Beginning in the 60's, with both the Civil Rights and "Free Love" movements, American Culture has been dominated with by the illusive promise to break "archtypical" or "sterotypical" roles, whether in relation to gender or race or sexuality.
These circumstances arise occasionally in human history, with predicable results.
Eventually, we always come back to agreeing that professional success is a means to personal (ie sexual) opportunities. Therefore there is no such thing as "free love".
Also, we notice, such as in the Hollywood film "Dangerous Beauty" about a beautiful "Courtesan" (sex worker for royalty), that "rights" are often granted as personal gifts by the elite to their special lovers.
In this case, Roman sex workers had no right to own property. The "dangerous beauty" in this movie was so alluring, that the nobility, to win her favor, granted sex workers the right to own property.
Unfortunately, by the end of the story, the beauty is tried as a witch, as the noble men unite against her.
The problem, in my opinion, is not that sex workers were granted the right to own property. The problem is that she was valued to nobility as a sex worker, not as a property owner.
As the women property owners, these former sex workers would still be seeking sex partners, and just new variations of "sex work".
As we are in a time of devastating "plague", many survivors remain ashamed of their past , in one w2y or the other. Times of great turmoil, as we have today, are usually associated with relationship "breakups"; such as in the movie "Titanic".
Yet the hero of "Titanic", played by Leo DiCaprio, does not survive the shipwreck. The noble woman he saves does live a long life, but obviously without the man who saved her life from the greatest shipwreck of all times.
The great risk in Democratic Party Politics, whether Civil Rights or Women's Rights, is that the public is given a message so distant from the obvious personal desires and objectives of both men and women, that nobody bothers listening to our leaders anymore.
When this "House of Cards" falls. we be back to the basic, non-insulting truth, that sexual relationships always involve some kind of financial transaction.
To simplify our contemporary bedroom problems, I would suggest we should be free to discuss what each side wants in a particular relationship, and what legal method can be used on the business side of that transaction (moving away from one relationship to a new relationship).
Overall, careful study ("due diligence") is advisable as we as a society move away from incidental (party scene) sex towards longer relationships.
The motivation for women to exit the party scene, apart from social change, is most obviously the normal wear and tear on her body as she gets older. So the longer the "due diligence period", while she remains in the party lifestyle, she risks loss of value.
Of course, men also face the same problem of aging. With cloak-and-dagger investigators and transaction brokers amidst ongoing lawsuits, the best overall advise is to consider the obvious.
What we see in today's world is the prevalence of "fishing expedition" lawyers who insist is finding evidences which would only relate to "sales price" in these relationship transactions. It is possible that these individuals, like actress Kate Winslet's husband in "Titanic" are more bitter about their losses than willing to facilitate the "sale".
The filthy truth about the world we live in, which we presume that children don't know, is that anything is possible in the bedroom amongst consenting adults.
The house of cards falls when society is more interested in conflict than in facilitating these smooth and timely transitions.
About the Creator
Samir Goradia grew up in Queens, New York, and attended The Bronx High School of Science/
He resides in Bakersfield, California, where he is involved in the transition to Commercial Space Travel; and also disaster relief with FEMA.