Is marriage prostitution?

Post Reply New Topic

Here is an opinion of a lawyer

I don't think you're going to get a satisfying answer here. The real answer is that, yes, marriage is consideration and exchanging sex for marriage is prostitution, according to the definition provided. However, custom and tradition have carved out certain exceptions which society tolerates because society prefers it that way. Law - especially common law - isn't a formal mathematical proof where you can point at a line that's out of place and invalidate the whole thing. It's more like a high school English essay, with lots of notes scrawled in the margins. With coffee stains.
http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/ ... 12901_6816

Are we talking 500 years ago ?
when that BS was written
when slavery was legal?
and women were property

Or are we talking about the 21st century
where women can vote?
have equal rights...
there's even the possibility that the next President Of The United States will be a Woman!

is that amazing to you?

I don't think it's amazing

i think men are misogynistic self agrandising piles of dog excrement

that only got to be misogynistic self agrandising piles of dog excrement
through the support, love and devotion of the women in their lives

Hang on...
are we debating Law, Prostitution or Marriage here?

If marriage is prostitution, who is the prostitute and who is the customer? It's mutually satisfying if you're doing it right. So it can't be prostitution. It's a fun game though...

Anyone who thinks that marriage is "sexual contact for monetary consideration or other thing of value" is an idiot, regardless of any claim they may have to a law degree.

I'd say it's more the household equivalent of a business partnership.

Even back in the past, when women were property, it was more like... husbandry (owning livestock). From a more religious (Christian) viewpoint, it was a way to make babies without committing too horrible of a sin. In some time periods, it was actually considered sinful to have sex with your spouse for more than the bare minimum reproductive necessity.

I'm guessing anyone who thinks marriage is prostitution is also okay with marital rape, although they might not allow it to be called that. It's not rape, it's contractual obligation!

Yes. Marriage and dating are a legitimized forms of prostitution that are accepted by society. There is no shame in being a prostitute. World's oldest profession.

No, unless you want it to be.

My guess is that's some sort of interpretation of the dowry?

In any case, while marriage can be a form of abuse/abusive prostitution (child brides, sex trafficking, etc), I would argue that the vast majority of marriages are mutual. Who would be selling sex to whom?

I guess a partner who withholds sex to get what they want are in fact prostitutes.

_________________
( If I ignore a reply it's not intentional I get distracted, send me a PM to prompt me )

Maybe if one ignores that marriage also has to do with deciding which of your offspring are legitimate heirs after your death.

It could manifest itself as prostitution-like in certain instances.

The institution itself is not prostitution, though.

Hi.

I don't think that you can assume that Patrick87, the person who wrote the quoted answer, is a lawyer. It says at the top of the page you linked to that anyone can ask a question, and anyone can answer. If you click on Patrick87's name, and look at his profile, you can see that there is no further information about him. All it says is, "Apparently this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about him," or something like that.

If you read all of the answers, you'll see that there are a lot of nuances, and some of those nuances may depend upon things like where a couple lives, and who paid for a wedding, and how the local government views prostitution. I notice no one who answered on the page linked to even dared to muse about the possibility that the "woman" (presumed to be the whore in all of the answers) might actually be the bread-winner, while the "man" (presumed to be the provider) might be dependent upon her. No one considered a union that doesn't include sexual activity.

No one thought, either, about the value that an unpaid, dependent woman might bring to a marriage, either.

Let's assume that you're referring to a union where a woman is dependent upon a man financially. She doesn't work at all outside of the home, and he 'has a carreer,' and provides an income for everyone in the household. Both partners agree that the union will include sexual relations, and both are hoping for children. She will take care of the household chores, and raise the children.

Does the providing man benefit at all from this union in ways that are financially valuable? The answer is yes. Even if she never has a career, or provides a single penny towards the bills, her unpaid work is highly valuable. If she wasn't around, he would have to go to the tailor every time he busted a button on his pants, otherwise he would go into 'work' with his pants falling down around his ankles, and he surely wouldn't get that promotion he was aiming for. The tailor would want to be paid for the service of repairing the button. If he didn't want to pay a tailor, then he would have to do the repair work himslef, and that would cost him time. Since time is money, then her services still have value to the man.

If the woman wasn't there to launder the man's "work" clothes, then the man would have to pay to have the clothes cleaned and pressed at the laundry mat, or do the chores himself. Once again, he would either be spending time, or money to get the task done.

The same is true for the meals he eats, if she prepares them. And the house she keeps clean so that he can have the time to focus on "work". These things have value.

Even carrying and bearing his children can have a quantifiable value. If it wasn't for his wife, and he wished to produce children, he would have to pay for a surrogate, and that is extremely expensive. As a matter of fact, you might say that a husband is making out like a bandit if he has a wife who is willing to carry and bear his children for the mere price of food, shelter, and medical insurance.

If he manages to convince her to have children with him, she might spend the next twenty or thirty years providing childcare, early childhood development, healthcare, coaching, transportation, food preparation, and other services to their children, while he "works". These things would all cost him a pretty penny, if he had to hire "professionals" to provide them.

So, for this example, it's my opinion that even if you're thinking inside of your head about a "traditional" union, where a man is expected to provide some things by working outside of the home, and a woman is expected to stay in the home, it's erroneous to believe that she is not working, and provides no value within the relationship.

I think it's also erroneous to presume that he "gets" sex, while she "gives" sex. When two people are having consensual sex, they're both having sex. They both give, and they both get.

That is just one example, though!

I only gave that example to show that in what (I think) most people would imagine to be a "traditional" union between two people, the person who doesn't pursue a career outside of the home is still providing services that have value. And sometimes, those things are worth a great deal.

oh, my. Thanks, syzygyish!