Prostitution vs marrying for money

[JackofSpades]

Two situations:

A) Beautiful young woman marries wealthy man for money, there might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role.

B) Wealthy man makes standing order with beautiful young prostitute, she visits her regularily and he pays for it. There might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role in their relationship.

Money is driving force for both women, and both men get someone who is more interested about their money than about them as a partner. Men get attractive female as a company and a sexual relationship in exchange.

- Is there practically much difference?
- Would you see either one of the situations as more appropriate than the other?
- If one of your friends did the solution A and another went for B, how would you think about them?


Note: I'm not suggesting that marrying wealthy people is same thing as prostitution by default. But I think, with right set of motives, it can be very close to it in some situations. Altho that doesn't mean I see there being something wrong with prostitution.

 

[Snake75]

Don't really see a big difference. One is a gold digger and the other is a prostitute. Kinda the same thing

 

[quatona]

Two situations:

A) Beautiful young woman marries wealthy man for money, there might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role.

B) Wealthy man makes standing order with beautiful young prostitute, she visits her regularily and he pays for it. There might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role in their relationship.

Money is driving force for both women, and both men get someone who is more interested about their money than about them as a partner. Men get attractive female as a company and a sexual relationship in exchange.

- Is there practically much difference?

What do you mean - "practically"?
And how much is "much"?

- Would you see either one of the situations as more appropriate than the other?

I don´t think of situations as being appropriate or inappropriate.

- If one of your friends did the solution A and another went for B, how would you think about them?

I´d think that both of them have a fundamentally different idea of a partnership than I do.

 

[stellalunaCW]

Two situations:

A) Wealthy man marries beautiful young woman for sex, there might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role.

B) Beautiful young prostitute makes standing order with wealthy man, he visits her regularly and he pays for it. There might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role in their relationship.

Sex is the driving force for both men, and both women get someone who is more interested in paying them than about them as a partner. Women get wealthy male as a company and money in exchange.

--------------------------------
Just looking at it from another/same direction...

 

[RDKirk]

Two situations:

A) Beautiful young woman marries wealthy man for money, there might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role.

B) Wealthy man makes standing order with beautiful young prostitute, she visits her regularily and he pays for it. There might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role in their relationship.

As you have described it, the relationship with the prostitute is non-exclusive on either part. That is a significant difference.

 

[Paradoxum]

Differences: The prostitute may have sex with other men too. But, she can have a personal life based on love outside of that. The gold digger can't.

I'd think someone (including a friend) marrying a man for money would be worse. I see nothing wrong with prostitution, but marrying someone for money seems like a hollow life.

 

[FireDragon76]

Marriage traditionally creates an institution that helps create basic stability in a persons life. Prostitution does not. With marriage a person traditionally made a vow to care for someone, for better or worse, until they died. Prostitution lacks this altogether. Marriage is far more than an agreement to have sex with each other.

 

[bhsmte]

Two situations:

A) Beautiful young woman marries wealthy man for money, there might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role.

B) Wealthy man makes standing order with beautiful young prostitute, she visits her regularily and he pays for it. There might develop some mutual attraction along the way, but it plays secondary role in their relationship.

Money is driving force for both women, and both men get someone who is more interested about their money than about them as a partner. Men get attractive female as a company and a sexual relationship in exchange.

- Is there practically much difference?
- Would you see either one of the situations as more appropriate than the other?
- If one of your friends did the solution A and another went for B, how would you think about them?


Note: I'm not suggesting that marrying wealthy people is same thing as prostitution by default. But I think, with right set of motives, it can be very close to it in some situations. Altho that doesn't mean I see there being something wrong with prostitution.

Both situations have money as the primary motivating factor to be involved with the other person, which is a huge similarity.

Beyond that though, there are significant differences, because of marriage.

 

[RDKirk]

In addition to the mutual exclusivity normally expected of a marriage, the woman who married will expect much, much more than cash on the nightstand.

The married woman is going to expect a nice home provided, a car, all other expenses paid. She's also still likely to expect attention and some amount of affection and companionship, not just sex.

 

[JackofSpades]

I personally feel that the prostitution way to do it is more logical, and gives both parties more freedom outside of the arrangement. Also, very likely there is less illusions involved that way.

 

[quatona]

I personally feel that the prostitution way to do it is more logical, and gives both parties more freedom outside of the arrangement. Also, very likely there is less illusions involved that way.

In any case, it is a very limited (in several ways) agreement with clear terms and conditions, that don´t include any long term committments. It doesn´t seem to pretend to be more than it is.

 

[RDKirk]

In any case, it is a very limited (in several ways) agreement with clear terms and conditions, that don´t include any long term committments. It doesn´t seem to pretend to be more than it is.

So there are, then, some very significant differences.

 

[quatona]

So there are, then, some very significant differences.

Did I say there were no significant differences?
Significance depends on the perspective.

 

[RDKirk]

Did I say there were no significant differences?
Significance depends on the perspective.

I was referring back to the quetion of the OP.