It is really sad that I don't know on what other sub-reddit I could ask this question and expect non-kneejerk answers. But anyhow, here it goes.

If a woman expects the man to pay for tickets, meals, and trips in the "dating" process, and all she contributes is, in some women's words, "affection" and sex; then how is she not a prostitute? Mind you, I don't consider prostitution to be "wrong" or "bad" at all. If it were up to me, I'd make it legal today. I'm just wondering why people can't call a spade a spade.

The woman have sex with the man because the man spends money on her - her rationalization being he's showing his "love" for her or he's being "romantic". She would not have sex with the man if the man does not spend money on her - her rationalization being he's not "exciting" or "fun". If the relationship is based on the man willing to open up his wallet and the woman willing to spread her legs, then why can't we label it as prostitution?

Some say a relationship like that cannot be compared with prostitution because the woman in the relationship does not expect a man to give her an envelop of cash and then take her cloth off. This is true, but the fact that there's no direct cash-for-goods transaction does not mean that a money-for-favor transaction did not take place. A good example is that a congressman who votes in favor of a piece of law after being wined, dined and taken to trips by lobbyists can still be charged with corruption, even if he did not receive an envelop of cash before he cast his vote.

I mostly wrote this as a rant. I see men in the society are expected to pay for this and that for women in the dating process. But these woman are not looked down or criticized for trading sex for money, while prostitution is still illegal in most western countries. Level of self-deceit is indeed strong. What do you think?