"Oldest job in the world" says the cliché phrase we all know. But what if it wasn't even a job to begin with ?
In any social relationship,things are exchanged between both parties, and those things supposedly make the relationship worth the try.
The cost can be of diverse kinds : it can be sexual (is the partner good in bed ?), but also sentimental (does he/she love me more or less ?), social (will my social circle accept/be accepted by the partner ?), family related (can I envision making a family with the partner ?), time related, and finally, monetary ressources (do we share equally or is the partner just a gold digger ?).
In an ideal relationship, both parties find a good interest between what they give and what they get. For instance, a rich guy can be happy to exchange a bit of his wealth for a well managed house. A socially active but low status foid can be interested to get with an hard working semi autistic but high status male to complete each other to a attain a common goal.
But, as we know, most of relationshipss aren't "perfect", for between two consenting sex partners, you rarely see both parties being equally interested in the relationship. In most case, one of the partner isn't getting enough while the other almost takes it all. One is a parasite while the other is just a provider. The relationship seems more costful for one of the two persons, and generally it is the one that cheats first or that asks for divorce.
The thing is, it just "seems". The cost is highly subjective, and depends on many factors, including the actual implication and level of entitlement of both parties. If one partner is extremely entitled, it might seem that the other partner will never be able to be worthy.
Let's consider this minimal relationship :
A is with B.
A : - provides money
- pays for house, food, ...
- cooks
- repairs stuffs in the house
- makes jokes
- provides sex
- is willing to spend time
B : - cleans house sometimes
- eventually provides sex
- has headaches on very precise occasions
- her time is invested somewhere else
Unless B could somehow provide a huge and obvious social benefit (superior intelligence, noble origins, 11/10 "femme trophée" ...), there's no reason for A to waste much time in such a crook relationship. But because of rampant hypergamy, one of the partner is clearly "subjectively" put on a pedestal, and you can actually witness that kind of crook couple configuration very oftenly irl.
Now, prostitution actually looks like a state of hypergamy where the hypergamous partner is so entitled that she's not willing to give more than the illusion of a relationship, for the usual currency of money, which is, and has always been, one of the ressources that are exchanged in a normal couple. Let's consider C as the "client", and D as the whore :
C : - provides money
- provides sex
- is willing to spend time
- is willing to face justice if arrested
- loses social credit
D : - will only provide sex if the
partner provides money
You see that one partner here (D) either is extremely high value, or is just overvalued in terms of acceptable social norms.
This explains why prostitutes are mocked and hated since the dawn of time : they are like frogs behaving like some kind of prince/princess, they are not guenuinly taking part in the global exchange of relationship and just want some petty marginal benefit from the market, excluding de facto its core values of reciprocity, support ,or mutuality from their paradigm.
Prostitution is like the cancer of relationship market, and as a cancer, it's growing to the point where most relationships today begin to look like subtle variations of prostitution itself, where one partner gets obviously crooked by the other and can do nothing about it.
In any social relationship,things are exchanged between both parties, and those things supposedly make the relationship worth the try.
The cost can be of diverse kinds : it can be sexual (is the partner good in bed ?), but also sentimental (does he/she love me more or less ?), social (will my social circle accept/be accepted by the partner ?), family related (can I envision making a family with the partner ?), time related, and finally, monetary ressources (do we share equally or is the partner just a gold digger ?).
In an ideal relationship, both parties find a good interest between what they give and what they get. For instance, a rich guy can be happy to exchange a bit of his wealth for a well managed house. A socially active but low status foid can be interested to get with an hard working semi autistic but high status male to complete each other to a attain a common goal.
But, as we know, most of relationshipss aren't "perfect", for between two consenting sex partners, you rarely see both parties being equally interested in the relationship. In most case, one of the partner isn't getting enough while the other almost takes it all. One is a parasite while the other is just a provider. The relationship seems more costful for one of the two persons, and generally it is the one that cheats first or that asks for divorce.
The thing is, it just "seems". The cost is highly subjective, and depends on many factors, including the actual implication and level of entitlement of both parties. If one partner is extremely entitled, it might seem that the other partner will never be able to be worthy.
Let's consider this minimal relationship :
A is with B.
A : - provides money
- pays for house, food, ...
- cooks
- repairs stuffs in the house
- makes jokes
- provides sex
- is willing to spend time
B : - cleans house sometimes
- eventually provides sex
- has headaches on very precise occasions
- her time is invested somewhere else
Unless B could somehow provide a huge and obvious social benefit (superior intelligence, noble origins, 11/10 "femme trophée" ...), there's no reason for A to waste much time in such a crook relationship. But because of rampant hypergamy, one of the partner is clearly "subjectively" put on a pedestal, and you can actually witness that kind of crook couple configuration very oftenly irl.
Now, prostitution actually looks like a state of hypergamy where the hypergamous partner is so entitled that she's not willing to give more than the illusion of a relationship, for the usual currency of money, which is, and has always been, one of the ressources that are exchanged in a normal couple. Let's consider C as the "client", and D as the whore :
C : - provides money
- provides sex
- is willing to spend time
- is willing to face justice if arrested
- loses social credit
D : - will only provide sex if the
partner provides money
You see that one partner here (D) either is extremely high value, or is just overvalued in terms of acceptable social norms.
This explains why prostitutes are mocked and hated since the dawn of time : they are like frogs behaving like some kind of prince/princess, they are not guenuinly taking part in the global exchange of relationship and just want some petty marginal benefit from the market, excluding de facto its core values of reciprocity, support ,or mutuality from their paradigm.
Prostitution is like the cancer of relationship market, and as a cancer, it's growing to the point where most relationships today begin to look like subtle variations of prostitution itself, where one partner gets obviously crooked by the other and can do nothing about it.
Last edited:
