In this week's installment of "Look what nonsense rich New Yorkers throw away their money on," the NYT Magazine offers up a portrait of "The New Arranged Marriage." Expect letters to pour in with, "Isn't it pathetic! Back in (insert good ol' Red State town here) we just get hitched to our high school sweethearts." Or, more likely, given the Times's readership, "Such matchmaking services are superficial and undignified. We live in crude times, in which everything, including choosing a partner, is commodified. Love cannot be bought. [Insert NAME, Upper West Side (or perhaps Brooklyn Heights), here.]"
From the natalist perspective, such businesses probably qualify as a good thing--sure, it's rich urbanites and their "goodies," but the goodies are being channelled, albeit indirectly, towards reproduction.
From the Kristofian perspective, one has to note that this is an instance of paying for sex that falls somewhere between prostitution and the guy paying on a date with the intent of getting something in return. But also from a Kristofian perspective, no one involved is even close to underage, all exploitation is voluntary and self-inflicted, and the chances of getting a serious disease while listening to some dull date you paid several hundred dollars for tell you a charming yachting anecdote from his youth are slim to none.
No comments:
Post a Comment