Could you ever 'rinse' a guy for his money?
We ask whether women who date guys for their money but have a no-sex policy are just gold-digger-lite or really honest daters?
Until last night, I thought 'rinsing' was the penultimate cycle on my washing machine.
But now, thanks to last night's shock-and-awe Channel 4 documentary, Sex, Lies And Rinsing, I now know that 'rinsing' is what young women do when they use their looks and feminine wiles to procure gifts and money from men. It's not about sex - these girls make it very clear there will be no bedroom gymnastics in return for the freebies bestowed upon them (making the Sex and Lies bit of the programme title actually irrelevant).
Subsequently, a storm of opinion has raged on Twitter as a result of people being outraged that these women deliberately date guys for expensive gifts - as reported by MSN TV . But an interesting question has arisen in the midst of all the mudslinging: is rinsing any worse than when a woman sleeps with a man because he's rich?
To find some answers, we need to take a quick look at history. Before the sexual liberation of the 60s, men pursued women they knew would never sleep with them unless they were married. That's what the relationship rules dictated back then. So it meant a courtship, as your gran would call it, invariably included the men buying gifts and paying for evenings out but receiving nothing in return.
Now I'm not saying the women in your gran's day were as mercenary as those girls on last night's documentary, but you can't tell me there weren't some who dated chaps they didn't much fancy simply because it was nice to have attention and treats. Which sounds a lot like rinsing to me.
Then feminism arrived in the 70s and as we asserted our independence, some men started expecting a return on their 'investment' in relationships and we had to make the decision whether we were comfortable with that dynamic.
Frankly, I find neither commendable but I do wonder what the reaction would have been had the women on last night's show 'rinsed' their prey and then eventually slept with them too. Probably a lot harsher than the criticism they've received so far.
It's a double standard to attack the girls and not the men featured, who were clearly indulging them in the hope they'd have sex. In my book, that makes them both as bad as one another.
What do you think?
|Page 1 of 1|