# In the end, are we really just "paying" for sex???



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

This is meant to be a general question about sex and how it relates to the quality of the relationship. I've seen it stated in a number of threads about how it's bad to enact "covert contracts" or trade activities/work/deeds for sex. In many cases, it's related to the "nice guy" threads where the someone (male or female) tries to do more around the house to get his/her spouse in the mood for sex. The bottom line, and I agree with this, is that making trying to "pay" for sex by doing more chores around the house or buying gifts is a bad way to proceed. However, this line of thinking got me to ponder the dynamics in good relationships and how it relates to sex.

I think most of us "pay" for sex more than we realize, or maybe the better term is a quid pro quo. My wife and I have a great relationship all around and we have a really good sex life - especially since December after she her thyroid levels stabilized into the correct areas. But I think the two of us get into a sense of quid pro quo. We had great sex on Saturday and Sunday morning, I work my ass off to get as much stuff done around the house. Ultimately, I believe the attraction is what drives improved intimacy since my wife is more turned on in general when it looks like I am 1) taking charge in big issues, 2) rolling up my sleeves to work along side of her when things need to be done and 3) spending time with her and not going to veg out in front of the TV or computer. 

When you look at it from a different POV, isn't that analogous to "trading" and "buying" sex, work or time from your spouse? I'd be lying if I didn't say that morning sex doesn't get me more motivated to bust my butt around the house. I've also noticed that my wife will be more excited to make love after a good day where we got "a lot of things accomplished" - in her words - which ultimately drops her anxieties about all the stuff that needs to get done. 

Since I'm sure my life isn't that unique, I'm posing the question: Am I (and others) trading/paying for sex from my spouse more than I realize?


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

Yes I suppose nearly everything in life is some sort of transaction. It is rare for people to give without any expectation of getting something in return. Even Mother Teresa wanted to go to heaven.


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

I don't think of it as paying for sex. It is meeting each other's needs. Willard Harley explains the concept of a love bank. It means that every action you do for your spouse results in deposits or withdrawals from their "love bank." The key point is that there is no transactional tit for tat; sometimes you will do more for your spouse, and sometimes they will do more for you. It has to balance out overall to sustain love for each other.


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

If so my sex bill is way to high.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hurtin_Still (Oct 3, 2011)

*Re: Re: In the end, are we really just "paying" for sex???*



Thound said:


> If so my sex bill is way to high.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


......and what you pay ....don't buy you as much as it used to.


----------



## Philat (Sep 12, 2013)

Hopefully it's a barter arrangement rather than an outright purchase.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

skype said:


> I don't think of it as paying for sex. It is meeting each other's needs. Willard Harley explains the concept of a love bank. It means that every action you do for your spouse results in deposits or withdrawals from their "love bank." The key point is that there is no transactional tit for tat; sometimes you will do more for your spouse, and sometimes they will do more for you. It has to balance out overall to sustain love for each other.


Even he distilled marital love into an ongoing series of transactions between partners. I know it's more than that because all relationships follow similar patterns.


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

I work around the house to ease the burden on my wife hoping it will giver her more energy for sex. Yea that doesn't work. But she work as hard as I do and I think it's only right that I do my fair share.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Philat said:


> Hopefully it's a barter arrangement rather than an outright purchase.


I get what you mean, but is there much difference between trading for a horse vs purchasing one with gold eagles? 

I guess this line of thinking makes it apparent that marital love is also conditional love. I always thought it was the case, but this helps drive that point home IMHO.


----------



## Accipiter777 (Jul 22, 2011)

skype said:


> I don't think of it as paying for sex. It is meeting each other's needs. Willard Harley explains the concept of a love bank. It means that every action you do for your spouse results in deposits or withdrawals from their "love bank." The key point is that there is no transactional tit for tat; sometimes you will do more for your spouse, and sometimes they will do more for you. It has to balance out overall to sustain love for each other.


:iagree:


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Thound said:


> I work around the house to ease the burden on my wife hoping it will giver her more energy for sex. Yea that doesn't work. But she work as hard as I do and I think it's only right that I do my fair share.


My wife and I tackle most household chores and jobs needed to be done around the house together when I'm home from work and on weekends. Definitely leaves more time for sex - and energy.


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

If men "pay" for sex, what do women get for providing it? A place to live? A father for their children? I do not like the business model for a loving marriage. It is so much more.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Yes

The HD spouse tends to contribute a lot to the R with the expectation that the R will be good and sex will be plentiful. 

I do believe that the more 'transactional' you get, the more potential you have for a toxic dynamic. 

For instance when I read about 'dating' your W, I smile. Because almost every day can potentially be a 'date' if you want to make a fun evening out of it. And all couples should go on dates. 

And yet I cringe when reading about taking W 'out' on a date as part of actually getting to have sex. I couldn't do that. If I had to take W out, in order for her to be willing to connect -> we would be in MC very quickly. 




Plan 9 from OS said:


> This is meant to be a general question about sex and how it relates to the quality of the relationship. I've seen it stated in a number of threads about how it's bad to enact "covert contracts" or trade activities/work/deeds for sex. In many cases, it's related to the "nice guy" threads where the someone (male or female) tries to do more around the house to get his/her spouse in the mood for sex. The bottom line, and I agree with this, is that making trying to "pay" for sex by doing more chores around the house or buying gifts is a bad way to proceed. However, this line of thinking got me to ponder the dynamics in good relationships and how it relates to sex.
> 
> I think most of us "pay" for sex more than we realize, or maybe the better term is a quid pro quo. My wife and I have a great relationship all around and we have a really good sex life - especially since December after she her thyroid levels stabilized into the correct areas. But I think the two of us get into a sense of quid pro quo. We had great sex on Saturday and Sunday morning, I work my ass off to get as much stuff done around the house. Ultimately, I believe the attraction is what drives improved intimacy since my wife is more turned on in general when it looks like I am 1) taking charge in big issues, 2) rolling up my sleeves to work along side of her when things need to be done and 3) spending time with her and not going to veg out in front of the TV or computer.
> 
> ...


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Raymond Carver wrote an amazing short story about a couple who were in financial trouble. They needed to sell their car. To maximize the price, the wife dressed up to kill and had dinner with the car lot owner to close the deal. She went out to dinner and drinks and came home late. In fact, the buyer dropped her off. 

Is a transaction? The story goes very deep into this question.


----------



## Philat (Sep 12, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I get what you mean, but is there much difference between trading for a horse vs purchasing one with gold eagles?
> 
> I guess this line of thinking makes it apparent that marital love is also conditional love. I always thought it was the case, but this helps drive that point home IMHO.


Sorry, I was thinking in terms of bartering sex for sex, rather than sex for, say, folding laundry. But I agree that at the very core marital relations, like any relations, are about giving and getting.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno (Jan 18, 2011)

If someone is accepting what you offer in return for getting sex, then yes it does sound like bartering/paying. But that's the transaction style you set up with your partner. Personally I don't have sex with a guy for any reason than I want to. I get upset when a guy offers to pay for something for me or to do something for me if I know he has the hots for me. I try to dissuade setting up the very transaction style you're talking about because I know it will absolutely turn me off. I really hate it when a guy thinks he needs to 'buy' me in some way, it is the ultimate insult to my standing as a human being with my own sexual needs. I would never try to buy a guy that way. I also want to make it clear to a guy that he's not wanted for being able to mow the lawn or change oil in a car. The only reason I need a guy is for companionship/desire/fun/friendship. If you are leading a different sort of life and it's bothering you in some way because of the 'transaction' involved with sex, you need to change your relationship up a bit. Human beings have done a grand job of botching up sex in marriage/partnerships. But I've seen and dated plenty of guys who just make the assumption that women aren't going to want sex except if something other than sex is offered in return. A lot of times the woman will accept what's offered because she thinks the guy has a big need to take care of her or to be the one to pay for dinner or to take care of the manly things like mowing the lawn....in other words, woman doesn't want to hurt the man's ego, so accepts the transaction... it's a form of white lies, that leads to people thinking they need to buy/pay for sex in some way.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

If I'm paying for sex I'm getting ripped off.


----------



## johnAdams (May 22, 2013)

I married for love....sex is a bonus.....a BIG bonus

So what do escorts go for $300? So, that would be $109,500 per year to support my habit.

I have never looked at it as paying for sex....but it sure is a nice bonus.


----------



## Thepoet (Sep 8, 2013)

skype said:


> I don't think of it as paying for sex. It is meeting each other's needs. Willard Harley explains the concept of a love bank. It means that every action you do for your spouse results in deposits or withdrawals from their "love bank." The key point is that there is no transactional tit for tat; sometimes you will do more for your spouse, and sometimes they will do more for you. It has to balance out overall to sustain love for each other.


I think that is still the same thing, just in different words.

If you look at it logically and objectively, everything can be broken down into a transaction like a previous poster already stated.

If your partner suddenly stops returning any kind of affection toward you, what will you do? You will either exit the relationship or also stop returning affection.

Nobody enters a relationship for nothing. Everyone enters a relationship for myriad reasons, but it all boils down to something you want that you aren't currently getting. Whether that be sex, affection, love, stability, companionship, friendship, children, etc etc or all of the above, or some combination. If those things that you entered the relationship for suddenly stopped, you will question the relationship and consider the relationship broken and you will thus either try to fix it, exit the relationship, or live in misery.

Anyway, of course it's not romantic to break everything down to it's underlying pieces. Which is why people like Willard Harley change the wording to be something more romantic and palatable, but it is still the same components.


----------



## MissScarlett (May 22, 2013)

Even not in a tit for tat way - today I found myself thinking DH had made several comments about a BJ today - I should do that. Then my next thought was yes, I really should do that because I am planning to ask him out of his comfort zone when he returns from his business trip.

So even that is a transaction, upping my odds of getting whet I want next time.

This scenario is carried out sexually and not sexually in marriage, I think. I do consider my marriage a happy one but of course I don't get everything i want at the moment I want it. I want to tile the bathroom, DH wanted to replace the kitchen floor. I defered because I knew I would eventually get the tile but it was my turn to let him have what he wanted.

Despite the hopeful romance of marriage there is also a lot of strategy to keep both people happy in the relationship.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

MissScarlett said:


> Even not in a tit for tat way - today I found myself thinking DH had made several comments about a BJ today - I should do that. Then my next thought was yes, I really should do that because I am planning to ask him out of his comfort zone when he returns from his business trip.
> 
> So even that is a transaction, upping my odds of getting whet I want next time.
> 
> ...


I too feel that I have a happy marriage where we also have a healthy sex life. But that great sex life doesn't happen unless we both commit to each other and put effort into making each other happy. Since marital love is conditional, we each have to hold up our end of the deal or things slide. To a certain extent, there is a quid pro quo.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> This is meant to be a general question about sex and how it relates to the quality of the relationship. I've seen it stated in a number of threads about how it's bad to enact "covert contracts" or trade activities/work/deeds for sex. In many cases, it's related to the "nice guy" threads where the someone (male or female) tries to do more around the house to get his/her spouse in the mood for sex. The bottom line, and I agree with this, is that making trying to "pay" for sex by doing more chores around the house or buying gifts is a bad way to proceed. However, this line of thinking got me to ponder the dynamics in good relationships and how it relates to sex.
> 
> I think most of us "pay" for sex more than we realize, or maybe the better term is a quid pro quo. My wife and I have a great relationship all around and we have a really good sex life - especially since December after she her thyroid levels stabilized into the correct areas. But I think the two of us get into a sense of quid pro quo. We had great sex on Saturday and Sunday morning, I work my ass off to get as much stuff done around the house. Ultimately, I believe the attraction is what drives improved intimacy since my wife is more turned on in general when it looks like I am 1) taking charge in big issues, 2) rolling up my sleeves to work along side of her when things need to be done and 3) spending time with her and not going to veg out in front of the TV or computer.
> 
> ...


I'm curious...how do you think your wife would describe this? Do you think she'd see it as you're paying for sex?

What I interpreted is more like this:

You doing more stuff around the house --> your wife feeling more relaxed and feeling good about you as a partner and as a man --> your wife is more into sex with you.

and

You have sex and feel good physically, and about your wife as a partner and as a woman --> you are more into doing things around the house --> your wife feeling more relaxed and feeling good about you --> more sex...rinse, repeat.

That doesn't seem transactional to me. It's more of a good vibe feedback loop. 

Could you be framing it in a transactional way, but your wife be framing it much differently in her mind?

Do you only do this stuff to "get sex" or "for her" or do you do it because it's your house, too, and you would do those things anyway because they need to be done?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Next time I am mad and my wife wants to have sex, I'm gonna yell "Pay me woman!" LOL!!

No transactions in this relationship. A differing viewpoint is that when things are taken care of, you can relax. Sex is a relaxing activity and for times when you are comfortable. I am not in the mood when it's a deadline or taxes need done. 

When everything is taken care of, we have time for sex and relaxing. I don't kiss and cuddle or do chores and errands to pay for sex. I let Mrs. Conan have "it" because I love her and my intimacy belongs to her.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Plan, I think all adult relationships are an exchange of satisfactions. I didn't make up the term, I remember reading about how relationships work in a psychology course. 

If you have little to give, you don't get much in healthy relationships. There are dysfunctional relationships where one person gives too much in exchange for too little. Mr. nice guy/girl.

Unconditional love is for children and the helpless. Once you grow up, you have to pay to play.


----------



## askari (Jun 21, 2012)

norajane said:


> I'm curious...how do you think your wife would describe this? Do you think she'd see it as you're paying for sex?
> 
> What I interpreted is more like this:
> 
> ...


And then there are the wives who are just so lazy that their husbands HAVE to do their wifes agreed 'chores' otherwise the whole system breaks down.
Those wifes don't think..'ahh! He's making life easier for me...God he's sexy and I want him NOW'....No, they think, 'Ahh....he's done the laundry and cooked dinner...I can watch the next episode of Blah Blah'...

I disengaged years ago because of this. But it was my fault. I would get home from work to find things not done etc so instead of talking to my wife and asking why she hadnt been able to do her side of things I just did them myself hoping that she would feel guilty and make sure she did them in future.

It didnt work. Instead she thought...'Ugh. I couldn't be bothereed, he will do it when he comes home'.

I was the [email protected]


----------



## Horsa (Jun 27, 2012)

IMHO the transaction way of seeing is actually unhealthy for our self esteem, although there's nothing wrong with that point of view. That's why human created love, because we usually pay first even when we didn't know when or what we will receive.
For those who disagrees, would you keep doing those for your loved ones, if they didn't reciprocated for long? I surely wouldn't.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

norajane said:


> I'm curious...how do you think your wife would describe this? Do you think she'd see it as you're paying for sex?
> 
> What I interpreted is more like this:
> 
> ...


What you described is how both of us view our marriage dynamic. When we are home together, we tackle chores together. We'll cook together, clean together, fix things around the house together, etc. Sometimes we will " divide and conquer" where she'll scrub the kitchen floor while I patch holes in a wall and paint, for example. I never thought of it as transactional before, but I began to wonder if this could be more transactional than I thought.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

In response to the title of the thread . . . 

Well, yes, pretty much.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

I'm not sure if we are or not. I don't expect DH to do anything he wouldn't already be doing if he lived alone and ran his own household. Things like doing the dishes after someone cooks you a meal is simple courtesy.Helping to clean the home you live in alongside the other person who lives there is also just good manners. Doing the things it takes to maintain the outside of the home alongside the other person who owns the home is more of just doing your part to keep the environment nice. 

We're not taking anything from each other so I don't know if there's really a transaction going on here.We both contribute to savings and bill paying and we don't have children together to worry about. 

The reason we have sex is because we want to have sex. Maybe our transactions exist on an emotional level and not an acts of service level. We meet each others emotional needs and therefore we want to f**k.


----------



## committed4ever (Nov 13, 2012)

I want sex too. So I guess its an even exchange for us.


----------



## Thound (Jan 20, 2013)

committed4ever said:


> I want sex too. So I guess its an even exchange for us.


And thats the way it should be. Kudos.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

I would agree that all human relations are transactional, but I do not like the connotation of the word "pay." A marriage is a very different kind of relationship than that of an employee to his job. 

If you must use the word "payment," then I would say the reward is emotional satisfaction. Why do we do volunteer work? Would you say that you pay your best friend to do things with you? Marital sex is a very different kind of transaction, one in which the word "payment" does not belong.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

skype said:


> I would agree that all human relations are transactional, but I do not like the connotation of the word "pay." A marriage is a very different kind of relationship than that of an employee to his job.
> 
> If you must use the word "payment," then I would say the reward is emotional satisfaction. Why do we do volunteer work? Would you say that you pay your best friend to do things with you? Marital sex is a very different kind of transaction, one in which the word "payment" does not belong.


I'm not advocating that a marriage is purely transactional in nature and analogous to giving money to a prostitute. I like to think of my marriage as being a true partnership based on shared goals as opposed to a mutually beneficial relationship that involves an exchange of goods and services. However, I think the latter part of the statement comes into play more than we think. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. It's a thought that recently came into my head that I wanted to explore with others thru a thread on SIM.

Consider the two cases that - to me - seem to deconstruct marriage into a series of transactions between two parties. These two cases are seen plenty of times on TAM, and I think the advice given tends to push the transactional POV. First you have the Nice Guy who utilizes the notion of covert contracts in order to barter/buy sex from his/her spouse. Rightfully so, we would tell the nice guy to stop taking that approach. Interestingly enough, you have the "part 2" of this dynamic play out where the guy is told to "man up". I agree with that but...the "bible" for manning up is MMSLP - which IMHO pushes the transactional mode as well. You see the 2/3rd rule where you only compliment your wife 2/3rds the amount of times she compliments you along with some PUA theories that game the spouse. While I see the nice guy covert contracts scenario as a relationship based on extortion, MMSLP at least tries to make the exchange more equitable. 

Maybe I got MMSLP all wrong here, but it seems to be based on transactional exchanges too.


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

I think that we basically agree, but are arguing about different aspects of relationships. I see NMMNG and MMSLP as telling men that we teach people how to treat us, and we must maintain boundaries with our spouse. I don't see that as paying for sex.


----------



## soulseer (Jul 26, 2013)

It's transactional and role playing all in one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## missthelove2013 (Sep 23, 2013)

women are sitting on a gold mine...there is a lot of power between their legs...and whether they do it on purpose or not, they use it to get what they want

we would too if our tallywacker was as powerful or in demand as their vagigi...

I DO think we pay for it directly or indirectly

Dating...how many dates does it take to get to the center of her tootsie pop LOL...3-4 unless the guy is a complete weenie...granted thats not a ton of money...maybe $400 depending on what you do...that wont get you much in a Vegas Chicken ranch, but I bet any other escort service might be good to go

I just checked backpage.com...there is an escort, body rub, and even a transgender section...seems $200 an hour is a fair estimate...

so do the math...

I have never nor will I ever pay directly for sex...I am worried about disease, the probability the woman is using drugs, the chance of being ripped off, or false advertising...but soon I will be single again and will be very careful how I INDIRECTLY pay for sex...

when I WAS single, when I dated we went dutch..not because I was cheap or couldnt afford it, but because of my principles...once I decided we were past the friends stage and things were progressing forward, I paid for more of the dates

hell even in bars I NEVER bought a random chick a drink...phhhhttt...I never had any problem hooking up either...just wasnt gonna be the loser these women used for free drinks


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

when my brother got divorced and lost many assets he would tell me how twice a month he would get an escort. and that it was cheaper than having a wife or live in girl friend with the added bonas of not having to hear her ***** about everything plus they are willing to do anything you want sexually.


I have more than a few friends who share this opinion . they also said their former wives only would have sex once a month. 

if your married your paying for it one way or another..........thats for sure.


----------



## missthelove2013 (Sep 23, 2013)

chillymorn said:


> *if your married your paying for it one way or another..........thats for sure*.


And unless your newlyweds, your typically paying for something you aint getting...and if you ARE getting it, its probably only slightly better than masturbation...


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

missthelove2013 said:


> And unless your newlyweds, your typically paying for something you aint getting...and if you ARE getting it, its probably only slightly better than masturbation...


If Dh lets his end of sexy time slip to the point where I'm saying it's only slightly better than masturbation we are going to have serious issues to address.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

This reminds me of the episode of "Friends" where they were arguing over whether a person can act in a truly selfless manner. The argument noted that even charity brings a good feeling to the person giving, and thus is a selfish act on some level.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

I don't consider sex transactional or something either partner is paying for. That would imply that only one of them actually wants to have sex, and the other is _giving _it to them but wouldn't unless they received "payment".

Some couples actually like having sex and both partners are into it and do it because it's fun and because it's something special they share with each other. If there is any _giving _going on, it's both of them giving _each othe_r pleasure.


----------



## I Don't Know (Oct 8, 2013)

It can be transactional. In my previous marriage it sure seemed that way, and the cost was high. But in my current relationship it doesn't feel that way at all. I do help around the house, but I do it because a) we're doing it together as a way to spend time with each other. b) I know it makes her feel cared for and loved. c) stuff needs to get done. I never feel like it's something I have to do to "get" sex and I never do it with that as the goal.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

norajane said:


> I don't consider sex transactional or something either partner is paying for. That would imply that only one of them actually wants to have sex, and the other is _giving _it to them but wouldn't unless they received "payment".
> 
> Some couples actually like having sex and both partners are into it and do it because it's fun and because it's something special they share with each other. If there is any _giving _going on, it's both of them giving _each othe_r pleasure.


Some people thinks that one of the people always pays. The one who wants it more.

I believe like you that a couple can equally desire each other and please each other and no one pays, its gain for both parties.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

norajane said:


> I don't consider sex transactional or something either partner is paying for. That would imply that only one of them actually wants to have sex, and the other is _giving _it to them but wouldn't unless they received "payment".
> 
> *Some couples actually like having sex and both partners are into it and do it because it's fun and because it's something special they share with each other.* If there is any _giving _going on, it's both of them giving _each othe_r pleasure.


In the end, that's probably the reason why this idea of sex possibly being more transactional than I thought it was is not tenable when you think about it more. Thanks for that.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> In the end, that's probably the reason why this idea of sex possibly being more transactional than I thought it was is not tenable when you think about it more. Thanks for that.


When it's right, it's not transactional at all. They are into you, they want it, and they get it. LOL. Leaves all parties with the best feelings.

Some of the TAM members are in MMSL struggles where their attraction has faded or fires put out like a lit match being doused in water.

There is a method to the madness and some of the attraction principles do not make logical sense, but they tend to work in certain ways.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> One must think of sex as a separate thing to love and commitment for this to be true. Yes, it is a separate thing, if you can separate the emotional oxitocin, vassapresin, and serotonin released. That is not possible in a healthy human. So, in order to separate the two, you must be well versed in heartbreak and how to move from one partner to the next quickly an easily.
> 
> Those bonding chemicals, I imagine, are there for a reason. I would think they serve the purpose of making a man want to provide for and never desert his mate, when she becomes pregnant. It's the only thing that really makes sense and why it would make sense that a man is more likely to feel a greater bond than a woman from sex. Don't you think?


Yes, natural cave man would not desert the spouse and definately wouldn't be sharing her, he'd kill first.


----------



## MissScarlett (May 22, 2013)

I just think of it in a much broader sense. I do nice things for DH because I love him. He does nice things for me because he loves me. This cycle powers itself. We are in a good place sexually. We are both having sex because we want to. My particular case is a honeymoon stage of sorts with new things on the table.

This all works well and good - great in fact - until one person stops. One person who upsets the dynamic changes everything. Suddenly you don't feel like doing nice things for someone who gives nothing back and the sex will follow. It will die.

In healthy relationships you are always making deposits in the emotional bank and your spouse is busy doing the same. It all feels selfless and good until one person decides they have better things to do. IF one person decides that. We all hope it won't be us but the odds are in nobody's favor.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Not sure I agree with this part. I do think that in the natural world, female animals, not humans, tend to mate with the lesser dominant males of the same species. Maybe not the dominant female, but many of the rest of the females mate with the dominant male and many of the lesser males of the same species.
> 
> That's the animal kingdom, though. I just wonder how close to some of those animals, humans truly are?
> 
> But, I do think that it is a learned ability to move from partner to partner without so much drama and pain. I don't think it's natural in humans to be able to do this. Even though, we are not cave men and women.


Cave man would grow an affinity to the one he laid with more, he would be able to physically dominate the woman without fear of reprisal. The affinity for the one he laid with, it would be very painful to watch another male attempt to have her, and he would hurt him as badly as he could. Unless it was a dominant complete with henchmen there would be nothing he could do. If there was a "dominant" without henchmen, he would use weapons or whatever necessary, fighting to the death.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> *physically dominate the woman without fear of reprisal* -
> 
> I take this to mean abuse her? I don't like that thought. I guess I'm not sure I understand what you meant by that?
> 
> ...


Before civilization, cavemen would have handled women who got out of line. A woman would tend to stay with the one who provided and protected for her. Swapping and things like this would not be common, because of oxytocin and other bonding hormones cause physical pain when cheated on. The caveman would defeat his foe if he had to.

A woman would do women things and a man would do male things as per their biology. There would be no masculine females, because there wouldn't be a need.

What you women don't understand is men are very territorial too. And natural man outside of society has a great bond to his female who he is with, and would be very hurt and shamed if another tried to get with her or was too close to her. He would not allow it. There would be enough women to go around and men would be dieing from batte and on the hunt, so there wouldn't really be a need for a cave woman to be sharing men.


----------



## askari (Jun 21, 2012)

missthelove2013 said:


> women are sitting on a gold mine...there is a lot of power between their legs...and whether they do it on purpose or not, they use it to get what they want
> 
> :iagree::iagree:
> 
> ...


----------



## suspiciousOfPeople (Sep 5, 2012)

In the end, we MEN are the ones "paying" for sex


----------



## mineforever (Jan 31, 2013)

suspiciousOfPeople said:


> In the end, we MEN are the ones "paying" for sex


I don't agree with this statement at all. I know big guy doesn't "pay" for sex. I chase him around this house all the time, he doesn't have to do anything to get sex, just let me catch him...:-D
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

suspiciousOfPeople said:


> In the end, we MEN are the ones "paying" for sex


Who pays a male stripper for viewing and touching him?

Who pays a selfish bad boy boyfriend who gives nothing, screws her with some strong c0ck and gets her to help him out on late car payments and rent?


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> This is meant to be a general question about sex and how it relates to the quality of the relationship. I've seen it stated in a number of threads about how it's bad to enact "covert contracts" or trade activities/work/deeds for sex. In many cases, it's related to the "nice guy" threads where the someone (male or female) tries to do more around the house to get his/her spouse in the mood for sex. The bottom line, and I agree with this, is that making trying to "pay" for sex by doing more chores around the house or buying gifts is a bad way to proceed. However, this line of thinking got me to ponder the dynamics in good relationships and how it relates to sex.
> 
> I think most of us "pay" for sex more than we realize, or maybe the better term is a quid pro quo. My wife and I have a great relationship all around and we have a really good sex life - especially since December after she her thyroid levels stabilized into the correct areas. But I think the two of us get into a sense of quid pro quo. We had great sex on Saturday and Sunday morning, I work my ass off to get as much stuff done around the house. Ultimately, I believe the attraction is what drives improved intimacy since my wife is more turned on in general when it looks like I am 1) taking charge in big issues, 2) rolling up my sleeves to work along side of her when things need to be done and 3) spending time with her and not going to veg out in front of the TV or computer.
> 
> ...


I'm quoting the original post, because I didn't get a chance to read the rest of the replies.

I don't think its paying for sex, but I do think it motivates me to be the better person I want to be. When I go to sleep, I feel depressed thinking about the type of guy I am compared to who I want to be. Morning sex, evening sex, and just sex each day, motivates me to be a better man. Does that mean I am paying for sex? I don't think so.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

the person with the higher sex drive ends up paying for sex one way or another.

not everybody with a low drive uses it to manipulate. but many do weather they know their doing it or not sometimes it evolves from years of a frustrated spouce bending over backwards the majority of the time to get some sex.

the solution is to have more self respect for your self and not subcome to being week and needy for sex all the time. eaiser said than done. And if things don't adjust themselves then its decission time do you want to spend the rest of your life with someone that your not compatible with sexually.

when you have built a life together and have kids and house and all the stuff that is important to you its a much more difficult decission to make.


----------

