"Honestly, I don't think it's any different than a marriage with a house wife," Rachel explains to Daily Mail Online. "If the wife is not working, she is being paid and supported by her husband, and of course they have sex. Does that make her a prostitute?"ADDED: A husband and his stay-at-home wife are an economic unit in a single-earner household. The income-earning spouse isn't paying the home-based spouse. They've divided the contributions within a shared enterprise, and they have substantial mutual obligations if they decide to end the arrangement. Rachel doesn't mean to disrespect traditional marriage. She just does that by accident as she tries to distance herself from prostitution and makes an old-fashioned everything's-economic argument.
१३ मार्च, २०१५
"Many of the women who use the website have a great deal in common. They were almost all 'skeptical' of the concept at first..."
"... and, while their biggest fear is still being judged by society for what they do, every single one of them insisted that there is a very clear distinction between prostitution and being paid to date a man – even when they have sex with them."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५९ टिप्पण्या:
"We've already established that you're a whore. Now we're just haggling about price."
--Anonymous Wag
"If the wife is not working, she is being paid and supported by her husband, and of course they have sex. Does that make her a prostitute?"
No. Being paid to go on a date (and have sex) does make one a prostitute.
I had a married male friend at NYU law in 1970 who always made this comment.
It's odd how judgmental people are about this sort of thing but then hedge fund managers are respectable.
That is the oldest reversed thought we are told about wives being whores.
We all know that a whore is not being paid for sex but to leave after the sex.
Marriage is paying all you have so she doesn't go away after the sex, but stays and share lives with you forever.
harrogate, perhaps it's the crowds we run in. In mine, a hedge fund manager is far less respectable than a prostitute.
As DKWalser points out, a wife is not a prostitute, she is one half of a life long commitment, regardless of the terms. The whole point of prostitution is that it substitutes a straight cash exchange for that commitment. No cash+commitment transaction is the same as a cash-only transaction.
It's easy to see why they wouldn't want to dwell on what the men really think of them.
Happy Pi Day. We are having major festivities at work-tests, presentations, pies, etc.
tits.
hedge fund managers are respectable
They're not any more or less respectable than anyone else. Other than dishonest ones, what do hedge fund managers do that hurts people?
"No. Being paid to go on a date (and have sex) does make one a prostitute."
-- I believe they prefer "escort."
The whole point of prostitution is that it substitutes a straight cash exchange for that commitment.
Maybe I'm in a different crowd, but how are these women NOT doing the above?
SOJO said...
I would argue that there is yet another distinction between being a sugar baby, or whatever she called it, and the sheer numbers involved in an official life of prostitution - even a highly paid one. There was one woman interviewed who had 50 sugar daddies. That's a full on prostitute. Most only had one or two.
3/13/15, 10:58 AM
Is that like "sorta" pregnant?
I Callahan said...
hedge fund managers are respectable
They're not any more or less respectable than anyone else. Other than dishonest ones, what do hedge fund managers do that hurts people?
They make more money than some others, sometimes lots more, and that is very hurtful.
What if your married and the man has the job and the wife doesn't work, but it is the wife that is asking and getting the sex.
Does that mean the man is paying the wife for domestic duties, but then getting paid back for the sex. So in that case would the man be a gigolo?
What if you value the domestic duties at an amount that is equal to or exceeds the money the man makes at his job. In that case wouldn't the woman really be supporting the man.
Ann Althouse said...The income-earning spouse isn't paying the home-based based spouse. They've divided the contributions within a shared enterprise, and they have substantial mutual obligations if they decide to end the arrangement
The second part of your second sentence there is the better argument; Rachel or a clever economist could make some argument concerning implied wages, etc, to respond to your first sentence. If we're modeling both relationships as contractual, though, you are correct that the nature of the marriage contract in such a model will differ greatly from the implied contract Rachel relies upon, in terms of expected duration, mutual performance obligations, hostage or "posion pill" provisions, consequences of breach, and so on. Marriage isn't just an economic transaction (in the Marxist sense), but even if one wants to think of it in that way it's vastly more complex and involved than anything Rachel considers.
Of course, I am single and today's pay day...
@Tank
If you look at it from the POV of the woman experiencing it, not the guy paying for it, there's a huge difference between being in a "mistress" type arrangement with one guy, and being basically reduced to body parts by many, many guys on a very short-term basis. It's a continuum, but definitely more towards the girlfriend side than the streetwalker side.
Winston Churchill was quotable, but wrong. And in other news, he shouldn't have been calling anyone ugly with that face of his.
Still, there is some truth there. Maybe not a lot, but a little. A girl I dated back in graduate school had some friends who went to Florida upon (undergraduate) graduation for Brown. These young ladies apparently were on the lookout for middle aged men with money. And, being very bright and attractive, they were apparently able to pull it off. Standard pre-nuptial seemed to be X amount per month in a settlement for the first N1 months of marriage, then a lower rate for the next N2 months, etc. Apparently, a couple of them very legally walked off with over a million each for relatively short marriages of a year or two. Prostitution? Legally not, of course. But where is the difference there between having the boyfriend support you, and this? These young women had no intent to stay married, just to get a nice bankroll to start off their careers.
The problem is that males taking care of females financially in trade for sexual access to them has a long history with our species. And, a lot of human sexuality seems maybe to be tied into this dynamic - e.g. hidden ovulation and 365 day a year female sexual availability.
Titus said...
Happy Pi Day.
Remind me to never have you do any math or engineering work for me.
People are free to do whatever they want, but that article seemed a bit more like an advertorial for the sugar daddy site than a true article.
How about the Google (or something like that) exec who was murdered by his sugar babe?
Soo... are these women being taxed on their sugar?
I Callahan said..."The whole point of prostitution is that it substitutes a straight cash exchange for that commitment."
Maybe I'm in a different crowd, but how are these women NOT doing the above?
Who said they weren't? Nobody here, as far as I can tell.
They make more money than some others, sometimes lots more, and that is very hurtful.
Got it now, Tank. That explains things...
:)
Who said they weren't? Nobody here, as far as I can tell.
OK, Tim. I assumed you were arguing that it didn't fit (your comment came up after DKWalser's, and I thought you were replying to his). My fault.
Liberal relationships are corporate. If for any reason an officer fails to perform, another officer has a right to terminate the relationship at will. Female officers have a further exclusive right to liquidate underperforming or unplanned assets with a government-sponsored benefit.
I now pronounce you CEO and COO, you are authorized to engage in commerce by the state.
There's courtship that doesn't necessarily stop, in marriage.
Two Weeks Notice
Sandra Bullock: I'm just not a romantic person. Never felt that way about anybody. Nope. No. No, in high school, Rick Beck took me parking. You know, parking? And the whole time I talked about Nelson Mandela. Don't know why I did that.
Hugh Grant: That is hard to say. I certainly would have found it extremely erotic.
I'm paid zilch.
After the bills and expenses for the kids. I want to know what I'm being paid.
I get no allowance of funds for myself, instead we share a joint account my husband's check goes into direct deposit. He trusts me not to screw him or the kids over. If I need something, I buy within the family budget.
I have complete access and shared responsibility to my husband's earnings and savings, what proustite has that?
They've divided the contributions within a shared enterprise, and they have substantial mutual obligations if they decide to end the arrangement.
That describes most financial transactions.
I'd like to think my wife has sex with me because she loves me as much as I love her, and not just because I bring home a paycheck. Since I've announced my retirement, I guess I'll find out soon enough if I'm right.
It's said that there are more old drunks than old doctors. On the other hand, there are more old wives than old whores......There are lots and lots of exceptions, but women don't seem to come out ahead long term when they make sex a commercial transaction. The maximum of cynicism with the minimum of commitment. Men flourish in such an environment, but women wither.
On the other hand, there's this classic country song, especially the fourth verse.
Gianna Phoenix, a 43-year-old Arizona widow and mother-of-two, had her home partially purchased for her by her sugar daddy, and makes $60,000 a year from her 'allowance'.
'Have you been out there in the conventional dating scene?' she asks. 'It’s a nightmare! I've had grown men asking to borrow money from me! Dirt bags.'
She is given an "allowance" and that's good. They want to borrow money, and that's bad?
@Titus, if you're celebrating Pi day today, you're 366 days early.
No. Being paid to go on a date (and have sex) does make one a prostitute."
-- I believe they prefer "escort."
Yeah, I thought this was going to be about an escort service.
I had a random summer roommate once who decided to be an escort. She told me they did NOT have sex, although apparently she got busted by the cops when I was out of town. They just paid you 300 bucks to go to their hotel room. And not have sex. Uh, huh. Right.
It was sort of creepy because her 'office' or whatever would call the appartment and sometimes I would answer and she would be in the background waving at me to tell them she wasn't home. Weird.
And here I thought people got married because they love one another.
...and, while their biggest fear is still being judged by society for what they do..."
Sheesh, doesn't anyone sin with style these days? Without the whimpering insistence that "society" owes them approval and acceptance when they go off the straight and narrow? Did courtesans like Ninon de L'Enclos or Nell Gwynn or Lola Montez ever sit around getting all whiny and butthurt that some people judged their behavior to be immoral? I don't think so.
If you really weren't a common prostitute, or really were that distinctive sort of service-seller (courtesan, mistress) that you fancy yourself to be, you wouldn't feel the need to keep telling people that you weren't a common prostitute.
Arranged marriages for economic reasons have always been around. This is how they're arranged in the modern era.
Re: Anglelyne:
If you really weren't a common prostitute, or really were that distinctive sort of service-seller (courtesan, mistress) that you fancy yourself to be, you wouldn't feel the need to keep telling people that you weren't a common prostitute.
I think they're just trying to enforce status distinctions amongst very similar work. Like the fine gradations between working at a hostess club vs. a cabaret club vs. pink salon vs. soap/prostitution. It's not like there's no difference between the different extremes there, but it's all in a continuum of sex work.
Still, there is some truth there. Maybe not a lot, but a little. A girl I dated back in graduate school had some friends who went to Florida upon (undergraduate) graduation for Brown. These young ladies apparently were on the lookout for middle aged men with money. And, being very bright and attractive, they were apparently able to pull it off. Standard pre-nuptial seemed to be X amount per month in a settlement for the first N1 months of marriage, then a lower rate for the next N2 months, etc. Apparently, a couple of them very legally walked off with over a million each for relatively short marriages of a year or two. Prostitution? Legally not, of course. But where is the difference there between having the boyfriend support you, and this? These young women had no intent to stay married, just to get a nice bankroll to start off their careers.
Well, the men who married them are idiots.
Birches said...
Well, the men who married them are idiots.
3/13/15, 2:19 PM
Depends on what that money bought them and for how long as well as what they felt that money was worth verses what they got. In their mind it might have been a bargain.
I get no allowance of funds for myself, instead we share a joint account my husband's check goes into direct deposit. He trusts me not to screw him or the kids over. If I need something, I buy within the family budget.
I have complete access and shared responsibility to my husband's earnings and savings, what proustite has that?
Same boat. My spouse told a co-worker (partly in jest) that our marriage is built on Mutually Assured Destruction: whoever files for divorce has to keep the kids, lol.
The reality is that we've both left ourselves open to big problems if we ever did split up. He has no idea what's going on financially with his paycheck, but he trusts that I am not going to screw him over. And we have 4 kids and stay home with them, so I trust that he's not going to screw me over. Marriage built on trust and love, especially when children are involved is about as far from sugar daddy as you can get.
Moral concerns aside, what's wrong with a young woman using her best assets to improve her situation? Any "daddy" who thinks he's bought the love of a beautiful girl is an idiot. At most, if he's honest with himself, he's bought a chance to impress with his character and good qualities. So long as each is honest about the transaction, these sneers about "you're a whore" and "what do you expect from a prostitute" are unwarranted.
Trashhauler said... [hush][hide comment]
Moral concerns aside, what's wrong with a young woman using her best assets to improve her situation?
Absolutely nothing as far as I can see. I think consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors. I think whatever contractual arrangement they want to enter in should be OK as well. Just don't misunderstand what it is you are getting into and what it is called.
Reminds me of the classic:
"You can build a thousand bridges, but if you suck one dick they don't call you a bridge builder"
Trashhauler: Moral concerns aside, what's wrong with a young woman using her best assets to improve her situation?
Is there somebody making a non-moral judgment that what these young women are doing is wrong or OK? People disagree about whether this behavior is moral or immoral, but if you put "moral concerns aside", what are you talking about? Is somebody concerned with some extra-moral legal question or something here? (Assuming that there really is such a thing as an extra-moral legal question.)
So long as each is honest about the transaction, these sneers about "you're a whore" and "what do you expect from a prostitute" are unwarranted.
Aren't you setting up moral criteria here? ("As long as they're honest with each other".) Which is fine, but other people disagree with you about what constitutes moral and immoral behavior in this area, so I'm not sure why their disapproval ("sneering"), which is consistent with their own moral evaluation, is unwarranted. I sure don't believe that "being honest with each other about the transaction" is the defining criterion for the morality of these acts, but I can't see why your disapproval of people engaging in these transactions dishonestly would be "unwarranted". Of course it's warranted by your lights.
"Mister, if you give me $100 I'll do anything you want"
"really? Go paint my house"
My husband and I don't share any bank information but her pays for all our dinners/movies and buys me new clothes in the Spring and Fall. We each have our own lofts and live a block away from each other.
He is much richer, younger and better looking than me too.
He has more muscles than me and is more masculine but I have a bigger cock.
Yet he is the woman and I am the man in the relationship.
He's always like when can I see you and why didn't you call and I am like sorry bitch.
He used to come four times a night but now we barely have sex.
He said I made him paranoid because I told him his breath smells like curry. It really doesn't smell like curry but I was tiring of the sex.
If a "sugar babe" whose photo and/or name appears in the linked article leaves that line of work and wants to have a regular marriage, she'll find out how widely accepted the "I am not a prostitute" line is.
"I sure don't believe that "being honest with each other about the transaction" is the defining criterion for the morality of these acts"
Okay. So, you want to consider other moral issues before you sneer. Completely your choice.
Trashhauler: Okay. So, you want to consider other moral issues before you sneer. Completely your choice.
Okay. So, you want to glom onto one sentence out of context because you didn't understand the point. Not completely a matter of choice for you.
My apologies, Anglelyne. I failed to understand your post and got snarky in reply.
Let's leave it at as a misunderstanding of little consequence.
Cheers.
Trashhauler: My apologies, Anglelyne. I failed to understand your post and got snarky in reply.
No apology necessary. Unclear writing deserves the snark it provokes.
Let's leave it at as a misunderstanding of little consequence.
Let's. Good night.
The best luxury Female Escorts Hyderabadare at The Level. Only the most select and exclusive escorts of the city work at our agency; refined, beautiful, intelligent, educated, amusing women, etc. They are high-class girls.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा