You do realize that nothing you said at the beginning made any sense? You said that marriage is prostitution, but none of the following points supported the claim. You said the woman was the man's property, but a prostitute isn't the property of her client. Plus (as we've covered) a wife still is her husband's property and a husband is his wife's property.

Prostitution is transactional. Quid pro quo. Tit for that. Sex in exchange for someone paying on a date is prostitution.

I didn't answer the question about my wife because it is ridiculous and I thought it was more polite to ignore it than call you out on it. But yes, my wife has taken many girls-only or her and her side of the family only trips. Including when money is tight. I really don't understand what frame of reference you could possibly have to think anything otherwise.

I do think I'm starting to see where the disconnect is though. I see "tradition" as the through line that transmits good and well-tested ideas through the corridor of time. I notice that in many historical eras they become corrupted, either through generic human frailty or the unique social demands of the time, and I ignore ALL those things.

So I can say that marriage is good even when many cultures throughout many times missed the mark. I can say that having a government to ensure public safety is good even though many governments have missed the mark. I can say that businesses are useful economic engines even though many have missed the mark.

I will believe in marriage even though our own culture misses the mark. If you have no-fault divorce, you don't have marriage. But again, I can see what marriage is so I just ignore that. My wife and I pretend that no-fault divorce doesn't exist.

Also, I think traditional roles worked really well for women. Better than anything else that's ever been tried, including in the modern day. But you are right, there's a reason that feminism sprung up, but it was because of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution took people and industry out of the house. Much of the work women did was rendered obsolete. So if you were rich, there was nothing for a woman to do, no way to contribute. If you weren't rich, all that was left for a woman to do is the work that servants would do if they could afford servants. The feminist idea of woman doing unpaid servant labor has merit, it's just a very recent phenomenon.

And I would say that no one has fully figured out how to adjust and maintain a traditional lifestyle in the wake of the industrial revolution. My family has some stuff we've tried and it's certainly better than the average result, but it's not perfect. But feminism was NOT a good response. In fact, women's happiness has been steadily declining for decades. And it's easy to see why. Women don't win when they are liberated: lazy and predatory men win. I've seen women here on Medium complain about men just doing the minimum for sex. Of course they are. Why would they do anything else? If you live in a culture that doesn't seem transactional and that has expectations that men need to live up to simply because it's the role as men, the concept of "doing the minimum for sex" doesn't even make sense. I don't do anything for sex. Why would someone need to do something for sex?