By Serge Kreutz

When young women in poor countries or poor young women in rich countries enter sexual relationships, they do so not solely for sexual and emotional benefits, but also with expectations of material advantage. This makes matters simple.

Ideally, from the perspective of the young woman and her family, the material advantage is provided lifelong and guaranteed by a legal system, as in a formal marriage.

Short of that, if a rich man is not available for that degree of commitment, arrangements can be temporary. It’s still an exchange of a sexual relationships for economic benefits.

Judgments on morality match the judgers sexual interests.

A man who will later be the woman’s husband would, if ever he were to know, find a premarital love affair immoral. He feels “overcharged” because he has to enter a formal marriage for sexual benefits, while the first only had to provide support.

Poor men in general will also mostly denounce her behavior as immoral. As they don’t have the means, they are against arrangements they themselves can’t afford.

Some of her female friends will defend her decision. They are those who would consider such an arrangement for themselves.

But the less attractive of her female friends would likely criticize her attitude. This is because they feel that such an opportunity will not come across their path.

People’s opinions just disguise their interests.

Can the behavior of the young woman who agrees to a sexual relationship because she expects material benefits be classified as prostitution?

Of course not. Prostitution involves the exchange of sexual gratifications against financial remuneration on a highly promiscuous basis (typically several customers a night) and in an indiscriminate manner (anybody qualifies, as long as he pays the requested price).

Morals reflect interests