I think the more appropriate words in this case are "mistress," "courtesan" and "kept woman."

What I find interesting is how she talks about her excellent upper-class educational background, which apparently did not include any lessons in religion, ethics or morality.

Then again, Bob Dylan jeered at the antiherione of "Like a Rolling Stone" as having gone to the "finest school."

One thing the rich guys know is that there is ALWAYS some one younger and prettier out there. Enjoy the ride while it last, girls.

PLEASE??!?

You can be my kept man. Please report immediately to my wife for assignment of a billet and your task list. There will be no smoking in the house.

When is gold digging prostitution? That's an easy one. It's ALWAYS prostitution. Whores charge money for sex. Whether it's expensive or cheap, it's all the same thing.

Call it what you want, but that doesn't change what it is.

... are we talking about prostitution as defined in various state and local statutes, or are we talking about prostitution as a philosophical concept? There seems to be a lot of confusion here.

If this woman was taken to London for sexual purposes, was she a victim of international sex-trafficking?

Prostitution is the same as many other crimes in the US (and many other places). How it is treated by the legal system has a great deal to do with the socio-economic class of the participants. Rich people snorting a line of cocaine at a party are engaging in behavior that's just as criminal as a couple of guys sharing crack in a back alley. But the latter are far, far more likely to end up in jail than the former.

The behavior of Melissa Beech and her "benefactor" is arguably as illegal -- in the spirit of the law, at least -- as a streetwalker and a john. But the former are protected by the exchange of financial value for sex being less blatant ... and by it involving people who are financially much better-off.

an argument that i have heard, and don't know what to think of:

- people should be permitted to sell anything they are permitted give away if they choose.

- people are permitted to give away sex.

- therefore people should be permitted to sell sex.

on a more realistic note, one of the scary things about it all is the fact that 'flying solo' is actually very dangerous. the reality is that the business is based on violence perpetrated by men whose job is to prevent women from going solo.

What is the salary? I will have to see the living quarters before I commit. Also, I do not engage in sexual relations with males. Thx.

on a more realistic note, one of the scary things about it all is the fact that 'flying solo' is actually very dangerous. the reality is that the business is based on violence perpetrated by men whose job is to prevent women from going solo.

Yup. All the more reason to make it legal.

If he'd said nothing during the interview, called her later and dated her, and then gave her gifts and paid for her apartment while they got together for laughs and sex over the last year, no one would be asking questions.

He defined the relationship as lacking any soul when he approached her and proposed it as a mercenary "deal" rather than just asking her out.

Why did he do that? Does he lack confidence in who he is as a person such that he felt he had to use his money to get her to date or sleep with him?

Or is he simply a married (or not?) guy who gives her money because he (a) has no interest in an emotionally intimate relationship - just sex with someone other than his wife and (b) can't offer her a lot of time, attention or a future together so he gives money instead?

I think we tend to judge women who sleep with guys for any reason other than "love" - if she said she loved him or he loved her, we'd be more forgiving.

I also think we mistake a lot of things for love - codependency, financial security (again, it's okay if we inject love into the equation even if a woman stays in a relationship just for financial stability), etc.

I feel sorry for this young woman that she may be passing up finding an actual relationship while wasting her time with this guy. Or she may not be capable of a real emotional connection. It's sad.

But the former are protected by the exchange of financial value for sex being less blatant ... and by it involving people who are financially much better-off.

So, then, we should be arresting a whole hell of a lot of married couples.

the real question is, is that necessarily bad.

It occurred to me that this guy has an awful lot of control over her life. Should she decide for any reason to withdraw from this relationship, who will pay for her expensive apartment? It goes beyond losing expensive baubles. She can't simply "stop" without literally months of planning in terms of finding another way to pay for her lifestyle (not to mention food and shelter).

And who's to say this guy's decision to offer her a "deal" rather than just ask her out doesn't out him as a cold-hearted control freak who is incapable of emotional connection (at least with her) and sees her as some sort of possession?

Maybe we want to see him as Richard Gere's Pretty Woman character, with some emotional wound that she is somehow salving with her body. My guess is he's just sort of an unemotional asshole who doesn't care that much about her and/or feels he can only hold onto her with money. Hard to tell.

In reality this little arrangement is one where she has little power if he decides to discard her or if he refuses to "let her go" amicably. Either way she could find herself suddenly without resources, or worse.