The typical American ‘date' is simply a social work around for prostitution being illegal.

My argument for direct relationship and immediacy was not a time-table argument. To be sure, the direct exchange of money for sex is whoring. This means I pay for sex in some form at some time, whether its on a tab or not. The relationship lies in the directness of the correlation between the two in whoring and the absence of it in dating. While, by its very definition, whoring is the direct exchange of money for sex, the mere possibility of spending money on a date and not receiving sex ensures your position is incorrect. I'll address that point more at the bottom. The deeper relationship in dating is certainly there during the first date. You are missing the entire time-table of the date. Dates, even a single one, are not instaneous. Over the course of even a single date, conversation and a deeper level of attraction, which transcends the purely physical, becomes vital. The social aspect is vital because it is what the sex act is contigent on. As I stated earlier, the 'typical' dater is not going to engage in sex acts with a socially revolting person no matter how attractive they are. You can feed me examples of women having sex for a billion dollars or even large gifts, but that would be whoring then, not dating. "Merely increasing your chances isn't analogous to whoring." In whoring you are guaranteed the sex act by definition. If the sex act doesn't take place in exchange for some monetary gain, than no whoring took place and your argument doesn't function. How often the date is consummated is exactly the issue! Just because a guy is looking to get laid on a date doesn't mean the date is a sale of sex. In order for dating to be a workaround there has to be a DIRECT correlation between consummation and money paid. You argue that because I spend money and then get laid, that it was a sale of sex. However, the two aren't related. The millions of cases of daters not consummating proves that there is no relation. The fact that I could spend as much as I want and still go home means that money doesn't buy you sex on dates. If dating was a workaround, the daters would be virtually mandated to have sex after money is spent. This is the case with the 'whore's honesty'. You give the whore money and you get a sex act. You spend money on a date and don't get laid. The fact that this can occur proves the distinction. Your drug dealing examples aren't analogous. I bought the tea leaves. This means there was a connection between the money and the product. The reason dating is different is because I can spend an infinite amount of money and receive no product at all. Here is my argument for the poor hero, so you don't continually take it out of context in a pathetic attempt to cast me as the villian. "My 'poor hero' example wasn't to show that poor people are of some lesser quality. It merely proves that romantic gestures are not tied to money. When the girl looks out the window, her thought process isn't 'Wow, thats a nice stereo. I bet he is rich.' The romanticism of the date and the gesture goes far beyond the dollar amount" It was actually quite the opposite of what you claim. My claim is that romanticism outweighs financial stature. "No her thought is typically "wow if I can make him stand out in the rain, I wonder what else I can get"" This is just a reflection of your cynical outlook and not a relfection of the 'typical' dater that your claim is about. "Wrong, again you try to sell this incorrect idea of whores as slaves. That is not the case, a whore typically has a choice. And if what the john wants is outside what she's willing to give, then there is no exchange which is a form of personality meshing, at least a whore will let you walk away with your money." Whoring is no more a personality mesh than any other business transaction. If the man doesn't agree on the price for the product(sex) the transaction doesn't occur. Just like if I think the price of an item is to high, I don't buy it. The certain fulfillments are not monetary. Therefore, dating isn't whoring. Now you are trying to claim that fulfilling emotional requirements is a price that I pay a girl to have sex with me? Who's diverting the debate? Your jaded description isn't typical. The only way for the point to be won is by experience. So, if more people think that typical women are money-grubbing sluts, you win. Again, where is this logic and evidence? Because you say your arguments are somehow more logical doesn't make it so. Posturing your jaded opinion of the dating scene is hardly evidence. "What you believe has no bearing on what is." Ditto. Just because you make rampant claims doesn't mean you have backed them up with any PROOF. Tell me the conrete, non-opinionated evidence you have provided us all with. Consummation and guarantees are the very distinctions between the definitions. With dating, spending money doesn't ensure you sex. It does in whoring. Thats the very defintion, an exchange of money for sex. Without that exchange it wasn't whoring. Dating doesn't have this direct correlation between money and sex. The lack of consummation is exactly the difference. The fact that I can spend infinite amounts of money and come away empty-handed is why dating is different. In whoring, I pay and the sex happens. You seem to have this notion that dating is somehow instantaneous. That people see each other from across the room, the man leaves some money at a restaraunt and they go consummate. This isn't the case. The date takes place over a period in which deeper social connections are made and fulfilled. Yes, sex can be an intent, but money isn't a precondition for it in dating as it is in whoring. The fact that whoring is a substitute for dating doesn't bolster your point at all. People choose to skip the rigamorole of dating in order to pursue the purely sexual that you point out. This proves dating transends the pure sex-monetary exchange. Why would there be a need for whoring if dating were simply a legal substitute? Your argument has been that the dater will simply not put out and I will have wasted my money. So, my question to you is...how is it whoring without sex? If the hooker gets crushed or killed, she took your money and you didn't get laid, so no whoring occured. The sex HAS TO HAPPEN in order for it to be whoring, otherwise you just gave money to a women who happens to be a whore. Whoring isn't an instnace of TRYING to get laid because you don't have to TRY. You simply pay and get some. Dating is much more complex and has no relation to money. The mere possibility that I can spend money and not get any wins me the debate. It proves that money isn't correlative to sex in dating. The intent of the guy to score doesn't bear any weight. A husband can intend to have sex with his wife, does that make it whoring? The sex act has to occur in order for it to be any form of whoring. Your missing the connection between money and whoring. Until you can prove some kind of correlation that isn't a direct sex-money exchange (i'll pay you x for sex aka whoring) you can't ever prove that dating is a workaround. The millions of empty handed and empty pocketed guys prove that there isn't a relationship between money and sex in dating. I could get laid without spending a dime on a date and I could also go home lonely after turning out my pockets. Whoring, by definition guarantees sex for money. If the sex-money transaction doesn't occur than it wasn't an instance of whoring, regardless of intent.