shit! they are on to me! except I am in advertising so clearly i am on the lookout for a high flying virile....gay man. damn.

No one wants to believe that some women can actually be happy while single and working, they have to believe that some duplicitious home-wrecking she-devil lurks beneath the surface of all those businesswomen--anxious to get buns in the oven and leave the office for good.

It's so 1954, yet so now--tragic.

It’s foolish to believe that because a woman has a career and independence suggests she has jettisoned her sexuality. Men & women tend to find one another attractive and want to be with one another. If this article has any veracity whatsoever; then it is only natural that career women would seek mates around the office. I know very few people whose career is the source and summit of existence. Most are interested in finding romance and companionship. Surely such women as this article describes exist. Its only natural.

Anyone who thinks that the ticket to financial security is hooking up with a middle aged man who is about to go through a messy divorce, potentially pay alimony and child support, and might in turn leave THEM one day for Wife v. 3.0 is too stupid to do most jobs. Duh.

Fritz, on the Discovery Channel Theory of Office politics, presumably NO ONE jettisons their sexuality at the office door. However, accusing WOMEN of spending a ton of dough on graduate school and countless hours taking exams, boards, whatever to be in a career just to have the opportunity to be a homewrecker is silly. There are easier ways to meet moderately successful men. Besides, who is to say you would end up working with men? Until last week, my partner was the only man in my entire office. Do even the most predatory men pick careers soley to meet chicks? If they did, there would be a lot more male teachers and nurses. Bottom line: people do not pursue difficult and demanding careers just to hook up, and it's insulting to pin that on working women.

bmc90
I’m afraid you have successfully confronted……some else’s argument.

Please read post again…will advise.

Sorry, Fritz. It's obvious to me that bmc90 was confronting you. I drew the same conclusions but would not have been so elegant.

Fritz, JAH is right. Whenever someone uses the word "natural" in a post about gender roles and sex (twice in your case), they typically need to be confronted. Let's rework your post a little:

It’s foolish to believe that because a monkey has the ability to find its own bannanas that it has jettisoned its sexuality. Boy and girl monkeys tend to find one another attractive, even while looking for bannanas, and want to be with one another. If this article has any veracity whatsoever; then it is only natural that bannana seeking girl monekys would seek mates around the bannana tree. I know very few primates whose bannana search is the only instinctive force driving them. Most are interested in finding romance and companionship and making little monkeys. Surely such monkeys as this article describes exist. Its only natural.

As dear Queen Victoria said, nature was what we were put on earth to rise above, and I think most of us office drudges are doing it rather successfully. If not, we get weeded out early by natural selection, like the slow gazelles that we are. I'm hoping you get her magisty's message. Now I must go climb to higher branches, Fritz, the boy monkeys are throwing the water cooler around again.

“As dear Queen Victoria said, nature was what we were put on earth to rise above�

I’m not an expert in primate behavior; what kind of monkeys are we referring to, currently Benobo’s seem all the rage. Typically when people invoke rising above our nature they are labeled moralists. To agree whith Queen Victoria’s quote is to presuppose two things. 1- there is a human nature 2- We must strive to rise above it.
The spirit of the age that Victoria ruled in (Victorian England) was legend in requiring people to strive in overcome their more base natures. They were quite successful at it. Of course they take a lot of heat for this by contemporary libertarians.

I’m glad to note we are both on the same page. Our contemporary culture could benefit greatly from an ethos of restraint. Personally I don’t find it all that problematic to seek mates around the office. Targeting someone else’s mate however presents serious problems. I’m sure that many women do “rise above� their more base natures, but in a era were only consent is proffered as the reigning sexual ethic, many do not.

My original argument was that no one ventures into the "jungle" of the professional world (unlike that peopled by our remote genetic ancestors) primarily to conduct mating rituals, and to stick working women with the label of predator under those circumstances is laughable. I just can't think of my male collages as jucy wilderbeasts.

I don't want to wade into the monkey debate, but I definitely agree with BMC90 about the foolishness of the article's underlying premise. If an, ahem, "pirahna" was looking for a wealthy man to consume, why would she go after someone who's likely to lose half his assets (or more) in a divorce?
I'm no expert in dating or sexuality, and certainly know little about feminism, but I can tell you from my experience that most career-minded girls I know have little interest in middle-aged men. The older, more "successful" men in my city are definitely not fending off women with a stick.
From what I've seen professional women who've made their own way in the world are just looking for a man they are attracted to, they can trust, and with whom who they feel a genuine connection.

Thanks, DC. The vibe I am really getting from Fritz's post is that once you put boys and girls together in the workplace, sex happens, therefore it was better not to have women in the workplace, and, oh, it's all the woman's fault. How about this for a 'sexual ethic': men and women do not ALWAYS have to view each other in a sexually predatory light. In fact, familiarity, from my own experience can certainly breed contempt. From house mates to cube mates, it does not take long to know too much to be remotely interested any more (I saw my house and dorm mates with the stomach flu and women they picked up at bars - easy to leave those goods on the shelf - Same goes for guys you realize are slackers and not too bright on the job).

I'm also amused by the concept that consent is the only sexual ethic any more. Well, that would be somewhere to start. I only WISH that there was no child marriage, incest, rape, exposure of partners to disease with no disclosure or attempt at protection, female genital mutilation, over-sexualization of young girls in the media (which I see as an attempt to groom them to accept sexual involvement young) - I could go on. And don't think prior generations where better. Would you really want your daughter to be a house maid in a victorian home? Can you say, upstairs, downstairs?

The Victorian obsession with morality was whistling in the dark, friends. What could the wife really do if her husband dilly dallied? There was no divorce. She could not get a "job" except maybe as a maid, governess or prostiute, plus HE would get the kids. It's only now that I think, I hope, that through more econcomic equality, we are starting to gain more social equality - control over our own sexuality - and the gains are not solid and not equal across classes, sexual orientations, or nationality. That is what we are working on, and the idea that what we are really doing is chasing guys with ear hair is a hoot.