Amusement aside, in what way is this different than prostitution, other than it is a long-term lease (depending on the pre-nup terms) rather than a short-term rental?

And why is one legal and the other not?

Because one involves rich guys and other involves people arrested on the streets, often in embarrassing situations, or people at the bottom of the social heap.

I'd be a lot less likely to get a disease from the half-mil bimbo. Other than that...

Well, I'd also be a lot less likely to afford the half-mil bimbo.

But other than that...

It is legal because the government can make money off of one arrangement but not the other. Don't think the government makes money off of marriage? Right now Mr. fivehundredkay likely has his assets protected from taxation through foundations etc., but once the divorce happens (and let's not kid ourselves in this situation, she's a depreciating asset and a marriage based on looks+money is not going to be long-term), that cash is going to be divvied up and the government is going to get a healthy cut.

It is legal because the government can make money off of one arrangement but not the other.

Sorry, but you have cause and effect backwards. Government could very easily make money off prostitution, if it made prostitution legal, regulated, and taxed. In fact, a lot of governments do exactly that -- US is the only First World country where prostitution is completely illegal (outside Nevada and, due to a little-known law, Rhode Island).

So your explanations does not wash.

OK. So, the government can make money off the divorce but not the rental agreement.

Maybe I am way to cynical but I think that we pay no matter what. The mechanism and sometimes the immediacy of compensation is different that's all.

At least with a lady of the night you know the financial cost going into the deal. Marriage then divorce is an open ended invitation for the woman and the lawyers to try and take everything. Pre-nups can and have been broken.

How about this for "cynical":

Think of all benefits a man gets out of being married (call marriage "strategy A"). Then think how you can get all these benefits without being married ("strategy B").

Strategy B is possible, but expensive. At a guess, I would say it is beyond the means of at least 50% of men. (Unless you cut corners of course, but I specificlaly wrote ALL benefits.) However, it has an advantage of being predictable. The cost does not depend on man's financial status, and ending contracts is painless.

Strategy A is within means of all but poorest men, but its cost goes up as his income goes up, it may end unpredictably, and the end, whether planned or not, is itself very expensive -- again, proportionally to the income. Oh, and as the "500K responder" in National Review link pointed out, at least some of the benefits actually decrease with time.

Conclusion -- for men above certain income level, marriage is a losing proposition. Rationally, they are better off paying a housekeeper, a bedmate, a personal assistant and, if needed, a nanny. And while it is debatable where the cutoff line is, $500,000 per year is definitely above it.

Conclusion -- for men above certain income level, marriage is a losing proposition. Rationally, they are better off paying a housekeeper, a bedmate, a personal assistant and, if needed, a nanny. And while it is debatable where the cutoff line is, $500,000 per year is definitely above it.

Wow, that is cynical. If all the man received in a marriage could be covered by paid assistance, then you might even be correct.

I think, however, that the cynics and the prostitute-wanna-be in the link are missing a few important things that contribute to a marriage: love, romance, family, and children. Those are things available in your Strategy A that will be most likely missing from Strategy B. Just my opinion.

My guess is prostitution is illegal because there is a fear that married men might partake and making it illegal lessons that.

Personally I'm libertarian enough to say legalize it and make sure the girls are disease and pimp free and taxed like the rest of us.

a few important things that contribute to a marriage: love, romance, family, and children. Those are things available in your Strategy A that will be most likely missing from Strategy B

Of course. I was analyzing the situation from the viewpoint of two bozos on National Review link.

Although I must say that given the current realities, if I were single and making $500K+ per year, I would only marry a woman who agreed to marry me without knowing how much I make.

"So your explanations does not wash."

But even appearing to in any way promote outright prostitution through legalization and regulation is something some governments (espically 'family values' governments) can't risk / won't consider doing.

(Note that Nevada laws on prostitution are on a county-by-county basis. Maybe it's easier to convince legislators on that level than in the state capitals. The county Las Vegas is in, for example, is *not* hooker-legal, as many visitors have learned the hard way.)

But government risks *nothing* by appearing to promote marriage (*espically* 'family values' governments).

And what fraction of them ends in divorce? And how many of them re-marry? It looks to me like the House can't lose this bet...

Unless I'm mistaken Nevada state law expressly prohibits legalized prostitution in any county with a population over 100,000. So Clark and Washoe counties couldn't legalize it even if they wanted to.

Although I must say that given the current realities, if I were single and making $500K+ per year, I would only marry a woman who agreed to marry me without knowing how much I make.

Heh, my wife married me when I didn't have a job, had a huge debt (from my EE degree), and couldn't walk more than 50 feet or so (and had been told I probably never would again).

She is quite a lady!

"US is the only First World country where prostitution is completely illegal (outside Nevada and, due to a little-known law, Rhode Island).
Posted by Ilya at October 3, 2007 06:07 PM"

So that means the U.S., in fact, does allow legal prostitution.

Making prostitution illegal is a form of taxation. You're caught and often turned out of jail the next day with a stiff fine and added humiliation. That to me is a form of taxation through the judiciary.

But does the income outweigh the overhead? That is, those very jails, court proceedings, police time, etc...

Crime may or may not pay, but crime fighting doesn't always generate a net profit (or even a meaningful offset of expenses), either.