Well. When?
Read this article about a college student who goes for a job interview, doesn’t get it, but is offered something else.
Leaving aside the fact that a prospective employer offering to trade sexual favors during an interview is just asking for a lawsuit, the thing skeeves me. But then again, it’s not really illegal to date a rich guy just because he’s rich, and neither of them is getting hurt, so who really cares?
From a criminal defense point of view, this is not prostitution because the deal is not explicitly money for sex. The deal is money for companionship. The fact that there was no sex for three months would seem to strengthen that argument.
The guy is an idiot for making that deal. Leaves himself wide open to a lawsuit and/or blackmail from the girl, plus a divorce if he happens to be married, and probable termination when/if his employer finds out about it.
The difference is–only one customer.
Commercial monogamy, so to speak.
Not to mention he could have gotten it cheaper off craigslist, and wouldn’t have had to wait 3 months.
It must sting to have to spend all that money to fuck a college student. What happened to cheap vodka and fruit punch? It’s kind of like spending 3 months and thousands of dollars developing an elaborate scheme to confuse the hell out of an alzheimer’s patient.
Interesting that B3TA’s question of the week is ‘Cougars & Sugar Daddies’. Sounds like her story should be on the ‘best’ page. Here’s the link, in case you aren’t familiar with the B3TA QOTW.
It’s prostitution, just not the kind that is normally prosecuted. If I traded someone a bunch of drugs for those items I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the DA would go after me as a dealer and not just someone who was generous with their habit.
It would be funny if the IRS read that article and went after her non-declared taxable income.
Too funny.
I suppose that the conceptual difference between gold-digging and prostitution lies in how fine a “commoditization” takes place. “Prostitution” is socially viewed as happening when there’s straight-out exchange of X materially valuable consideration for Y sexual act. In what Bosda caled “commercial monogamy” (*) there is an exchange of what resembles the high degree of general material support given a spouse or girlfriend, in exchange for not just sex but also general attentions that resemble more those in an ordinary affair or courtship: *intangibles *are included.
May not be fair to make that split, but the culture tends to reinforce it: No matter how many thousands Elliott Spitzer spent, he remains a “john”, though an upscale one, while Hugh Hefner’s a sugardaddy.
How come? The high-class callgirl’s john, like his low-rate street-hooker-hiring counterpart, pays a negotiated rate in cash in exchange for specifically having sex with the other party and then be done with it until the next appointment, in confidentiality. The sugardaddy meanwhile offers the ladies the chance to party with and like high-rollers, shop 'til they drop, be taken care of, make the scene, all the while he has them hang from his arm when he goes out on the town so they both get to see and be seen and later be talked about, and he can brag of how he still can party with and like the hot young studs, and makes this a regular part of both their lives – birthdays, holidays, special events, are shared in some fashion. And socioculturally, even within so-called “traditional” relationships, hooking up with a richer, worldlier man has been itself considered a legitimate goal for women, while directly selling yourself is stigmatized, considered the last resort of desperation or the end of the road to degradation. One can see how in the case of a culture that used to view things in terms of “find a rich *husband *who can provide well for you”, it can easily morph into “find a rich man who can provide well for you” while still considering it ethical to aspire to being kept in style.
(*) with the caveat, that not all Kept Women (or Toy Boys) are in an exclusive 1:1 situation, and back in the days of arranged marriage it was not unknown for a married couple of certain station to be in a situation where he kept mistresses while she was in turn the mistress of some other man.
I don’t find any conceptual difference between gold-digging and prostitution at all. No fine line, no shading of meaning, no cultural traditions. Nor do I think it meaningful to distinguish between commerical “trade” and private transactions, other than for IRS revenue recognition purposes.
Not very romantic, but more care in our recognition of the nature of our sexual contracts would be a good thing, in my view.
The only reason why our society is so virulently against prostitution is that (until very recently) even the most decent marriage was not all that different in substance. We created this line only so that we can say we are standing on the right side of it.
The reason why prostitutes are so hated is not because they are doing anything unusual. The real problem is that they are not playing by the rules. Undercutting prices. Expensive prostitutes don’t undercut prices quite so badly, so we hate them a bit less. And we reserve our real wrath for the girl who "just gives it away.
A kept woman at least makes the effort to maintain the appearance of non-financial interest. She can say, “It’s not the gifts and money. I’m really in love with him and he likes giving me things.” We know it’s bull, but she’s making the effort to shovel it. A streetwalker makes no excuses. “Yeah, I need cash and doing this guy will get me some.”
So rationalization makes it better?
What if the comparison is more like:
Streetwalker - “My husband left me and I need to feed the kids and pay the rent”
Golddigger - “I’d really like that Prada bag”
I’m also guessing that most “kept women” have a boyfriend or outside sexual partners. I’m dubious that she typically saves herself just for him.
Where in my post did it say anything about it being better?
I agree with this 100%. The question isn’t really “what’s the difference between golddigging and prostitution,” the question is, “what’s the difference between golddigging and marriage?”
I think it’s very clear that relationships are entered into for all sorts of reasons, many of which can be viewed as subjectively better reasons than others. Pretending that material gain doesn’t play a major role in a large percentages of relationships is delusional.
[QUOTE=Eonwe]
I agree with this 100%. The question isn’t really “what’s the difference between golddigging and prostitution,” the question is, "what’s the difference between golddigging and marriage?"QUOTE]
That only makes both you 100% wrong (or is it 200%?).
Prostitution is paying someone for sex, which is illegal in most of the US. If you are paying someone for companionship, that is not prostituion.
Golddigging - Is any time a woman is interested in a man primarily based on financial interests. It can be overt or implied and is not illegal.
Marriage - Is a legal and religeous arrangement. It is not exclusive to a wealthier man and a less wealthy woman.
These are important distinctions.
Certainly there are many women who take advantage of the fact that men tend to make more money in our society. When push comes to shove, it is a lot easier for a woman to get married, pop out some kids and drop out of the work force to become a SAHM than it is for a man to do the same thing. And as a general trend, women do tend to look for guys who earn more than they do and tend to prefer men who make more than other men.
On the other hand, the golddigger arrangement isn’t particularly logical or sound. As a young and attractive woman, your beauty is going to fade over time. I will eventually grow board of using you as a sex doll and will want to try something different. I, OTOH, will likely increase my wealth and income over time. In other words, while she is a depreciating asset, like a car or a DVD player, my value continues to grow. Unless, of course, I get locked into a kid or marriage without a pre-nup. In which case…I suppose that’s what prostitutes are really for.
I don’t think even sven is correct that prostitutes are hated because they "undercut the competition though. I think it has more to do with the fact that they are associated with drugs and crime and that most neighborhoods don’t want a steady stream of outsiders showing up to pay for sex.
Also I imagine that many women would find the notion that they are all some form of prostitude to be somewhat offensive.
Wow. You really think that most 21st century American women marry for material gain? That’s mighty cynical. And completely untrue among the people I know.
Well, that may be, but it also may be because they’re not willing to accept that there are selfish reasons to enter a relationship with a person, and that doesn’t make them bad, or the relationship bad. I don’t think that all women are selling sex in exchange for protection. I do think that benefit exchanges are a big part of what relationships are about, and sex and security are important factors, as are emotional benefits.
My point (I won’t pretend to speak for even sven), is merely that the reasons people enter into relationships are many, and I’m not going to pass judgment on those reasons.
I didn’t say most 21st century American women marry for material gain. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough; what I was attempting to say is that material gain plays a role in forming relationships. Money and/or stability is attractive. It’s not always the end all and be all, but the difference between a “gold digger” and a “wife whose motives I’m not going to insult” is just how much money plays a role in attractiveness and how little other factors are present.
You miss the point: we’re ALL prostitutes, men and women alike. Provide goods and/or services for a fee? That’d be you. Quibbling over the nature of the goods/services is just quibbling.
A prostitute is a person who performs sex acts for money. A person who provides goods and/or services for a fee would be a merchant. We are all merchants.