Breakfast At Tiffany's, 1961, Paramount Pictures
Is it prostitution to take money from someone who is expecting sex, but then not supply?
If it isn't, then is it more or less socially respectable?
If it is, what is a reasonable charge?
In my opinion, these questions are totally wide of the mark in the context of the film in question. In 1961, it would have been common place for a man to take a women out and pay for everything, even buy her a gift to commemorate the night. In this way I doubt that prostitution was ever bought into question at the time, and shouldn't be now. Although modern interpretation's have added this spin onto the classic movie, I find it hard to believe that this was Edwards' intention.
If we ask the question purely in terms of modern society, some conclusions can be drawn, although we can still not be certain. As with everything cases differ, but surely, unless a woman specifically says that sex will be involved, it is merely the assumption of the man that it will be. Any attempt to pay for a night out could be interpreted as old fashioned good manners/chivalry.
If however, the women exclaims that sex will be involved then perhaps it is deceit and the man would have been conned. If he is led along, and then nothing materialises then perhaps it is deciet, but whether this is more respectable is questionable. I would argue that any attempt to simply sell the sacred act of sex is disgraceful.
Is it prostitution to take money from someone who is expecting sex, but then not supply?
If it isn't, then is it more or less socially respectable?
If it is, what is a reasonable charge?
In my opinion, these questions are totally wide of the mark in the context of the film in question. In 1961, it would have been common place for a man to take a women out and pay for everything, even buy her a gift to commemorate the night. In this way I doubt that prostitution was ever bought into question at the time, and shouldn't be now. Although modern interpretation's have added this spin onto the classic movie, I find it hard to believe that this was Edwards' intention.
If we ask the question purely in terms of modern society, some conclusions can be drawn, although we can still not be certain. As with everything cases differ, but surely, unless a woman specifically says that sex will be involved, it is merely the assumption of the man that it will be. Any attempt to pay for a night out could be interpreted as old fashioned good manners/chivalry.
If however, the women exclaims that sex will be involved then perhaps it is deceit and the man would have been conned. If he is led along, and then nothing materialises then perhaps it is deciet, but whether this is more respectable is questionable. I would argue that any attempt to simply sell the sacred act of sex is disgraceful.
No comments:
Post a Comment