Another recent online news, Hangzhou woman prostitution case is very much in the news, why here to mention this matter, because I found some very witty netizens have thought to the depth of Marx. For example, some netizens have read Marx's interpretation of marriage rather one-sidedly, thinking that it is also a long-term sexual contract (contract), not much different from a practitioner's practice in essence, and also satisfies the need for sexual exchange. In reality, however, there are indeed significant differences between Marx's and Engels' understandings of prostitution and the marriage contract for prostitutes. Some feminist invocations of Marx and Engels, for example, argue that sexual exchange in marriage is also an act of prostitution, but this definition is conditional; not all marriages are equivalent to prostitution, but those in which women see marriage exclusively as a property relationship, where women, out of economic disadvantage, have to give up their quest for equal love and their spouse's respect for them, before marriage retreats into prostitution. "This weighing of the pros and cons of marriage often turns into the crudest form of prostitution on both occasions - sometimes on both sides, with the wife being the most usual. The wife differs from the ordinary prostitute only in that she does not rent her flesh as a hired woman sells her labour piecemeal, but sells it once and forever as a slave." -- Engels.

In describing bourgeois marriage as a form of prostitution, Marx and Engels not only argued that both men and women could be prostitutes, but also that the sale was not limited to sexual services (for example, some other considerations based on reality). So what exactly is it that is central to giving marriage a certain nobility and morality? Here I suggest a book that I think is quite well written and share some quotes with you. The book is called A Study of Marx Engels' Ideas on the Social Function of Culture.1. Why is modern exclusive marriage the only legitimate form in which modern sexuality can develop? (Prostitution is deemed illegal in our country and is highly relevant to Marx's study) Engels reveals three main features of modern love: 1) Sexual love is predicated on the love of the loved one, and in this respect women are on an equal footing with men .... ...2) it is a great misfortune to force two people to separate if their sexual love has reached a certain level of intensity and permanence, i.e. a legal form is needed to secure their union; 3) the evaluation of sexual relations must follow a moral criterion, i.e. whether sex occurs because of love. (Love is an attribute of the soul part of mankind, sex is a need of the lower carnal part of mankind, and it is by restraining sex with love that we can ensure that mankind does not return to the primitive jungle state of promiscuity.) Sex itself is exclusive, and sexual morality requires that marriage must be based on love. In modern society marriage is a contract, but it is not just the physical and carnal parts that are bound, but at the same time there are significant provisions for the spirit as well. The basis of autonomous marriage is that the parties first cultivate a deep emotional foundation, rather than prioritising the reciprocity of various material and physical conditions. Only affection is the most profound bond between the parties, ensuring that they maintain a more permanent relationship.

Prostitution, then, because it is not an exclusive sexual relationship and there is no spiritual bond, is not, in the view of Marx and Engels, morally conducive to human progress, although it is fair to the worker to sell his labour and products freely. In The Art of Love, Fromm invokes Marx's theory of alienation, arguing that the most important thing in love is creativity, and that the greatest flaw in a marriage without love should be the hindrance to one's self-worth and creativity.2. What kind of people are more likely to break out of monogamy: Marx argued that those in the privileged and economically overwhelmingly advantaged classes were more likely to go to prostitutes and lascivious swingers, and that working-class marriages were relatively stable. But in practice, we see perhaps the loser class without girlfriends, or people of other ages who want to be discontented, mid-life crisis, old age widowhood, etc., all seemingly concerned with physical satisfaction first in their inability to find the ideal love.3. Marx's view of divorce: Marx saw marriage as an ethical entity, not limited to the rash will of each of two people, but also involving two families, the child support and visitation, spousal support and division of property, etc. Marx therefore disapproved of divorce for the petty and impulsive things in life, stressing that "divorce cannot depend only on the subjective wishes of the parties, but is moral only when the marriage has in fact disintegrated and died - when the love of the spouses has indeed disappeared".4. Marx's message to a new generation of human beings: men will no longer need to use money and other social power to make women give themselves to them, and women will no longer be committed to men for some other consideration than true love... So, let's help analyse the specific situation based on some of the theoretical foundations mentioned above. The fact that the subject is asking whether she should divorce means that she feels that she has lost something important in her marriage and is therefore emotionally uncomfortable in the first place. Then, the subject wrote a lot of details about their relationship to convince herself that the other party was still very good to her, so she did not need to consider divorce.

Here I emphasise that divorce is a personal act and decision, and that everyone has the right to think it through and choose according to their own reality. No one can make decisions for anyone else, what we can analyse is what exactly the parties really care about in relation to each other. -- First of all, the soul of marriage as Marx tells us, love is definitely out of the picture, the essence of one soul loving another is the desire to be close, to understand, to be intimate, to flee is interpreted psychologically and philosophically as representing an inner boredom, at least in the sense that the emotional attachment has dissolved. -- The pure need of the flesh, like eating and sleeping, needs to be addressed by everyone, but in Marx's view, to remain in a sexual relationship when the affection is no longer there is an act of exchange. --Division of property, spending money on a wife saves a lot of trouble than dividing property in a divorce, which is beneficial to the man. -- The main concern is what relatives and friends think of the marriage, not caring about the wife's emotional needs. Women who choose such a marriage certainly have no problem ensuring survival, and if the aim is just to survive and raise children, it's not hard at all to get by. But as I highlighted before when I wrote about Bill Gates' divorce, women's emotional needs are very important for the development of autonomy and the establishment of self-worth. In the long run, a loveless marriage can lead one into a state of self-doubt, dampening women's self-confidence and making them find the value of their existence only in the metaphysical part.

Marrying someone is about loving her, wanting to get her, protecting her, wanting to have sex with her, loving someone has many manifestations sometimes it's more of a responsibility a responsibility, we can't say that not having sex with you or how it is is a sign of not loving another person, this statement is wrong, if you really want to have sex but don't want to ruin the relationship, then you Consider physical sex dolls, they can meet your physical needs just as well, whether they are male dolls or female sex dolls, they can help you with this problem of sexual needs, they will help you get through this, they will help you on the basis of your relationship so that you will not have conflicts over these things.