of couples who've gone through hard times, financially. Particularly now. He's lost his job, and they have to make do with her paycheck. There are still a few single-income families out there, where one partner takes more responsibility for maintaining the home and care of children. When you see this kind of solidarity, it's a beautiful thing.

Sure, I could render all sorts of advice to women on how not to be taken in by male golddiggers -- get it in writing, get the pre-nup, make sure that you're married before you start making investments in your partner, yada, yada. But a con artist of either gender with find a way to break, get around, render voidable, and even make a marriage contract work in his or her favor. A true partnership is based on true intentions -- and a lot of conviction. To quote John Lennon:



There's nothing you can make that can't be made
No one you can save that can't be saved
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy
All you need is love

2008-10-22

Love ... or Con Part III: It was your money, honey

This is you: (Hi, you!)

You take people at their word. People trust you, too. You're smart, but not streetwise. You're nurturing and generous ... compassionate. When it comes to a career, you're reasonably successful, with aspirations to go further. You're responsible with money and have some saved for a rainy day. In relationships, you're a trier -- you don't walk when things get tough. But while you have these wonderful traits, you don't see it. Sometimes you're lonely. You're ready and willing to share your life with someone ... forever.

Guess what, you? You're the weakest caribou in the herd. The "Love Con's" perfect prey.

Because male sociopaths outnumber females by about 3:1, and the majority of real life stories I read were told by female victims (and they were the ones who responded to my questions), this blog is largely written from a woman's perspective. But there were male victims -- gay and lesbian victims, too. No one is excluded from this particular brand of hell.

I tried, through readings of various texts and forums, to connect the dots and piece together story similarities. One thing is for sure -- whenever someone in a relationship takes a financial hit, you're not talking about friends with benefits. Victims of Love Cons often wrote they thought they'd met The One. One woman stated that ever since she was a girl, she had an image of the "perfect man," and when the Love Con entered her life, she recognized him immediately. While most relationships take time, the Love Con relationship is forged quickly -- pure "Nights in Rodanthe" stuff.

These relationships don't seem different than genuine relationships. Families and friends are introduced, there's wonderful sex and "I love you's" exchanged. The couple does normal things -- they hold hands, spend holidays together, vacation together, talk. Eventually, the con's sociopathy emerges -- little lies, sense of entitlement, all the wacky things sociopaths do, written off by victims as personality quirks or selfishness at first. But soon into the relationship, the con subtly panders for what they wanted from the get-go.

Money -- or something money can buy.

The con can be quick and dirty. On a personal note, I knew a con on a certain social networking site, didn't have a pot to piss in. Because the women he wooed wanted to "talk" to him, they mailed him cell phones -- which he used to talk to other women. Sometimes he got a plane ticket out of it, a little money. When the phone bill arrived and the women discovered they'd been snookered, they cancelled the cell service with dispatch. I'm telling ya, this guy's number changed with each lunar cycle. It was like something out of a dark comedy.

Other simple cons might include theft of services. A con might convince a victim to paint them a wall mural or design a website and end up paying only in ... (clearing throat). A Love Con who needed ongoing medical treatment left his wife for someone else who'd put him on her health insurance plan -- it can get that lame.

In the scams and schemes I read about, the victims gave a lot more than cell phones. There's the woman who gave her con a down-payment for a car and co-signed the loan; when he defaulted, she was forced into making payments. (Oh -- he took off with the car.) The woman who bought multiple plane tickets for her con so he could go on "business trips;" these were actually mini-vacations for him to romp with another woman. Then there's the tragic tale of the woman who loaned the Love Con a lot of money to buy a private airplane, convinced that it was a profitable investment for the couple. The con managed to convert title and promptly took flight -- literally. Women even signed a deed to their real property over to their con artist. In the stories I read, the smallest debt was $500; the biggest was $300,000 -- the latter went to court, and the victim got a judgment.

The logical question might be, why would a rational person would loan money, invest in a business deal, or sign away property rights? It's simple when you think about it. No one would do these things for someone who they didn't think was a permanent fixture. But say you knew that both of you were in it for the long haul - you'd probably make sacrifices and contributions for the betterment of "the team." That's what couples do. To the victim, a Love Con relationship or marriage doesn't feel any different than one that is truly based in love and trust.

Until the victim runs out of assets. Oops. Poof! Gone.

That's what's strikingly different about these relationships and marriages. The victim didn't know what game was being played until the eleventh hour. That hour is when the victim admits to being out of money. Or after they've signed off that personal loan, or even when they say, "Sorry, can't give you any more." After they gently remove the Love Con's paws from the metaphorical cookie jar, a lot of victims reported immediate responses of: "Okay, we're done" or "I thought you had more money." Incredible, isn't it? Others were less blatant. They waited a few days, then said, "It's just not working out." One victim wrote her break-up was "like being handed a pink slip."

How do you keep the Love Con around? Try winning the lottery ...

"It wasn't a normal break-up," is the mantra of Love Con victims. I read this line over and over, folks. They felt "stunned" or "suckerpunched," (I suspect that it wasn't a normal break-up because there was never a relationship and nothing to break.) Here's something greebly: In just about every story, the Love Con already had at least one new "target" in place. One woman wrote me about how her husband had coffee with a woman he dated in high school twenty years prior; after that one meeting, he came home, told her he wanted a divorce, and moved in with the old flame almost immediately. What did high school sweetie have that the married couple did not? More money.

Victims may go through shock -- "Okay, that didn't really just happen ... did it?" -- and look for answers. If the person you'd pledged your life to just disappeared with some lame excuse, you'd probably think they were having a mental breakdown. But victims often discovered that the Love Con had other wives, illegitimate children ... bench warrants. If they married, they were often in voidable putative marriages (the con is already married). Other lovers poured out of the woodwork, begging the question: Who held the primary relationship? "Some girl I went out with" was actually the con's fiancee, and "a woman I do business with" is the woman the Love Con is living with now. One woman stated it was like the con was "leading a second life" all along.

Once the dust settles, there's a lot of recovery to do. In fact, there are special programs and retreats designed just for victims of sweetheart swindles. Victims hold onto shame and self-recrimination for a longer period of time than usual. They're often left in debt or even bankruptcy as a reminder of their gullibility. The tragedy is that these were good-hearted men and women whose best traits were compromised -- some victims state they fear becoming "sociopathic" themselves. They're suspicious and mistrustful (and broke). They withhold affection and generosity (and are still broke). They aren't motivated to put effort into new relationships. When they date again, they're on the defensive.

After all, if there's one out there, there must be others.


Did you guess which one of this movie couple was the "bad guy?"

2008-10-21

Study: Da Vinci Codex old but not moldy (Update)


Professor Gianfranco Tarsitani meets the media at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, Italy, Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008. Leonardo da Vinci's Codex Atlanticus, the largest collection of drawings and writings by the Renaissance master, has not been infiltrated by mold as some scholars had previously suggested, officials said Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008. The Biblioteca Ambrosiana, where the neraly 1,120-page Codex is housed, said a microbiological analysis of the document excludes "a biological onslaught." The Biblioteca Ambrosiana emphasized that the Codex Atlanticus is kept in an air-conditioned chamber to preserve its condition at a constant temperature and relative humidity. (AP Photo/Giuseppe Aresu)

2008-10-20

SOMETIMES BIGGER IS BETTER!

Many of you are in serious denial about Plus modeling. I'm here to tell you that it exists and there are many plus models doing very well in the industry. I told you guys about Crystal Renn who kicked open doors on Paris runways and has been featured in People Magazine and on Oprah. Here are some pictures to illustrate the beauty and work of Plus models at Ford. The requirements for Plus modeling are: 5'8"- 5'11", Size 10-20, Healthy looking.
Enjoy...




























Simple Prompt Challenge

Write a poem of any length, style, or form using one of the prompts from the list below as your inspiration.

Read the prompts and find one or more that inspires you or intrigues you in some way.

You are free to use the prompt verbatim or to change word forms.

You can add or eliminate connectives or marker words, or even just use a part of the prompt given.


Poets often amaze themselves at what comes out when they take on prompts. Read them and absorb them and let them inspire. You may be surprised at the thoughts evoked.

That's why prompts are one of our favorites.

Try it out. You'll amaze yourself.

We follow one simple courtesy in the forum, if you post a poem, please take the time to read and leave comments on two other posts.



The Prompts

wandering wonder

edgy and razor sharp

oblivious to the implication

tricky fingers of debate

some expansive chaotic manifestation

out of the box leapt . . .

a subtle side plot

lacking notification he/she . . .

some snide polished perfidy

yelling its art out

a sub-conscious exploration of indifference

in reluctant deference he/she waited

a shadowed visage of distortion

dreamscapes of delight

seeds scattered in the wind

enraged by insensitivity

a path through thickets of briar

otherwise uninformed

despising the relevance

transcending patterns

word-energies spoken

destroying their false cover

inherent authority

beyond relevant sanity

distracted by description

story time flew away

obnhoxious fumes called words

a collapse of reality

spoken of by all who came

despite the innundation

eccentricity aside

recollection

All I remember of you

is what was shadow

but not what was light.

And what was flesh,

but not what was smoke

I remember your kiss

but not your curse -

and the vague feeling

of gravity on the points

where you clung to me.

I remember your music and

your sweet, dark medicine.

I remember people in rooms,

conversations, voices

but not their faces.

And airplane journeys homewards

yet, no trips by train

I remember rain in the evening

but not clouds in the daylight

And a honeymoon,

a marriage, a downfall and divorce

but no wedding

I remember your shivering street

but not the house you lived in.

I remember so vividly

with a piercing, lucid vision

dreams, but never sleeping…

And your nakedness, burning

but never your clothes

I remember the climb

but I don't recall the hilltop

I remember knowing I'd hit

the bottom,

but I don't remember the fall.