Acharya Prashant responds to a question about why he doesn't speak on the social evil of dowry. He states that the thought never occurred to him to speak on it separately, as he has already spoken extensively on related topics like relationships, love, illusion, greed, and falsehood. He finds it difficult to even imagine a person who would agree to be with someone in exchange for money, questioning how he can even comment on such a thing. He says it is hard to picture a man who would base a lifelong relationship on receiving money, calling such a thought process beyond comprehension. Similarly, he finds it difficult to imagine a woman who would agree to go to the house of such a man, wash his dishes, and bear his children, knowing he associated with her for money. Acharya Prashant remarks that it is easier to make a joke about this topic than to give a serious answer because it is so painful. He rhetorically asks if one can slap such a person, as giving an answer seems inadequate. He illustrates with an example: if a man says, "I can be yours, but first give me ten lakh rupees," or "Now that I have a certain job, my rate has increased," such a person should be taken to a mental asylum, not a wedding hall. He finds the matter so base that he struggles to explain it in spiritual terms of the soul, supreme self, or consciousness. He questions how people in such relationships can tolerate each other, even for a few years, when the car they drive and the bed they sleep on are products of dowry. He wonders how sexual excitement is even possible in such a context. He asserts that love is a far-fetched concept in such arrangements; it is not even a matter of hatred but a straightforward transaction. The relationship begins with the implicit understanding that love can never be a part of it. When a questioner suggests that social pressure is a factor, Acharya Prashant refutes it, pointing out that the dowry money is enjoyed by the individual, not society. He argues that people choose their own society and relatives. The process, he explains, starts much earlier: the boy pursues a certain job to command a higher dowry, and the girl is raised to be a suitable match. He points out the grim reality that the boy for whom dowry is demanded might have been born after several abortions of female fetuses, indicating that his parents would surely demand dowry. He concludes that what is considered an ordinary life is often quite disgusting and that we are completely unfamiliar with love. He calls a man who takes dowry a "dahejiya" (dowry-taker), equating it to the masculine form of a prostitute, as he establishes a relationship for money.