Case 1

You go to Shenzhen and meet a pretty young girl who works in a dept store. You start a relationship - hey - she's a virgin! You really like this chick. You set her up in an apartment and send her 10K RMB/mth for living expenses, and visit every weekend. She makes it plain that she can only afford to live like this because of your financial assistance, tho she really, really likes you. Question: Is she a whore? If not, why not?

Case 2

Any girl who provides sex for money, even if only with one guy, is a whore.

All HK guys say local girls are only interested in money.

So you're a local and you meet a beautiful local girl. She asks you how much you make. She's satisfied with your answer. You court, take her to dinner, buy her expensive gifts, then you marry her. Question: Is your wife a whore. And is your mother your father's whore. If not, why not?

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trash talkin yo mama, but I think a lot of guys don't realize how common an arrangement prostitution is. I'd like to get to a basic definition.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 19-11-2007 23:08 ]

Very good thoughts........frankly I do not have the absolute answer to both............

There are always 2 ways to argue this , Yes and No.

But to me , my answer is NO.......if the woman stick to one Guy. Thet just merely stick with you as companion/lover for financial support. This is a materialistic world.......and it has been since the begining of time.............when Man is always the provider.
Unless the woman clinging to more than 1 guy for financial support, then I will agree to the defination of Whore.

You can argue semantics here, but I think we all know that the girls you're describing are not whore's in the common usage of the word, A whore is a girl who offers herself to many men on a short-time basis for sexual intercourse. If she's faithful to one man, even if he gives her money, she wouldn't be a whore. She'd be a mistress, concubine or some similar word. If she married the guy for money - she might be a gold-digger, but she'd still be a wife, not a whore. Just my opinion.

Just my opinion, but a girl who does 1000 guys 1 time each is a whore.
A girl who does 1 guy 1000 times is not a whore.

So accepting money for sex is OK if it's only from one guy? And the issue is not selling one's body, but selling one's body to someone other than me/you? Is this our definition?

Concubine and mistress were originally euphemisms the rich and powerful used to describe the women they paid for sex. The privileged didn't visit whores, that was for the common guy. Now that society has become more egalitarian and money is the only thing that matters, everyone with the necessary funds uses these terms to disguise what they're doing. These terms stink of hypocrisy.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 20-11-2007 02:24 ]

It's all about technicality. What is your definition of the term 'whore'?


From Webster.com:
/*
1: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
2: a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3: a venal or unscrupulous person
*/

From Dictionary.com:
/*
1. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.  
–verb (used without object) 2. to act as a whore.  
3. to consort with whores.  
–verb (used with object) 4. Obsolete. to make a whore of; corrupt; debauch.  
*/

From AskOxford.com:
/*
• noun derogatory a prostitute or promiscuous woman.

  • verb 1 work as a prostitute. 2 use the services of prostitutes.
*/

Case 1)
Does she really like me for real? If so, does that mean she would still stick with me when I don't provide the financial assistance?

Case 2)
Does this wife not have a job herself? Does she only live off from my earning? Will she get a job? Is she going to stay with me when I become a vegetable?

I don't know what and how my mom was thinking. So I can't answer that part of the question. Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with my mom being a whore. I don't have a problem with any women being a whore. So why would it be different if it's my mom?

Ah Escrit, I AM capable of using a dictionary. The point of the exercise is to go a little deeper than Webster.com and explore what the mongering community here on this forum understands the term to mean. I gave the non-commonsense examples above to show that sometimes our unexamined definitions can lead to contradictory conclusions, and that looking at things from unusual angles can lead to surprising results.

Cases 1 and 2 should be taken at face value. Asking questions such as, whether your wife has a job, bad breath or a heart murmur is not the point.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 16-2-2008 01:53 ]

I understand where you are coming from. You wrote "Any girl who provides sex for money, even if only with one guy, is a whore." That pretty much label all women as whores. By establishing such definition before the scenario (in this case, #2), you pretty much force people to provide an answer that you are looking for.

I asked those questions to emphasize the factor of love which is pretty much neglected. Or it's nothing but a superficial mask for the ulterior motive (in this case, $$$ or financial stability).

I myself would probably come up with similar questions for people to reflect on. At the same time, I am a whore myself and I am proud to be one.  

[ Last edited by  escritic at 20-11-2007 03:59 ]

So then it's not the providing of sex for money that makes one a whore, but the way in which it's done? Guys have no problem with buying pussy, and dignify the relationship with nice sounding words. Mistress is a good example; it almost sounds gentile and respectable. Anyone, if they had the money, would put some fantastic girl up for a year, but the idea that she is not a whore is just self-deception. Trophy-wife, isn't she a whore?

The problem is not logical, but biological. If a girl sells her body to more than one guy in a certain time span she's just a whore.  What guys don't like, can't respect, is if the girl has had some OTHER guy's dick in her - only then is she a whore. This attitude derives from genetics, our animal origins; the male doesn't like the idea that some other guys DNA might have a chance.

Of course, none of us wants a WG to have our children, but our ideas of what is ethical behavior derive from biology.

I agree, prostitution is every where, it's fundamental to the functioning of human society. Some guy who kisses his boss's arse 5 days a week, isn't he prostituting himself?

However, when DNA enters the picture, everyone starts to get real emotional. A girl gives a great traditional massage and she's respectable. But a guy slaps a condom on his dick and places it between her legs, and suddenly it's not just a business, but some great ethical concern. Whores are incapable of love, never trust a working girl, she's just a tart, etc., etc.

I agree with what both Jake and Marsupial have said so far, although their views contradict. Prostitution is a grey subject, like abortion.

If it's not born yet, is it considered a fetus or is it already a human? A baby?
If a woman only has sex with one guy for money, is she a whore?

Every whore starts off sleeping with one guy for money first. It's not like she only starts becoming a whore once she sleeps with a second man for money.

Technically speaking, I guess you can say that if a woman sleeps with a man for money and only for that money, then she is a whore. If there are other things involved, then it steps into what is professionally referred to as 'the fuzzy zone'.

I like that ..yes...let's coin a new phrase called 'the fuzzy zone" to throw all grey blurriness and fuzziness of the ethics of whores and prostitutes.  Can someone please make an entry in Wikipedia?

I agree with Jakes comments.  I would like to add that males are a selfish gender, perhaps because of biology or evolution or what have you.  I tend to think that when a man fucks a girl, the girl in some sense "belongs" to or becomes a part of the man.  And when the girl goes on to fuck someone else, this is when male selfishness kicks in, we simply don't like it, as if another has taken something from us.  It may not manifest itself as jealousy, but it can be very subtle and deep down.  Do you ever get this feeling when you know your ex-girlfriend is bonking some other dude?  

I think the degree in which this "selfishness" exists in you affects how you view people as being a whore.

Fuzzy Zone or Grey area or whatever......I say each define Whore differently........each of to your own perceptions!!!

My Uncle refer the TV actresses as....... Artist!!!
Guess what my Grandma said.........They are all Whores!!!

That actually is true to certain extent. Some actress do whore themselves. However, you have to be pretty rich to do them. Maybe it's just a HK urban legend

Yes and no. If a woman wants to get married or to be a mistress for the sole purpose of financial gain, she is a whore. Again, you don't mention the possibility of emotional attachment and feelings. Like others already pointed out, it's not quite cut and dry for some scenarios. Let define the $ ratio as the financial gain vs the love factor ratio. Is she a whore if it's 1:1? Is she a whore if the ratio is 1:2? or 1.5:1? In most instance, trophy wife is probably a whore. And almost all mail order brides are whores also.

I don't have problem with other guys' DNA in her. But that's just me. As long as both parties are honest with each other. I don't see what the big deal is. And no, I don't have a problem with a WG bearing my children. I don't even have a problem with a WG being a WG and my wife at the same time. Then again, that's just me.

Is an ass kisser a whore? Technically, no. Let's be realistic, playing favorism is everywhere and totally common. I am pretty sure that all of us play that game. If you were a cop, wouldn't you ask the police officer who's about to give you a speeding ticket to cut you some slack and flash your badge? Wouldn't you ask your friend to give you his/her employee discount to buy a high dollar item? Don't you ask your coworker to help you out on a project which isn't his/her responsibility and then treat him/her lunch or dinner later? Don't you give good tip to a waiter/waitress hoping him/her to give a great service next time?

It seems that the reason why whores are universally despised (and of course I'm not referring to anyone in this forum) derives primarily from the fact that they fuck lots of OTHER guys; that they accept payment for it, is only an incidental factor.

Be honest here, do you have the same negative feelings about a gigolo - a guy who fucks lots of women for money? No. At the most, you wonder how he can screw ugly clients; but there's no moral stigma involved in his profession. And this double standard derives from biology.

In the same way, a guy who screws a lot of women is looked on with admiration - he's a stud, a real man. While a girl who sleeps with a lot of guys is a loose woman, a slut, a whore, a nymphomaniac, a tramp, a fallen woman, etc., etc., etc....

What you say is correct. Part of he stereotype of the ... 'perfect woman'... is one who is faithful to one man. That's why a
mistress, concubine and wife are not whores, even if they are only with the guy for his money. A whore is promiscuous and
has sex with lots of guys for money. Just answering your original question.

It doesn't matter if you agree or not, or whether it's right or wrong - it's the way the word is used and that's what's important.
If everyone has a different view on what a word means, how can there be any meaningful communication?

And what about my comment on the gigolo? The hypocrisy doesn't make you question your attitudes?

But I'm interested in why we hold the opinions we do, and if they are consistent with the facts.

It's only hypocrisy if you think men and women are the same. But they're not. Men, by nature, are promiscuous, Women, by
nature, are not promiscuous. That's just the way we've evolved; there's no right or wrong about it. So, when a guy sleeps
around, it's natural. When a gal sleeps around, it's not natural and she's a slut.

I tend to agree with Jake's brand of wisdom...

I'm sure that's how my granddad thought, but times change. The sun no longer revolves around the earth,women have the vote, and can't be whipped for promiscuity. I don't care about common usage, the common guy is a sheep, and never examines his own thoughts or the concepts he's inherited. I would be embarrassed to be heard calling a women with a healthy sexual appetite a slut.

Be very careful about using the word "natural" to justify anything. This error even has a name in philosophy; called, appropriately enough, the Naturalistic fallacy – when what ‘ought to be’ is derived from what ‘is’.