[posted, with comments at https://ricochet.com/1645461/prostitution-or-marriage/]
A few weeks ago, I was at a lunch with a number of very wealthy men. And, as seems to happen in non-religious circles, the wealthy men brought their trophies with them. These particular trophies were lovely and intelligent – for actresses and supermodels. Which made me realize that, in the minds of these men, the young ladies were, in fact, not different from wives. The arrangements seemed to be mutually satisfying: each party was trading one thing for another.
From an economic or contractual basis, there is really no difference between prostitution and marriage. Once you strip out the time horizon – the length – of the relationship, then the arrangement seems to essentially have the same core elements, whether it lasts for a night or for decades. I am quite sure this is how those men (and probably those women) see it. It seems likely to me that they have seen no convincing counterargument.
To me, it follows that the thing that makes marriage different from contracted prostitution is not really the time horizon. After all, many women treat marriage this way, regardless of the duration!
I would make the inverse argument. True, if you strip out all the nonsense, then marriage is purely contractual, and thus essentially institutionalized prostitution. But this ignores the religious argument that the “nonsense” is in fact the most important facet of any relationship! Because the “nonsense” includes romance. Love. Fidelity. Exclusivity. Loyalty and support. For better and for worse.
Anyone who sees relationships as means of exchange has no depth to their relationships. Such a person has no shame showing up with an expensive trophy on their arm – to them, such a girl is a sign of status and power, no different than an expensive watch or car. To such a person, people are only the sum of their transient and measurable value, whether economically (if the woman is living off the man), or for sex or status (from the man’s perspective).
Torah Judaism would claim that marriage, as a core parallel to our relationship with G-d, should never be primarily about money and support, a roof and a bed partner. Those things are collateral, but to the extent they are physical instead of spiritual, they are not the point. The point of the relationship is the love and devotion, the investment and building of connections.
This end is essential: a person who does not see romance and love and devotion as reasons to get married is inevitably going to turn out to be terrible marriage material. Because such a person, a man who marries for appearances or a woman who marries for money/security, will also cheerfully divorce for those same reasons. Those people are, in essence, only into marriage for its contractual benefits, and thus only for it as long as they see this particular contract as more beneficial than any other.