WE USED TO SPEAK OF CADS AND GOLD-DIGGERS. I discovered an instructive post explaining how a concept called "heteronormativity" speaks of the same thing.

The particular topic we had in mind was how, using financial gain as the ultimate carrot, everything pushes women, from birth, either into heterosexual marriages or into prostitution as quickly as possible. In doing so, the privilege of wealth eventually comes to equal romance and love.

Yes, that argument has been out there for some time. Read on.

Many straight women I've met see a clear relationship between the size of their diamond ring and the amount a man loves them. Or they say any man who really cares will buy them fancy dinners at expensive restaurants. Or, like poor Katie Holmes, you get excited about a relationship because he's able to take you to Rome in his private jet. It's possible that this is worse in New York than anywhere else, as there are plenty of wealthy single assholes hanging out in bars just dying to force you to accept romantic weekend trips to the Hamptons and orchestra seats to every big show. It's very clear what they want. They want to make a woman constantly aware of her financial dependence so she won't complain when they coerce her to do things sexually that they couldn't get an equal to do by choice.

Again, I have seen this argument before. (Turn on the Generalization Alert!) But is it really the case that women in New York or anywhere else must submit to the attentions of these cads? (cf "gold-digger.") Have the various feminisms been so ineffective at raising consciousness that these primitive come-ons remain as evolutionarily stable strategies? Ladies, there are other ways. Master Laser sailing, for example. You'll be able to deck a cad with a tiller extension should it be necessary, although your social circle will include a better class of people, so it won't be necessary.