« What a difference a month makes | Main | I've had enough of the plagiarizers »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't think I should vote, being male, but my opinion is still good :)

There was a "Scrubs" episode about this actually, where they ended up hiring the sexier one. I didn't last long, where, even though he didn't cheat, it got very complicated.

I see how you think that if someone is going to cheat, they would at some point, but putting the chocolate right in front of you while you watch TV is going to make you want it more compared to if it was hidden deep in the pantry cupboard. "Out of sight, out of mind."

Anyway, that's just one male perspective.

No, I would most definitely hire a hot nanny. Hot manny, yes.
Gosh, Ethan Hawke even banged a not-so hot nanny which got him a divorce from Uma Thurman!
Which lead me to have the rule: no nanny under the age of 60!!

When you are on a diet, you don't keep a plate of cookies on the table.

Also, I am currently in a similar position with a friendship. My husband's friend has a hot new girlfriend. Superhot. Model hot. They want to get together for dinner. So am I dragging my 170lb ass to the table to snarf french fries while Barbie has a salad? Oh hell no. I wish I didn't feel this way, I wish I was more comfortable with myself but I am not. If the relationship appears long term, I may have to get over myself but for now, I'm not putting myself through it. I can feel like the ugly stepsister on my own without putting Cinderella at my table to be ogled over. Jealous? Yes. Personality flaw that I should work on? No doubt. None of this changes how I feel about it though.

Difficult, but my answer is yes... she would give me the boost to sort myself out so I wouldn't look dowdy next to her

wow, doesn't this post raise questions about how our society tends to value physical beauty above almost everything else?

we talk so much about looks not mattering, and the importance of intellect and compassion and other non-visual traits, of our real value in being HOW we are and not what we look like, but this post gets to the heart of what we women really BELIEVE, below all of our well-intentioned talk.

we KNOW that looks and bodies are only the outside trappings of the real person, yet we STILL buy into the drive to judge ourselves, and other women,
using physical appearance as our main criteria. we COMPARE OURSELVES TO EACH OTHER ALL . . . THE . . . TIME . . . we tell our kids not to do this, to be courageous enough to be different, but WE model the opposite attitude to them as we are speaking.

and doesn't it suggest that we see our husbands/partners as weak and shallow, as if they don't have the balls and hearts to stay faithful to us despite us ageing and getting less youthful in appearance? would we fall into bed with any gorgeous 'hot' guy just because we happened to be in his company on a regular basis? or do we stay faithful to our mates because we CHOOSE to, regardless of how their appearance may change? don't our mates have the same powerful potential to stay faithful?

i really feel for Em - her analogy about the plate of cookies vs the diet was so sad. Em, do you honestly feel that you have so little to offer your husband (and even more importantly YOURSELF) that being with you he is on some kind of diet; as if in being with you he is somehow missing out on something that being with a 'slimmer' (and therefore, you suggest, automatically better looking) woman could offer him? is the way you look all there is to you? what about the passionate interesting creative imaginative person inside of you, beyond your physical appearance? she needs your urgent attention - because its just wrong for any woman to feel so worthless that being in the presence of another (supposedly more attractive) woman can make you feel so bad.

if a woman is truly frightened that her partner may stray - there is a problem with the relationship itself. she needs help with her own self-esteem, to learn how to value herself as a person - without any mention of how she may look. and they as a couple need help with issues of trust and communication, and also with boundaries.

no woman will stop her man from straying. and no man will stop his woman from straying. people in a healthy relationship stay with each other by choice. if you feel that you have to control your partner, your relationship needs immediate help.

the hot nanny, or any other third party, has nothing to do with that relationship - although their presence may act as a catalyst for change that is already bound to happen because of pre-existing problems in that relationship. when brad pitt and angelina jolie hooked up, the pitt/aniston marriage was already in crisis. angelina was a symptom, not the cause of, the marriage problems (although her willingness to get hooked up with a married man in such a public manner, without regard to his wife' feelings is the subject of another discussion). she got slammed, but if pitt had wanted to stay faithful - he would have.

men do what (and whom) they choose to. hiding the hot nanny won't change that fact. if he is going to go - he will. the same applies to a woman.

are we shallow creatures that respond only to physical appearance, not seeing other people, or ourselves, as unique valuable individuals regardless of how we/they look?

i think about your last posts about your mum and dad - who are faithful to each other - to death and beyond, and feel that THAT is how we should be aiming to live with our partners. your mum and dad aren't in it because of the looks of the other person, but because of the deep unconditional love they as individuals have for their spouse. i bet your mum wasn't thinking about the hot nurses while he was in hospital - because there were other so much more important things to focus on . . .

this is a rant - SORRY - but something i feel so passionately about. we women have so much to offer ourselves and the world, but when we reduce our value down to the physical - and just writing that makes me aware of how shallow that perception is - we are seriously undermining our potential, and dumbing down our relationships with the men we share our space with.

if we want our daughters to be powerful happy women, and our sons to be strong principled men, we need to offer them a different value system to live by.

i leave you with a quote from paul newman - when asked whether he had ever thought of straying from his wife (to whom he was married forever) he replied: "why go out for hamburger when you have steak at home?" . . . although being compared to meat may not suit all of us, we could certainly build our self esteem up so that we KNOW we have a high high worth, one that is not set by our physical appearance.

we owe it to ourselves, and to our mates, and our kids, to let ourselves shine as people, as thinking feeling laughing crying valuable individuals, despite the outer shell we find ourselves in - and to respond to other people in precisely the same way.

I voted yes, but I'm actually unsure.

I would like to think that it wouldn't bother me, and I would go for the person with the best qualifications. She would be taking care of my children after all... But if push came to shove, I'm not sure I'm I could do it.

I'm in the same headspace as Kellie. I voted yes, but I'm really unsure.

I voted no for the same reason your friend gave. Although, on the other hand, with a live in nanny one could spend more time on not looking/feeling frumpy. The cheating husband issue would not be a factor.

I would. But then I married a chubby chaser. He PREFERS my frumpy, old, fat ass.

Of course I would hire the hot nanny. I can't even fathom not hiring somebody for that reason. Poor hot nanny, can't get a job because she is too hot. Maybe she should deliberately frump herself up for the next job interview?

We were lucky enough to hire a part-time nanny (not live-in), and went with the most qualified. This was important since we had twin babies and I could barely even take care of both of them myself. I couldn't imagine some college student being able to handle them. We hired an insanely qualified person who specialized in twins and, oh yeah, just happens to be a 60-year old lesbian. But if she'd been a 25-year old model I still would have hired her, because knowing my kids are with somebody as totally awesome as her is priceless.

Humans are humans, regardless of how 'secure' the relationship might be. To me, it's not about being fearful of an affair or otherwise, but being smart about maintaining the sanctity of the relationship. Temptation grows when given the garden to grow in. A lady on the street isn't exactly motive or opportunity; a woman constantly in your home is. I'm all for hiring people based on qualifications, but when bringing someone into the daily aspects of your heart and home, the rules have to change to include how those dynamics will affect the family.

I'd like to think that I am secure enough to hire the hot nanny but, in truth, I am not, and would not.
I'm honest, though.

Why would that gorgeous woman be interested in your chubby, old, bald, married, tired or grumpy husband? Maybe hot Barbie is waiting for her hot Ken, not interested to steal her frumpy, ugly, old employer's husband at all...
Poor nanny, beauty discrimination!

i hate to be prejudiced, but if i am honest i don't think i would hire her. not because of my husband but because of me! (drab, unbrushed hair, out of shape...)
also if the other nanny is also well-qualified, what's the difference?

I think you have to be comfortable with the nanny you hire, and if there is one aspect of them that makes you feel uncomfortable, then you shouldn't hire them, no matter what that aspect is. Yes, it may be your own insecurity that is making you uncomfortable in this situation but it's still an aspect that you are uncomfortable with.... and for such an important role it's essential to be 100% comfortable with the arrangement.

I voted yes because I know my husband a) wouldn't stray and b) is at work all day and wouldn't come into contact with the nanny too often. Also I would want the person who is best qualified to look after my children.

I don't want to repeat most of what Ruth has said, but I agree with her, it's sad we are too busy feeling bad about ourselves and letting other people affect our self-esteem to enjoy life and meet new people.

I voted no but cannot help but feel this woman has been a subject of prejudice because she is BEAUTIFUL! Still, not sure I could hire her being the insecure thing that I am. Goes to show, you just never know why you didn't get that job. Could be a multitude of reasons! (Not you personally but any of us.) I was almost not hired as I had more education than the manager. Thankfully the other manager stepped in and hired me).

NO! Nononononon! I would not hire the hot nanny. I've had friends do this and guess what? THE HUSBAND ALWAYS HAS SEX WITH THEM!!!!

so no. no hot nannies.

Oh my goodness, this made me so angry. As women and mothers we fight so hard not to be discriminated against on the basis of our gender and our choice to have children, and then we turn around and discriminate against someone because of her bad luck to be gorgeous! Re-read the story again, but change the job title to Senior Vice President of a large corporate, and see how your reaction changes. And then change the job title to Personal Assistance to the Senior Vice President and check your biases again...

Guys, I'm disappointed in you :(

here's the thing: if the husband is having sex with the nanny, it means he's not bothering YOU for it. sounds like a win-win for everybody.

See I am a single mother and I am ashamed to admit that I would still not hire a super hot nanny, and I don't even have a husband for her to be shagging! ;-) I do think women are their own worst enemy at times and this is just another example. I would feel really uncomfortable having someone really beautiful around me all the time because it would make me feel ugly/inadequate. The girl who babysits Joey for me is very beautiful and even having her over just once a month always makes me feel old and frumpy so I can't imagine having her around all the time! LOL! Yes it is beauty-discrimination but if you aren't comfortable with someone, no matter what the reason, you shouldn't be made to feel bad for not wanting to hire them to live in your own home. THAT is what makes this different from a corporate situation- you would be living with the person as opposed to just hiring them to be in the office during the working week.

History is littered with examples of men who feel compelled to bang the nanny, despite the fact that they may have an equally gorgeous wife/partner - just look at the Jude Law/ Sienna Miller story.
Perhaps men find the lure of the hot nanny irresistible because not only is she eye candy, but she is nurturing/caring for/soothing the fruit of his loins and that seems to turn them on even more - go figure?!
I agree that if a man is looking for extramarital entertainment he will find it anyway, but why invite temptation right into your home.
No siree, no hot nannies for me, thank you.

Yup, I'd employ the hot nanny. In fact I actually did. She was the best qualified to look after the kids - what she looked like was irrelevant to me. Having had three nannies for my kids I can tell you the best looking one was the best nanny for them; even now she visits us once a week to catch up with my sons and to have a coffee with my husband (I hate the stuff) and to blow off steam with me. So yup - the hot nanny worked well for us!

If the nanny was male , well then, there's no question! Come here you hot nanny you, get to work immediately!!! ;)

Would be kind cool if the kids leave lots of things on the floor, to be picked up, wouldn't it?

I would absolutely hire the hot nanny. I don't know what about this gets my ire but it does. If my husband is going to stray, then let's get on with it--I need to start hauling his crap to the curb. Having struggled with self-esteem issues for many moons, I've finally reached a place where I do believe that I am interesting, gorgeous and divine (thanks to Tertia on many counts there). I refuse to live in the shadows of 'what if'...I want what is best for my child and if the gorgeous nanny is it then that is what my darling would get.

wow. i came across this and im a little offended actually. I nannied for a very long time, and am certainly not bad looking. to think that someone would not hire you for being good looking is awful. to not hire a person based on her character and qualifications. can you imagine how she might feel if she found out she was not hired because she was too attractive and would therefore be a temptation for the father to have an affair with her. if i were here, i would be appalled that people that dont know me would think that of me, and if i were the husband i'd probably be a little pissed off that people would think that of me as well. I was asked numerous times if id ever 'cheated' with any of the dads I worked with. Such an insult. This whole idea just makes me a little sick and makes me feel bad for this girl for everyone assuming she'd make the husband stray when she was very qualified to do the job they were asking her too.

How can anyone hire the less qualified candidate to TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS? Your children deserve the very best you are able to provide for them.

And news flash: Not only will the hot nanny probably have zero sexual interest in your husbands, but plenty of men have had affairs with non-hot women. Hiring the less attractive candidate is not a guarantee that nothing will happen.

I am going to hire whomever is going to make my children happiest. And while I understand (in what is probably a horrifically condescending way) that some women would feel threatened by another woman's looks, I don't understand why those women aren't bothering to get over themselves and do what's best for the kids. Really, we all have issues, but to allow them, day in day out, to affect your kids? That I don't understand.

no worries...my beloved husband is fat, bald and losing most of his teeth (a genetic thing, which I hope our daughter has not inherited...but anyway). My guess is a hot young nanny is NOT looking for that.

I agree with those who say we shouldn't be so insecure about ourselves, but the reality is that we are human and seldom can we match that ideal. We are not talking about hiring a babysitter. We are talking about inviting someone into my home, to live with me 24/7 and this factor does change the considerations. I need to be totally happy and totally comfortable. There needs to be a good mesh. If it were just about qualifications, we could review a resume, run a background check and hire without even meeting the nanny.
I also want to respond to the question of considering looks in hiring a nanny vs hiring a Senior Vice President: I think this is a case of apples and oranges. A senior VP will not live in my home. She just needs to get the job done. There are none of the personal dynamics that come with the close immersion into family life. For a live-in nanny, it's a whole complex dynamic.
We could extend this question to something not beauty related: Would you commit to living with someone with an annoying personal habit (this may be a silly example, but think Janice's laugh on 'Friends') if there is an alternative person you could hire? For one person (me) I might just assume that I will get used to it after awhile. For another person, it could become a hair-pulling, eyeball-scratching daily irritation. If you are that second person, then you have the right to decide that this seemingly minor factor is the deal-breaker for you, because why would you set yourself up to feel that level of irritation on a daily basis, all day, every day?

I voted no but now I'm re-thinking it. I guess it would depend on how much better qualified, how well the woman got along with the kids, etc. If all things were equal, I might be too shallow and choose the not so hot nanny if I'm being completely honest. But if the hot nanny was more qualified or better for whatever reason, I think I would owe it to my children to choose her.

If I liked her personally, I might hire her. I really don't think my husband would cheat, and I bet hot nanny would have her choice of men anyway and would have no need to put it out for a married man. Her gorgeousness wouldn't make me feel less attractive, either.

But the one reason I might NOT hire her is that I'd get really sick of my husband talking about how hot she is -- and I know he'd do it just to annoy me.

I think the nanny's personality would matter the most to me. Her looks mean nothing to me, and I have certainly had my share of days where I'm feeling particularly frumpy, or HATE my skin or whatever.

But if there was something about her personality that rubbed me the wrong way, despite being better qualified in other areas, I would choose not to hire her, because the personality conflict will come out when you have to spend time with someone every day.

I'm not going to judge anyone else's vote or rationale. But I, personally, most definitely would NOT let a nanny's good looks cancel out the fact that she's the best candidate.

I don't think I'm a troll, nor do I think I'm hot. I'm just me. I'm the person my husband loves, and I trust him. But that's just me. (And him.) I really don't give a rat's @ss what other people look like, especially if they are obviously decent human beings.

YMMV. If I were feeling fragile for whatever reason, or if I were worried about my husband's trustworthiness or about the state of my marriage, I might make a different decision.

Never mind that it's unfair and horrible, if the rejected hot nanny ever found out that was the reason she didn't get the position your friend may be liable for a discrimination suit. And she would deserve it.

"Yes it is beauty-discrimination but if you aren't comfortable with someone, no matter what the reason, you shouldn't be made to feel bad for not wanting to hire them to live in your own home."

You are still an employer though and bound by rules of employment law, so whether the fact that someone is black, white, gay, old, disabled or heaven forbid... beautiful, the law says that is not a reason to reject a more qualified candidate. If we were talking almost any other defining characteristic here, we would surely be horrified that such prejudice was being exhibited? Wouldn't we...? I really hope so.

I voted yes. I am totally secure in my marriage, like you said, if things are going to happen, things will happen, Nanny or not. Besides she will be my motivation to work out more.

Well, my husband is a stay-at-home dad, and he IS super-hot, so I guess I did hire the hot nanny, in a manner of speaking.

Just absolutely roaring here----
Tertia's readers/commenters for the win!

So---the hottie's only slightly more qualified? We're not talking Mary Poppins vs an axe murderer, lol?

I actually have real empathy for Gretchen; I did get insulted and hurt when I got hottie-discrimination in my willowy youth. But the leering I don't miss in my decrepit old 40's, that's for damn sure!

I'm with Haitian American, here, honey. NO Hot Live-in Staff! Not because my husband would actually even try (because he knows there would be blood on the floor---his), but because of the too-much ogling that would likely result. Intolerable but likely, no matter how much he loves me. Facts are facts.

But Elzabeth (sic?) on the other hand, has a marvelous idea! Hot Manny! And go, Sara, with your fine hot manny husband!

But also,

what RainbowW said!
And where's Orange?

Er, there's Orange! Whoops!

Sorry, can't take this so seriously, it's really cracking me up.

After reading your comments I am with hiring the hot Manny! ;)

wouldnt hire! haha! its different seeing all these gorgeous women in the streets, than to actually live them. i think

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Medsitters Au pairs

More Ads

| More


Bloggy Stuff

  • Living and Loving

  • SA Blog Awards Badge

  • Featured in Alltop

  • Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

  • RSS Feed
Blog powered by Typepad
This is the Reviews Design