View Single Post
Old 03-06-2012, 03:27 PM
Vinccenzo Vinccenzo is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 373

Originally Posted by Scott View Post
I think the real issue here is our concept of money. In an ideal world, all people would aquire money in the same fashion; through honest work. However, this simply isn't the case. -Some- people get it from honest work, but bankers create it out of thin air; where's the fairness of that? Because of this, money justifiably seen as something that is unclean. But if, for a moment, we could remember that he essence of money is basically a token from society that you are deserving of a favour, then dating and giving someone money aren't incredibly different. Sex at Dawn puts it this way:

As attentive readers may have noted, the standard narrative of
heterosexual interaction boils down to prostitution: a woman
exchanges her sexual services for access to resources. Maybe
mythic resonance explains part of the huge box-office appeal
of a film like Pretty Woman, where Richard Gere’s character
trades access to his wealth in exchange for what Julia
Roberts’s character has to offer (she plays a hooker with a
heart of gold, if you missed it). Please note that what she’s got
to offer is limited to the aforementioned heart of gold, a smile
as big as Texas, a pair of long, lovely legs, and the solemn
promise that they’ll open only for him from now on. The
genius of Pretty Woman lies in making explicit what’s been
implicit in hundreds of films and books. According to this
theory, women have evolved to unthinkingly and
unashamedly exchange erotic pleasure for access to a man’s
wealth, protection, status, and other treasures likely to benefit
her and her children

The way I see it, if you love someone and they love you, you work as a unit; so the one who pays is the one who has the cash to spare (if both are equal, both can pay equally). This is a principle I've used in the past and it's worked fine for me (I was the one with the cash to spare at the time).
Okay, well it may just be me but over here living in my ideal world, but the fact that my husband makes a bit more than I doesn't mean its evened out with whats between my legs. People have more to offer than that and I've never heard of those things being for purchase from a prostitute. Or if two make the same, that the sex isn't happening because she doesn't need his money? Perhaps marriage or pairing up once did mean sex in exchange for resources but it doesn't have to be.

I don't see sex as dirty and personally I'd call an ideal world one without a need for money. But no, what rubs me (and not in a good way) its the belief that having more money means you can buy anything - even a person to do with whatever since they have less than you is something a-okay. Or that it can be looked at as no different from marriage or dating because of your money/their lack of money and a history of men controlling resources. I feel this attitude and the one behind bankers making money out of thin air and fraud are more closely linked than any consenting sex or relationship has to do with prostitution. Its the idea that forking over some money means the fact that they are a person won't be too "in your face" while you get off on them. It means you won't have to risk rejection by her like a non sex worker might turn someone down for having a crap attitude or unkempt body or just plain not being attractive to them.
I have met one sex worker who said she intended to become a prostitute before she became one. She didn't seem a very happy or mentally healthy person and it seemed the statement was bravado. I do not have enough personal data to say no one ever wants to be a prostitute but I have often wondered how many prostitutes we would have in a world where money wasn't a factor.
Reply With Quote