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

"First, the IMMEDIATE and DIRECT relationship between compensation (money) and the sex act." So if I pay a hooker a week in advance or run a tab that means it was a date? "Second, the connection, conversation, or romantic and deeper relationship developed during the date itself versus the purely business nature of whoring." Those things Can develop after a series of dates but they are by no means part of a date by definition, else people wouldn't need to date so much. People date looking for those things but only in a secondary capacity, because after all, you date people you don't know in order to get to know them. If you don't know them in the first place, then odds are you're going to be interested in what you Do know right away, namely if you find someone sexually attractive or not. "Still, therein lies your problem. Merely increasing your chances isn't analogous to whoring." Yes it is. Even when you pay a hooker you only have a chance, the hooker can refuse you once she finds out what you want etc, or she can simply rip you off. "There is no direct connection between the money I spend on a date and the sex I get. That 'whore's honesty' that you talk about is the very distinction I prove." No, all it means is that while a date may take your money and sleep with you for it if she seems fit, she's not gunna tell you her terms, a whore will. "When I give a whore money, I am virtually gauranteed sex. This is undeniably not the case during dating." But that doesn't matter, because the point is the purpose of dating. Not how often the date is consummated. Granted a date is a huge rip off compared to just paying a hooker, but see a date is legal and finding a hooker typically isn't and that's the whole point. A date is a legal workaround for the explicit sale of sex being legal. The fact that the Pro in a date doesn't provide her end of the bargain is just added cover. That's like saying that because a drug dealer sold you a bag of salt instead of coke that you weren't trying to buy coke. That doesn't hold up, it's about what you intended to do, not what you actually did. The vast majority of dates the man is intended to buy sex, and the woman is intended to sell it, just because she backs out once she gets paid does not change the nature of the encounter. Read an issue of any Cosmo type magazine, women between the ages of 13-20 are trained on how to get what they want using false promises of, or actual delivery of, sexual satisfaction. Even the children on the Disney channel are put in spiky hair baseball caps and shorts and/or lip gloss tight designer jeans and bare midriff. "Sure, I can give a girl a billion dollars to sleep with me, but isn't that whoring, not dating?" It would she been a date if you spent the billion dollars on her, and took her to dinner. Any payment can be made over dinner as a gift. "The fact is, I can rent nice cars and take her out to the fanciest dinners and buy tickets to the best show in town and still go home at the end of the night." Again, just because she reneges does not mean that you were trying to buy sex and thus giving her the offer of selling it. Again, just because the hippy sold you a bag of tea leaves does not mean you weren't trying to buy pot. "My 'poor hero' example wasn't to show that poor people are of some lesser quality." Don't try to divert what you said, the readers can scroll up. And just so they don't have to, here's what I was referring to… You said… "the money factor is simply an indication of quality. Women don't want to date men who have signals of slothfulness and irresponsibility" So, being poor is a "signal of slothfulness and irresponsibility" and your income level is "an indication of quality." So yes, you were trying to "show that poor people are of some lesser quality." There is no ambiguity. You should at least have the sand to claim that rather atrocious and disgusting sentiment. "When the girl looks out the window, her thought process isn't 'Wow, thats a nice stereo. I bet he is rich.'" No her thought is typically "wow if I can make him stand out in the rain, I wonder what else I can get" or "I'll bet this psycho has a shrine to me in his basement, and if I'm not careful that's where I'll end up." But that's really germane. Except that the gesture is a promise of future income. "dissimilar to whoring, personalities must play even the most basic of roles during the course of the date in order for the date to be 'sucessful'." 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. "A whore and a john can have all but contempt for each other and the exchange still occurs." Women date men they hate all the time for personal gain. "What business world are you living in? Does the sales clerk at the hardware store get to pick and choose who he sells to?" The sales clerk is not analogous to the whore. The whore is a sole proprietor or the service professional, not a mere adjunct or intermediary. And the owner of the hardware shop or the carpenter hired out by the shop can indeed refuse to go along. "Do personalities or emotional exchange have anything to do with a sale?" Ask anyone who works for commission that question. "When I go into the grocery store, am I required to get along with the cashier in order to purchase my products?" To a degree yes, but again, the cashier is a facilitator not the whole deal. "My point is that the whore is strictly a businesswomen, while, in dating, certain fulfillments, beyond the money, must be met in order for sex to occur." So just because the price is different it's not whoring? It's still a price. "Your jaded description is hardly typical." Back that up. "I would ask you not to demean my argument structure" I would ask you not to make rampant undemonstrated claims and logical errors. "Why do we have any reason to believe your view of the world?" Because I've shown my position to be accurate through consideration of evidence and logic. Your rejection of it is irrelevant. What you believe has no bearing on what is. "Have you offered me some kind of proof that spending money gaurantees you sex on dates or that physical attraction can overcome the most disgruntled daters?" There are no guarantees of any sort in life, this does not destroy definition. A whore may receive her money and then be smooshed by an asteroid from space thus terminated the encounter, this does not mean that she was any less engaged in the sale of sex. You keep trying to make the claim that consummation and guarantees influence the definitions here. They Don't. "Again, I don't deny that physical attraction plays an initial role or that more money gives you a better CHANCE." Then I should be able to rest my case. "Its very nature is to be a workaround for the dating process, not the other way around." The fact that you grant that one is a substitute for the other bolsters my point, yet you seem to think it damages it. "But, whoring isn't an instance of trying to get laid." … heh, Coulda fooled me.