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

"In dating, other aspects of the woman come into play." No, in relationships other aspects come into play, not dating. A date by definition is short term. A significant difference between whoring and a relationship as I've already stated is duration of potential contact, and the longer duration naturally requires different concerns to be addressed, much like packing for one day is different than packing for a month. You attempt to divert the argument is noted. Obviously whoring is not like a long term relationship typically, I could not win such a debate because I would be incorrect. "I guess the main distinction that you miss is that whoring is strictly for this sexual attraction, whereas attraction only plays the most initial of roles in dating." Semantically speaking I could question your use of the word attraction as sexuality is merely a reason for attraction. Yes I'm aware of the myth that sexuality it's of little or no concern in the long run when it comes to relationships but the fact is sexuality is a relationship. That's why gay men don't have relationship with women. Sexuality is first and foremost, it is the entire point of a relationship in this context. Even the word relations is a synonym for sexual contact. The cry that sexuality is of little ‘true' significance to me is the same as "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." "A whore would not have sex with a guy if it weren't for the compensation (money) he provides." That's a false assumption. Logic tells us that correlation does not denote causation. Obviously sexual repulsion is correlated with the Pro servicing the John, After all that the nature of a job as opposed to a hobby, but one can also enjoy one's work at times, and ideally even most of the time, which is why certain people choose certain occupations. The fundamental assumption that being a whore is unpleasant may only be true because of the legal and social ramifications. Just look at other by choice sex workers such as porn stars stripper, professional dommes and the like. Many of these people are quite happy and proud of their professions and find them empowering. Your false assumption is based on the age old puritanical myth that sex is dirty and wrong and bad. "Sex in dating isn't correlative to money at all." Then why is sex on prom night as clichï¿½ as limo rentals tuxes and expensive dresses? I refuse to believe that you believe that likelihood of sexual fulfillment at the conclusion of a date is unrelated to the amount of resources spent. Romance in the American sense is by and large series paid for from dinner on the beach to serenading mariachis to lobster and chilled champagne. Offer to take your next date to taco bell, show up in your cheapest clothing, walk instead of drive, and then tell me money isn't an issue. "If she likes you and you like her, birds and the bees, etc." And in our culture if she ‘likes you' depends in an absurdly large part on a demonstration of interest, primarily accomplished by the expenditure of funds. Simply watch TV for 30 seconds and you'll see this. We're told time and again that love is money. From the massive diamond, to the new car, you're expected to express your affection with the dollar, anything else is miserly. Virtually every date movie or "romantic comedy" is utterly drowning in this concept of hoop jumping and spending for the favor of a pretty girl. Friends and Seinfeld both feature it nearly constantly and they are among the top most popular shows of all time. And I won't even start on all the dating shows. "In dating, women choose to have sex with their guy based on personal desire." Personal desire is a function of profit. Sure the currency is different in the long run. But we're not talking about the long run we're talking about dating. "In whoring, women are virtually forced to have sex with pretty much any guy who has enough money." That's false logic again. You're assuming a certain economic condition which is not by definition inherent to prostitution. In a balanced economic situation a whore could choose her clients just as lawyers, plumbers, mechanics, and the like do now. Obviously some people are desperate and for economic (largely caused by legal) reasons and thus can't afford to be so choosey, but this is by no mean assured. There are many high price escorts, and as Nevada has shown us the business model can and does allow for tremendous levels of personal freedom for the whores. Desperation does not come into effect, because it's as variable in both situations. In fact the antics of men and women desperate for a date are quite common also in media. "There is no basis for the sex act until money is involved, this is not the case in dating." Wrong, women hunt affluent men just and men hunt sexually appealing women. That is the entire point of our media, to keep this system and all the horrors stemming from it alive and well. We were all born into a slave market, but again, this is not the point of the debate. "Also, dating requires a degree of romantic connection, no matter how small. Even if people are dating strictly for sex, their has no be a level of personal desire involved in order for the sex act to occur because the direct exchange of money is absent." Direct exchange of money is not required, the concept of the groupie is proof of this in and of itself. Many women use sex as a tool, and they don't require direct payment to see the profit of their actions. Sexual control of men is one of the most ubiquitous concepts of our entire culture. Romance as you call it is also largely commerce. "While jewelry and flowers may have had certain connotations in the past, the gifts now are meant to have a romantic meaning, rather than serving as an indirect prostitution system as you claim." What about when you give flowers to your mother? Is that also romantic? Or is that different? Is romance not inherently sexual? "The intent is a clear distinction between whoring and dating." Romance as the difference between whoring and dating is your best point so far and has required a great deal of thought to nail down just exactly how it relates. And I would have had no argument save for the obvious fact that romance by definition is sexual in nature. Now I'll grant that romance can occur between people who are currently or have never been sexual to each other such as the idea of late life relationships or extremely long term marriages, but the potential for sexuality must have been an option or must currently be an option for romance to exist. This is why late life romances between straight men do not occur. "The romantic intent, potential, and process, as well as the absence of payment and presence of female desire are critical distinctions that you overlook. These distinctions are what seperate dating from whoring." And I hope I've answered them. In summary, the intent is still sexual, potential is a matter of scale, process is just a work around(as was my core point), the payment is not absent, and female desire can be present or absent in both situations. I haven't over looked them I just left them out of my initial argument. Splendid round, Please keep it up. :)