Well, IMO prostitution is practical, but that’s beside the point.
OT1H, what two consenting adults do is their own business, as long as no one is being hurt.
But as upfront and reasonable as the two people in the story come across, they also come across (to me) as being somewhat in denial about the fact that he is paying for her time, presence, and sexual congress. She is a hooker, and he is a john. Just because it’s expensive doesn’t mean it’s different.
the only real problem I have with this is the lack of complete honesty, mostly to themselves about what they are doing and what labels are appropriately applied.
Anyone have any thoughts?
props to anyone who gets the thread title, eh
Apparently prostitution is ok, as long as a man is rich enough to outright buy the woman. Those of us with more modest means who can only merely afford to rent a beautiful woman face the wrath of the law. :eek:
Do you spend 2% of your annual income on a woman within the first 3 dates? It’s a ridiculous amount of money to spend whether she’s a whore or not. It’s stupid and impractical, aside from the prostitution angle.
This topic reminds me of that hoary old apocryphal story where George Bernard Shaw asked the society matron whether she’d sleep with him. You’ve probably all heard it, but I can’t help myself:
No, but I’m also not the kind of guy that has that much money to spend. When you have that kind of money necessities become a much smaller proportion of your overall income. So yes, it’s whorish, but then so are likely half the blondes in South Beach.
Yup. Even if the woman is “considering multiples”, she’s unlikely to risk her current profitable arrangement if the guy she’s with insists strongly on exclusivity.
Anyway, there’s nothing new about this situation, even though it isn’t technically prostitution as usually defined. It’s the same practice of “keeping a mistress” that’s been a standard symbiosis between wealthy men and attractive young women throughout the history of urban civilization. The only thing remotely new about it is the contact medium: men are now meeting their mistresses on the internet instead of in nightclubs or at stage doors. Big whoop.
It does seem like an unreasonable amount for a non-exclusive - after all, I would imagine that part of the benefit of such an arrangement is a mistress available at your convenience.
I realize the debate is supposed to be “is it prostitution or is it not”, but why not find some actual poor person with more reasonable tastes. Meet a nice girl from a bad neighborhood and set her up with a Banana Republic handbag and a '99 Saab 900.
I’m going to start a dating site called BudgetWhores.com, where you can meet attractive women willing to date men for less lavish presents.
I don’t think this is entirely accurate. Unless you want to claim that the women in nightclubs and at stage doors are also holding signs that say “will fuck you for money”.
Even the site’s founder acknowledges that some of the women are posting that they will have sex for money, yet somehow she still denies that prostitution or pimping are involved.
Actually you’d probably make a mint. Can’t use whores in the title though. But find upper-middle-class men looking for sugar-babies. It sounds like an underserved market to me!