Doesn't Make It Not Hurt

I don't want to break the rules of private discourse, but I need your help here. You being, I guess, the all-powerful, all-knowing Internet. This set of private messages is the result of a Facebook status/wall argument, which I decided, after a bit of soul-searching, to nip in the bud.

Title: just so you know...
me
I'm not defriending you because you hold a different political belief, I am defriending you because I just can't associate myself with a person who thinks that basic rights to live as equals in a society do not belong to every (non-criminal) person on the planet.

ex
While I appreciate your candor, I'm not saying that at all. I've said multiple times that I simply don't care about the issue and didn't fully understand it. Now that I know a little more about it I feel it's a states' rights matter and not something the federal government should ever get involved in. But my different point of view doesn't really matter does it? I don't openly support or oppose it, therefore I have become the enemy. For someone who proudly proclaims that there should be equal treatment for all, it seems that my notions aren't even allowed equal consideration as valid. But that's alright, I still consider you to have been one of my friends.

me
It just makes me incredibly sad for you that you think staying neutral on something like this is worth defending. Yes, we were friends, but when it comes to gay rights I draw a line in the sand. You care or don't. You're with progress, or you're not. If you can't be bothered to worry about the feelings of people who just want to gain the rights of every straight married couple in this country, then I'm afraid I can't be bothered to worry about your feelings of being "equally considered." I hope you can find in your heart to care about the world around you, but until then I find it sad and unhealthy to associate myself with such ambivalence.

I just... am I wrong? Should I back down and be nice and preserve a friendship that (I feel) was largely past-tense anyway? Am I truly a hypocrite? Would I be more hypocritical if I didn't confront this person? Am I worrying about this way too much?

Facebook, for all its evils, is the reflection of myself that I want the world to see. The myself that has a message of love and support, not ambivalence. And having something like the things this person said on my public wall made me feel... dirty. And hypocritical. And a bit misrepresented. How could I be Facebook friends with a person who simply "doesn't care" about basic civil rights? I would almost rather this person be vehemently against gay marriage than ambivalent. Ambivalence is toxic, and contagious. And, I don't know, just not worth a Facebook friendship. It seems.

www.SeekingArrangement.com

Last month, A.Z.Winer wrote about a certain website entitled AshleyMadison-dot-com, a non-singles website for married people looking for an affair. Today I was sent an article in the New York Times about another website, SeekingArrangement-dot-com, in which self-proclaimed sugar daddies and babies can find each other to strike up an "arrangement," generally meaning the "daddy" takes the "baby" out, showers her with gifts, and gives her a stipend in exchange for company, conversation, and (often but not always) sex.

The article, written by Ruth Padawer and entitled "Keeping Up With Being Kept" presents what seems like a fair representation of the people who use the site, which is mainly young women with college debts, moneyed older men who never could get (or keep) a date, young women looking to be pampered, and moneyed older men looking for an ego boost. The site boasts a 1% "sugar mommy" population and one quarter of the "daddies" are looking for a male "baby," but for the most part it is wealthy men seeking hot young women, and hot young women seeking wealthy men.

The women debate among themselves on the blog over whether they consider themselves sex workers or not... some say absolutely and they're fine with that, and some simply state they are no more or less than women who stay in a marriage for the MasterCard or seek relationships based on what material rewards come with them. Padawar brings in the historical perspective, noting that traditionally, marriages have been a contract largely based on power or economic transaction, with the woman being the person (/thing) bought and paid for.

But what really bothers me about this website is not the express sexual contracts implied in "Seeking Arrangement," nor the fact that it may or may not be sex work. These are clearly adults, making adult decisions to maintain or improve their lifestyles. My issue is NOT that it is older men with money and young women who accompany them for their lifestyle. My issue is that, again, it is ONLY older men with money and young women who accompany them for their lifestyle.

Cougaring is only just beginning to become cool, almost forty years after the sexual revolution. Is it really idealism to wish that people could be shallow and self-serving equally? Because I know lots of good looking guys with college debts, and I'm sure there are lots of could-be cougars out there just searching for a way in which they could use young hot men for their youth and hotness without society, you know, FREAKING OUT. And here's the thing: physiologically, it makes more sense. Because while the average man reaches his "sexual peak" (whatever that means) in his late teens, the average woman reaches hers in her late thirties. Now, technically a woman in her late thirties dating a younger man is a "puma," but that's not the point. Especially since there isn't even a term for a man who dates a younger woman, unless you count "regular." The point is that it's 2009, and I feel like that should mean something.

Like we should have jet packs, and sexual equality.