I am now formally declaring that I have given up on love in the romantic sense, but not on love in the platonic and more enduring sense. Applications for the vacancy of a Domestic Partner - a cross between a housemate, critical friend and business partner - are invited. Sex and fidelity are optional, ie neither compulsory nor prohibited. Each "transaction" is deemed to be a one-off so that both parties are kept on their toes. There would be no assumption that either party would be spending, for example, St Valentine's Day with each other as a matter of course. So few people like this idea that the person, male or female, who says to me "My word, this is just the sort of relationship I have been looking for all my life!" without a hint of irony or sarcasm, would probably be The One . Domestic Partnership - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership
Comments
If you have sex with some bloke and expect something from him, apart from the pleasure of his company for the night, you are a kind of prostitute, aren't you?
You are just choosing to have your pay-off later when he marries you perhaps, or at the divorce settlement or when you inherit his property as his widow.
I am not saying there is anything bad in any of the above as long as both of you are getting what you thought you bargained for.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with equal bargaining, but I don't see how each position is limited by one's gender.
You may not think that one is superior to the other, but the very reason the woman is labeled a prostitute and the man the purchaser is because the negative connotations given to prostitution.
Women are expected to be filthy and low, just like prostitutes are seen as; men are expected to be the ones with money and the power, just like the johns are seen as.
In practice, both punter and prostitute are criminalised.
I am in favour of the legalisation of brothel-keeping.
At least prostitutes have the virtue reminding men that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Imagine if a prostitute came up to a punter and said: "You know when we last did some, er, "business" a few months back? Well, I'm now up the spout and knocked up. You better help me look after it or pay a contribution towards its upkeep."
He'd tell her where to go, wouldn't he?
"What we transacted was an ad hoc bargain for sex," he could point out. "If I am not your husband, the presumption should be that whatever I meant to transact was a bargain for sex. It was certainly not to assume the burdens of fatherhood."
So why the hell should the taxpayer pay up like lambs?