Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Krugman has a funny blog today...calls himself a "dirty old man" (Original Post) CTyankee Sep 2014 OP
Then there was Lola... malthaussen Sep 2014 #1
the edwardians were great...too bad it was such a short lived era...about 9 years... CTyankee Sep 2014 #2
not sure what your point is jollyreaper2112 Sep 2014 #3
No, I agree totally with his point. I was just commenting on the fact that I've never seen him take CTyankee Sep 2014 #4
ok I see jollyreaper2112 Sep 2014 #5
and molesting one's stepdaughter is up there with the cardinal sins... CTyankee Sep 2014 #6

jollyreaper2112

(1,941 posts)
3. not sure what your point is
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 11:07 AM
Sep 2014

Do you disagree with his comment?

The Atlantic has an article about a website that sets up “mutually beneficial relationships” between wealthy older men and college students. Yes, it’s prurient, and I’m probably a dirty old man for even linking to it — although what really caught my eye was just how closely reality echoes Woody Allen’s (speaking of dirty old men) story “The Whore of Mensa“.

But there is some economics here too. Thomas Piketty tells us that we’re living in a new Belle Epoque — and he’s right, in some ways contemporary society feels more like that era than the cruder, more hypocritical American Gilded Age — and one thing extreme inequality brings is, yes, a courtesan class.


I think this is an astute observation. If there were more equality, more social mobility, these women would not need to be paid companions. Patronage is required in any system where merit alone is insufficient.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
4. No, I agree totally with his point. I was just commenting on the fact that I've never seen him take
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 11:13 AM
Sep 2014

up this particular instance of the consequences of income inequality.

And I'm ESPECIALLY glad to see he sees Woody Allen as I do...I remember that we here at DU had an epic uproar over the revelations of Mia Farrow's daughter about Woody Allen in a NYT op ed a while back.

jollyreaper2112

(1,941 posts)
5. ok I see
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 03:37 PM
Sep 2014

I'm not one to go around calling people perverts for having differing sexual tastes from me but Woody Allen always struck me as someone who was able to monetize his lechery, mining it for movie material, the same way Richard Pryor was able to monetize his demons for comedy. Pryor I think was more honest about it and more genuine. Allen just always gave me the creeps. Gee, imagine how odd this is, a significantly underattractive and older man is fawned over by an incomprehensible number of attractive younger women. I know, it's so odd! Let me make movies about it.

There's comments that have been made about how no matter how benevolent the master, when he is a master, there can be no equality. Equality only exists between equals.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Krugman has a funny blog ...