This article raises a number of issues. If I may hazard an opinion in respect of your assertion that modern dating has become transactional, I would say that there is a cultural element to this. Americans tend to treat dating like a job interview and not as an enriching social experience. In Britain people that go on an initial date generally go with a view to having some drinks together and a bit of banter. The British would deem any discussion at this stage of how much money one makes or the value of their property or the cost of the designer clothes one is wearing to be cringe worthy. If a casual sexual encounter occurs it is invariably a result of the consumption of alcohol and trust me, no casual sex takes place in Britain that does not involve alcohol.
In reference to the issue of a man wanting to get laid on a first date; the only way to ensure this is to hire a prostitute. It is true that a man can court a woman who is not a prostitute for quite some and not get sex and this certainly used to be the norm. This kind of courtship is an expenditure, potentially a lot of personal energy that does not lead to that form of gratification. However, in a social structure such as generally existed among the bourgeoisie in the past there were clear distinctions between what constituted lawful and unlawful intercourse and the only form of lawful intercourse was that which took place within matrimony. However, that state of matrimony often went hand in hand with women being either chattel or not much better. In today's world where many women have an independent income and are not dependent on a man financially coupled with large groups of single people living in dense urban areas and the ready availability of pretty effective forms of birth control sexual agency has opened up to women in ways that have never existed in human history. As a result, there is a great deal of confusion in both sexes as to how to approach the myriad of mating choices that exist in modern society. And frankly there are too many choices and both men and women are constantly looking for a better deal which commoditizes people and commoditizes sex. And with 7 billion people in the world, sex is cheap.
In terms of your question, 'Is dating just glorified prostitution?' in my opinion it arises because in the absence of a clear definition of the difference between lawful and unlawful intercourse, of which prostitution and fornication - sex outside of marriage- examples of unlawful intercourse a number of grey areas now exist which is bedevilling and confusing members of both sexes.
To keep the discussion simple let's limit it to female prostitution. Thus, if we accept that prostitution is a contract of usufruct wherein a woman consents to allowing a man to use her body temporarily for sexual gratification in return for consideration then do some of the following constitute prostitution or not?
You seem to be implying that a woman who accepts an expensive dinner and or other favours may be considered a prostitute but let's say I were to invite your average middle-class girl to a fancy five-star resort for a weekend. If she says yes, I would rate my chances of getting sex out of the trip as being fairly high although the consideration given is not a straight cash emolument. Also, as is well known, a change of place alters the moral turpitude of fornication which is also a driving factor facilitating human copulation. So, is that woman a prostitute or merely a woman whose own sexual desires are kindled and facilitated by the combination of luxury, however temporary, a change of place and the implied connotation that this is a 'romantic' and not merely a sexual exchange? I would also bet my bottom dollar that instead of spending say $3,000 on the weekend that if I had simply offered her the cash in the first place that not only would she have turned me down, but she would have done it in high dudgeon.
What about a mistress who is given a monthly stipend for her support? If the sexual pleasure that is being derived is reciprocal, does that nullify or diminish the nature of the usufruct which implies that the transaction has to be essentially one sided to qualify as prostitution?
What about the case of a woman who accepts the consideration as merely an adjunct to the fact that she herself wants sex and has the freedom and the agency to engage in it and had already made her mind up to engage in sexual activities even of a short-term nature? Is she a prostitute by your definition?
Finally, as to your assertion that quality women will not exchange their bodies for any amount of money; this is simply not true. Several years ago, I was on a skiing trip with several (mainly British) women that I knew, and a discussion of sexual fantasies came up. I said that one of mine was to sleep with sisters and two of the women there, who were sisters, said that they would do a three way with me if I bought them a two-bedroom ski in ski out condo in Aspen, Colorado. That would run about $2 million or more. In this case one of the women was a successful businesswoman and the other was a doctor in the NHS, so I'm not sure what your definition of 'quality' is. If we look to the old-fashioned definition of 'quality' then how did so many women become duchesses without exchanging their bodies for money?
