Women had no other choice back then but to resort to marriage or prostitution to survive because they couldn't enter the workforce. Women were basically sold by their father to another man. You were either your dad's property or your husband's property. Serving your husband sexually was your job (marital rape wasn't a thing up until the 1970s) , and birthing an offspring, on top of doing the housework. And in exchange the husband provides financial security. So basically fulfilling the role of prostitute and broodmare. The dynamic has changed now since women are more independant. But according to french author like Despentes for exemple, it's in the interest of powers thta be that hookers are villified. Despentes suggests that if women realised they could sell sex without compromising their dignity, "the marriage contract would be shown up for what it is: a market in which for a bargain price a women agrees to carry out a number of chores - notably sexual - to ensure a man's comfort".

In poor countries, it's still true that women have very little leverage when it comes to avoiding marriage or prostitution. I live in the west now and have grew up here, so I have a lot of comfort but I was born in a poor country, it's not at all a taboo to talk abt relationship as it relates to money. Women can't pursue an education because it's too expensive so their only options are to be a prostitute for several men or for one man (get married) in hopes of getting enough money to make ends meet. We talk very openly abt this in my homecountry.commenting on the cultural differences in meanings attached to money for sex,stresses this point: In Europe the linking of monetary exchange and sexual or familial exchange is seen as either typically immoral or as a source of humour and dissonance. By contrast, in Madagascar the need to keep the two areas separate is not present. The right thing for a man to do is to give his lover a present of money or goods after sexual intercourse. This applies not only to pre-marital or extra-marital sex, but also to marital relations, though on a less regular basis.

It's pretty much taboo in the west on the other hand for women to claim that they want an husband with more earning power because you get labelled with derogative terms like "gold diggers" amongst others. Which is misogynistic imo because it totally ignores the disparities when it comes to the distribution of wealth. My opinion is that you can choose someone both for their money AND other characteristics as well, it doesn't have to be one or the other. I don't believe there is such thing as a "tropehy wife" either.

When it comes to the differences btw prostitution and marriage, one could argue that thhe married woman is "loved", but considering systemic misogyny and how men have treated women throughout the centuries, I don't think it's possible for men to "love" or respect women as they would respect another men. Again, some will disagree with this, but if we're looking at the facts, men have oppressed women and kept them in a subordinate position.In french we have the word "pute" which is a contraction of the word "prostitute", to me it's like the n-word for black people.I always had this theory that there are castes amongst women and that the married woman is like the house slave because she works and lives in close proximity with her oppressor, in his house. Serves him sexually, has his kids, is his free therapist. As opposed to the field slave (the prostitute) who can't enter the master's domain and stay marginalized. The house slave is respected in a way where the field slave isn't, she has some kind of social capital. That's the statues that women fight for, instead of fighting to be free.(I could go on and on but imma stop here bc my post is getting too longwinded).

ps: I was born in a poor country but I live and have grown up in in the west, in a developped country.