Escort Has Message For Wall Street Men: You Are Bad In Bed

The Huffington Post  |  By Katherine Bindley Posted: 05/ 2/2012 7:58 pm Updated: 05/ 3/2012 11:31 am

Of all the types of men a woman might service in the escort business, a recent BuzzFeed post, would indicate those working on Wall Street could soon earn the reputation of being the worst kind of client.

According to a first person account from a female escort in New York City -- every word of which needs to be read to be believed -- not only do Wall Street men whine about their lives, but they need constant reassurance that they are well-endowed and amazing in bed.

WARNING: Some Explicit Language Used Below

"They want to talk a lot more than you think," says the author of the post, whose self-described physical attributes include having the kind of "tiny but curvy body that drives men wild" along with auburn hair and almond-shaped eyes.

"They want to vent about their kids' private schools, their bosses, their bonus talks, their friend beating them at squash," she continues. "They have big egos and are big babies. If I made any sign that they weren't the best lover ... they started asking all these questions and putting me down."

Next, the escort gets to what it is she'd really like to inform those former clients:

"No, actually, you're really small and you're bad in bed."

The article is the latest in a series of recent stories that have surfaced about relationships with Wall Street men, none of which have done much to improve the public's perception of banker-types as it pertains to the ladies: In February, a step-by-step guide of the management skills it takes to date a finance guy was published, courtesy of relationship expert Samantha Daniels.

Among the tips was for women to be sure to charm Wall Street men out of talking about work in the first few minutes of a date -- the implication being that they have such a hard time not talking about the office that they could very well zip past the initial niceties people tend to exchange when first meeting someone.

Additional suggestions included not playing hard to get -- because Wall Street men feel they're very busy and important and will just find another woman if you're not available enough -- and to tell stories quickly because their minds move so fast that they probably won't have the attention span for anything with any sort of depth.

Then of course, there was last month's financial services guy who e-mailed his Excel dating spreadsheet to a woman he was seeing and unwittingly ended up sharing it with a good percentage of the people on the Internet after she forwarded it along to friends. That he used a spreadsheet alone might have been enough to earn him plenty of attention, but the document also included the names of the many women he was juggling along with their looks as rated on a scale of one through ten.

The Buzzfeed escort, for her part, admitted that the attention of Wall Street men was alluring at first, but that their appeal soon wore off. She says she tried out "sugar daddy" websites after she quit being an escort, thinking she might find someone looking for "something long term," but found them to be no better -- perhaps because some were still Wall Street types.

"One guy who was in private equity gave me $5,000 a month for four months, but then he disappeared. These men, it's like they die one day," she wrote. "They're all liars. Some nicer or cuter than others, but all liars."

Cocaine Tampons: Cindy Davidson Of Utah Finds Cocaine In Her Tampon Box  

Huffington Post  |  By David Moye Posted: 05/04/2012 10:41 am Updated: 05/04/2012 8:31 pm

Cindy Davidson is good at sniffing out bargains, so when the Salt Lake City mom saw tampons on sale last Saturday, she didn't exactly turn up her nose at a good deal. However, inside the box, along with the tampons and the applicator was something extra: Cocaine. "It didn't look like it was tampered at all," she told KTVX-TV. "There was cellophane filled with white powder."

The powdery substance was rolled up in thick cellophane and taped shut inside the cardboard applicator.

"It was wrapped so tight she spent five minutes trying to open it and still couldn't," Davidson, 39, told KSL-TV.

The box of Boots tampons -- a British brand -- was supposed to contain 16 tampons. She noticed, however, some inconsistencies in they way they were packed. When she found the suspicious little package inside, her heart began to race -- and it certainly wasn't the euphoria coke users experience.

"I started getting nervous because I thought it might have been a terrorist attack," she told KSL-TV. "I called my sister first and said I was going to call the manufacturer the next day and she told me to call the police."

The authorities tested the substance and confirmed it was cocaine -- which shocked the mother of two.

"I really couldn't wrap my head around it," she told the New York Post. "I was just thinking it was crazy. I couldn't believe it had happened." The manager of the store that sold the drug-laced feminine hygiene products has removed the remaining Boots tampons and Salt Lake City police are attempting to backtrack the shipment to determine whether other packages contain narcotics, The Smoking Gun reported.

Meanwhile, Stan Alexander, the Director of Security of NPS, the bargain store that sold the cocaine tampons, said more details need to be sniffed out before it can be determined how the cocaine got into the product box. “Without knowing the customer, without knowing the product specifically on this situation we just have no information to try and figure out where it came from," Alexander told KTVX-TV.

Best Cities For Women: 25 U.S. Metropolitan Areas Ranked For Women's Well-Being

The Huffington Post  |  By Emma Gray Posted: 04/30/2012 5:49 pm Updated: 05/ 1/2012 10:28 am

Where you live may determine a whole lot more than the view you wake up to. A new report released by Measure Of America indicates that a woman’s well-being is inextricably linked to where she resides.

The report focuses on the 25 most populated metropolitan areas in the United States and ranks each city based on the American Human Development Index (AHDI). This measure examines information for each region on women’s educational attainment, life expectancy and median earnings, converting this data into a score out of 10. Although women in the majority of these metropolitan areas are faring as well or better than average -- the average American woman’s score on the AHDI is a five -- six regions ranked below this national standard. 

The nation’s capital, which also came out on top for women’s pay in a survey released for Equal Pay Day on April 17th, topped the list. In D.C. women make an average of $16,000 more each year than women in the lowest-ranked urban area, Riverside-San Bernadino. There, according to the report, 1 in 5 women haven’t completed high school, and female workers earn an average of $22,300 -- the same as the national average for both men and women in 1970, adjusted for inflation. When it comes to life expectancy, San Francisco wins. Women in the Bay area live to 84 and ½, compared the the national average of 81.3.

Measure of America also looked at how women’s marital status, race and ethnicity factored into overall well-being. One noteworthy finding was that a higher percentage of single women tended to mean higher overall earnings for women in a given metropolitan area. The report also found that African-American women have the shortest life expectancy and faced some specific health challenges, including higher rates of HIV infection. Asian and Latina women tend to outlive Caucasian and African-American women, even though Latina women fall behind when it comes to educational attainment.

Where does your hometown fall on this list?

Daylle Deanna Schwartz

Author, Nice Girls Can Finish First; Self-Empowerment counselor

Changing Etiquette Between the Sexes

Posted: 05/04/2012 7:01 pm

On the subway recently, a man near me rushed to sit when someone got up. I was a little taken aback, as I'm used to men giving up seats to women. Then a man boarding the train made a quick dash to sit down. This change in etiquette was surprising. My first thought was even more surprising -- good for you!

They both looked drained. One carried several packages. While several women gave them dirty looks, I thought about double standards. Why shouldn't men be able to sit down if they're tired? Why should they feel obligated to let a woman sit just because she's female? Older or pregnant women? Sure! I've given my seat to old men. But a healthy woman should have no extra dibbs on one.

Women want equal rights, but some expect old standards to prevail when it suits their needs. I wanted a seat but would never expect a man to give me his. I've even turned down offers from a guy ready to get up for me because I feel they have a right to comfort too. We can't have it both ways. We fight to be equals but...

It doesn't serve us well in the long run to waffle selectively between expecting traditional courtesies we like and new liberated standards to feel more equal, depending on which we like in different situations. Women who want equality need to adjust expectations fairly. There are many men who like being more traditional, and it's fine to enjoy being with one. But if we want to be treated as equals, traditional behavior should be optional. I get angry when I hear a woman who has complained about not getting promoted as fast as a man then complain that a guy she had dinner with asked her to split the check. Hello! Either we want equal rights or not. It shouldn't just be a sometimes mentality, depending on what we'd like in the moment.

It's also not good to go completely in the other direction to prove you're an equal. I've heard women indignantly declare that they won't let a man hold the door for them. Men tell me they've had women balk when they tried to open the car door. This attitude proves no point! I like when a man I'm out with holds the door but I'll hold one for him too. It's consideration, not a sexist issue! Nowadays, I think in terms of what seems courteous, not what's expected for a man or woman.

Like me, many women were brought up experiencing men who paid for dinner, opened doors, watched out for us as protectors, deferred for seats, etc. It's time for us to let go of those expectations. Many men still feel more comfortable adhering to traditions and that's okay. I do enjoy being with one who wants to make me feel special. But I try to give the courtesy back. While men have been uncomfortable when I hold the door, they also appreciated the gesture.

If a guy I'm dating insists on paying when we go out, I'll make dinner another time. Once after going out for dinner with a guy I was dating, we decided to get ice cream. I paid before he could. I still remember how uncomfortable he was at first. Then he acted like I'd just bought him a gold watch and thanked me several times for an ice cream cone! He wasn't used to a woman treating him to anything and it made him feel special. I didn't do it to prove something. I just wanted to show that I appreciated him.

We must be careful not to go too far in either direction -- being a woman who wants tradition when that tradition suits her, or aggressively fighting traditional behavior by making a big fuss to pay your share of dinner or not walking through a door that's held by a man. Etiquette is evolving. Expectations about what the opposite sex "should" do still needs to be adjusted more. And men who insist on following their traditional upbringing shouldn't be criticized, unless their behavior is demeaning.

As I came home on the subway last night, an older man stood next to the only empty seat and gestured for me to take it. I gestured back that he should. He smiled and gave me a look that said, "Sit!" I did and saw he felt good about it. We actually exchanged "Have a good night" when I got off. Traditional manners aren't wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean the guy thinks you're not as good as he is. That's just how many men were brought up. There's no need to fight it. But it should be considered a nice extra, not something you expect if you do want to be treated as an equal in other areas, especially career ones.

Kay Bailey Hutchison Claims Republicans Don't Want to Restrict Access to Contraception After Voting for Blunt Amendment

If you're a Republican and you would like to come on the air and repeat one talking point after another virtually unchallenged, this Thursday, Chuck Todd once again showed us he's happy to oblige you. Todd allowed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to get away with a series of lies right off the bat, like pretending increasing domestic oil drilling will have any major impact in lowering the price of gasoline (it won't), or that Republicans have some sort of "principled" stance on energy production, unless you consider always doing the bidding of the oil companies "principled."

Todd then asked Hutchison about the Republicans "war on women" and he allows her to get away with claiming that Republicans don't want to restrict women's access to contraception after she just voted for the Blunt amendment. Heaven forbid he might have reminded her of that during the interview.

She finished up with giving a half hearted defense of Planned Parenthood, saying she disagreed with Gov. Rick Perry's decision to turn down the state's Medicaid funding. It would have been nice if she'd bothered to say something when the House Republicans were seeking to defund it last year.

Think Progress has more on Hutchison's defense of Planned Parenthood which I don't think was particularly brave given that it was mainly prodded on by Chuck Todd.

Kay Bailey Hutchison Defends Planned Parenthood, Says Organization Provides Critical Preventive Care:

During an interview on MSNBC this morning, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voiced rare support for Planned Parenthood, noting that the organization provides much-needed preventive care to low-income women. The outgoing Texas senator also condemned a recently-enacted Texas law that prohibits Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program and providing health care services to some 130,000 women. The controversial measure has led the federal government to officially stop funding the Texas Women’s Health Program, but Gov. Rick Perry (R) insists that the state will fill the funding gap using state funds.

Hutchison criticized Perry’s decision to turn his back on the federal dollars, which she argued, provide critical care to lower-income women.

Republicans, Get In My Vagina: Kate Beckinsale Satirizes 'War On Women' With Funny Or Die 

Posted: 05/05/2012 3:58 pm Updated: 05/05/2012 3:58 pm

With the War On Women abreast, both sides of the aisle have accused the other of cynically bringing women's health issues to the forefront of political debate in an election year. But over the last few months, it seems clear that Republicans are choosing this moment to drastically overhaul existing reproductive and female health laws. And Funny Or Die is finally giving voice to the voiceless -- the millions of women who want Republicans to make decisions about their vaginas for them.

Kate Beckinsale, Judy Greer and Andrea Savage are just your typical Republican women who want nothing more than small government in every regard -- except when it comes to their private areas. "Way, way deep, up there in my vagina," Greer says.

While most women might find it distressing that legislation has popped up across various states that would restrict affordable birth control and enforce invasive ultrasounds before going through with an abortion, these women find them to be refreshing.

After all, who knows better about reproductive health than a bunch of old white men? "Don't you want someone like your dad in your vagina? I do," says Beckinsale.

Funny Or Die proves once again that no argument is more effective than a funny one, even if it includes Kate Beckinsale talking about her dad being in her vagina.

Crisanta Duran

Colorado State Representative, District 5

Let's Not Play Political Football With Women's Health

Posted: 03/ 1/2012 11:30 am

As the youngest representative currently serving in the state House, I am deeply disappointed by the assault on women's access to quality health care.

I, like many Colorado women, support no-cost contraception which was achieved through the Affordable Care Act.

President Obama recently showed the true qualities of leadership when he adjusted the provisions of contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act. Acknowledging the good will of stakeholders on both sides of the debate, he engaged in a productive conversation and respected those views that differed from his own. The president announced a small change to the Department of Health and Human Services' contraception ruling that accommodates religiously based institutions while continuing to protect women's health.

Under the new policy, all women will have access to no-cost preventative care including contraception no matter where they work. Now, however, it will become incumbent upon insurers, not religiously affiliated employers, to provide contraception directly. As before, under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance with no co-pay or deductible.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a measure that would allow any employer to refuse to insure birth control or any other health service for any moral reason. This legislation, from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), stipulates that employers and health plans don't have to provide coverage for any service that they object to.

Think about what that means for a second.

This legislation would allow any employer or insurance company to not only deny access to birth control, but also to any essential health care service, including maternity care, HIV/AIDS treatment, mammograms, and cancer screenings.

Indeed, it is unbelievable that this assault on women's health is taking place in the year 2012.

The effort to bolster preventative services for women isn't new. Colorado is one of 28 states that already require contraception coverage in health insurance plans similar to the new federal rule, thanks to House Bill 1021 signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter in 2010.

Birth control is basic health care. More fundamentally, it allows a woman to plan whether and when to start a family and how many children to have. It allows woman to participate in society equally, allowing her to pursue educational, professional, and economic goals.

Contraception gets prescribed for a variety of medical and health reasons, including reducing the risk of some cancers, serious infections and cysts. Requiring coverage also reduces costs -- many women pay between $30 and $50 a month for contraceptives; they'd save up to $600 a year, and the National Business Group on Health estimated that employers would save between 15 and 17 percent on health care costs if they provide contraception coverage.

Which is why in the real world, there is widespread support for the birth control benefit. A New York Times/CBS News poll found that 65 percent of American voters said they supported the benefit, and 59 percent said the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost of birth control. The number of supporters is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the requirement, while 32 percent oppose it.

Just like President Obama, my values are informed by my faith, and that's why I stand in good conscience for affordable access to contraceptives for Colorado's women