to have this opinion about stereotypical WAGS?

[NearlyMrsCustardsHardHat]

Is it bad to view WAGS (the ones with orange skin, anorexic figures and bleach blonde hair) are little more than high class escorts/prostitutes?

AIBU?

:o

Isn't marrying for wealth/social status/lands as old as time? We could say that all of them are prostitutes (male or female).

I think there are people who marry footballers/other athletes/singers/actors/wealthy business owners/heirs or heiress to fortunes because they do genuinely fall in love with them. Then there are those who are out to get the money.

Are the women with their own wealth who marry footballers the typical WAGS?

(biscuit)

I meant

Christine Bleakley and Cheryl Tweedy (whatever you think of their singing/presenting ability) were hardly unknowns or penniless when they started going out with their partners.

I had a sociology A-level teacher who once said in class "marriage is just legalised prostitution". I never forgot that and never got married. I don't believe that myself now, but if you are going to say WAGS are prostitutes then why not all married women or partners who don't work?

I don't think it neccessarily applies to just "WAGS" of footballers.

I know a woman who is a very successful professional in her own right. (She's a barrister). She married a man who comes from an extremely wealthy family, with a large house, a ski chalet in Mirabelle, yacht in the Carribean, country retreat in a "naice" part of Oxfordshire, etc, etc.

Her "D"H is a womanising tosser, who is blatant about the fact she is a trophy wife who needs to put-up and shut-up because of his money. On her hen weekend (she was away), the H had prositutes to the house, as well as other sleazy things. It was not the first occasion he'd done something like that when she was away.

She doesn't want to loose the rich trappings of her life style and so she lets him do what he wants. She's now produced a heir (had a DD in August) and so as far as she is concerned "she is set up for life". She considers herself "successful", because she has this rich luxurious life-style with unlimited wealth. However, she never knows if her "D"H is going to be home for the night, who he is with, or who is his current one-night shag.

She "looks down on me" and has told a mutual friend that she can't be friends with me because my DH is not wealthy enough for her social circles. (You can imagine I cry myself to sleep over this ). Yet, with my DH, if we were to loose everything and live in a cardboard box under a bridge, we would still have a solid relationship and adore each other. But, if she lost all her money, she wouldn't even have her DH, because he'd be off to the next conquest.

I know it's a matter of opinion, but I think she's no better than a prostitute, because she's made the decision to stay with this wanker for his money. I think many WAGS are the same.

Specifically trying to date someone just because they are a footballer which I think is the case for many of the premiership wives/girlfriends because of money/ status is stupid. Sleeping with someone because of money makes you a prostitute basically. That said, some wags have been with their partners for years (way before money/status) and clearly love their partners which is why they stay with them even when they are unfaithful. So YABU as many are just normal women whose husbands have made it big.

Some of the high profile cases recently have shocked me because the wives could leave with PLENTY of money but they stay...must be love.

Actually i dont think Christine Blakely fits wag formula cos she aint pretty enough. Shes does look like a gormless idiot on Dancing on Ice.

Well, I'm a bit torn. The tabloid media invented the term WAG to basically stereotype and therefore in a way, denigrate women who happened to be the partners of Premiership footballers, regardless of whatever else they happened to be doing with their lives. So that's the media being a bit misogynistic, IMO.

BUT
Since then there does seem to be a celebrity-seeking type of girl who actively pursues that role. And they are easy to spot because there's a certain "style" they seem to like

I hate football and the ridiculous amounts of money sloshing around, so someone who is just wanting a pice of that isn't top of my list of people to respect.

piece of that

So therefore whats more important in a relationship love or money, or the power of fame. How Salman Rushdie or Micheal Winner (ugly and give me the creeps) get the pretty women baffles me, must be the money and fame thing.

I have seen women on here who do not work and describe themselves as "sucessful" on the grounds that they have married a man who earns enough to buy a large house, pay for holidays and private school etc.

I have no idea what dress size they are or if they fake tan

The fact that there is a well-known group of rich, powerful and possibly-not-as-educated-as-they-could-be (attempting tact) men being applauded for treating women as bought, disposable objects rather than equal partners disturbs me as much as the fact that said women are queuing up to date them tbh.

Catgirl has a point. Mumsnet is a hotbed of prostitution by those standards!

tis a veritable brothel :)

i am not sayng that is prostitution btw - just if the ops definition is correct it would fit a whole lot more people than just the "wags"

Actually I was referring to the women who admit to doing so. Believe it or not there are women and young girls (so called "wannabe WAGS) who don't think there is anything wrong with going to clubs where famous footballers regularly attend with the sole intention of becoming a WAG.

I would think the same of any person who perused a relationship simply for status and money rather than love. So yes if I had a daughter and she admitted to doing this I would be disgusted.

I would kick my DSs arse if he tried it too.

There are women who are defined by the meeja in terms of whom they're dating. Some of those women co-operate with it enough to introduce themselves as, "yeah, I'm Peter's girlfriend" on whatever reality show. But I doubt any of them internally/mentally define themselves as the wife or girlfriend of [insert here].

HB - I would feel the same as I do about anyone who has low aspirations or expectations for their lives - a bit sorry for them.

I agree howling

I would feel the same if a woman was trying to "bag" a footballer, a surgeon, CEO or an airline pilot. No difference. Or if a man was trying it. (although sadly women footballers don't earn any money so the first one is unlikely )

I've always assumed that "WAG" aspirants are women aiming for a relationship based on love or mutual sexual attraction, who choose to restrict their search to where they think they will only meet men, who are definitively financially solvent.

Like dating adverts, where men and women always specify "GSOH" and "financially solvent".

If someone came out and said that their ambition was to marry a footballer for money, yes I would think that is pathetic. But we shouldn't judge every footballer's partner/wife by your narrow standards. Maybe they really are in love?? So what if they like to be a size eight and have hair extensions? And from what I gather plenty of women on mumsnet are supported by their partners while they raise children. If you're judging WAGs for doing the same that's a double standard.