If you’re wondering what it takes to secure a boyfriend, to get some steady dick–in short, maintain an enduring relationship of any kind with a male–the answer in the twenty-first century has increasingly become: pay for it. Not in the prostitute way, however; or at least not as straightforwardly as a man would pay for a whore. But no, if you’re living in a city like New York (the metropolis that still most prides itself on power plays), look around you and consider the people you know. Is there something strange about the “healthy” relationships you see? Can you think of a single couple that’s been together for a long period of time that doesn’t have something fucked about them? Upon closer examination, you probably can’t. As the world gradually but surely comes to at last “allow” women their rightful roles in positions of power and status, it, in turn, seems to be that the tradeoff is a loss of conventional masculinity in men. And if all women wanted to be lesbians then we all would have just started a colony on Lesbos a long time ago, building upon it as the population expanded.
So what’s the simple solution for the strong, independent woman who is still apparently living in the dark ages for wanting consistent sexual contact and lavishment from a man? Allure your boyfriend with the promise of cold cash divine. That’s what Mariah Carey has been purported to have done with her James Packer replacement, Bryan Tanaka. And at a rate of $25,000 a month to shower her with monetary affection as she saw fit, no less. Though the tabloid-leaning accusation has yet to be corroborated, Tanaka is, regardless, technically on Carey’s payroll as a dancer. So really, no matter how you slice it, she’s compensating him to buy her gifts and treat her to the same trips she grew accustomed to going on with Packer (which really is a baiting last name). Or rather, she was before dumping him, presumably in search of a man she might not have to pay as much on a monthly basis.
But the larger takeaway is even more alarming than Carey’s recent predilection for man-eating. And that is: whether your income tax bracket is as high as Mariah’s or you’re just slinging some unnecessary product at a minimum wage job, the new normal for enticing a man to stick around is by making it financially worth his while to stay with you. Yes, it’s a sad state of affairs when, no matter what economic tier you fall into as a woman, you’re probably still going to need to dangle a stack that doesn’t refer to your body shape in front of a dude to keep him semi-loyal. The fact remains, however, that she who controls the pursestrings has the power. Except the difference is, when men have the money, they use it on many other women as well. Conversely, the tendency of females toward one “mate” makes this recent zeitgeist especially lucrative for the man who manages to realize that a woman will bestow her good fortunes upon him for the exchange of his devotion.
Is this some sort of punishment for the female “glory days” of being “taken care of” in housewife form? Because, if so, the so-called karmic comeuppance doesn’t feel fitting. Women took care of themselves and the men they claimed as husbands/sons back then. Now we have to do the same and pony up for their faithfulness too? It hardly comes across as an equitable paradigm shift. And yet, here Mariah is, once again single-handedly making controversial strides regarding her men and money.
