# sex tax, a thread jack redirect



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

So the question was raised, is a foot massage foreplay or a sex tax? Feet are ok to me and massage in general is fun if not erotic. 

The question becomes where does it stop being play (of the fore variety) and start being Taxing (transactional)?

This applies to more than foot care:
flowers,
conversation,
dishes,
dates,
oral,
And so on. . .


----------



## BigToe (Jun 2, 2011)

The answer is, intent.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr. Nail said:


> So the question was raised, is a foot massage foreplay or a sex tax? Feet are ok to me and massage in general is fun if not erotic.
> 
> The question becomes where does it stop being play (of the fore variety) and start being Taxing (transactional)?
> 
> ...


The thing is that for some of us, none of these things are a ploy, and absolutely not a ploy to get sex. 

This is the way, in general, that I treat all woman. I am a gentleman at all times. I actually like listening to them, for the most part, I find woman interesting. I actually find them fascinating. 

I do the above things because that is what I do. Now if it is a serious relationship, then they receive even more attention. Basically, because I like making my woman happy. It makes me feel good. 

As far as sex goes, well it is assumed. If someone, me or her does not feel well, OK, tomorrow then. 

Otherwise, I am going to screw her to the best of my ability every day. If a woman wants to be with me, then she is as sexual or sometimes more sexual than I am, so she knows the deal.

Frankly, I never stop flirting with my GF. I constantly let her know that I find her completely beautiful and intoxicating and I am going to screw her when we are alone that night, or in the bathroom at a party or where ever we can get away with it. 

So the things I do are never to get sex or kudos, they are part of HAVING sex with the women I love...


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

A sex tax is simply any hoops you have to jump through to get sex. Of course there are reasonable ones, that involve foreplay. Or if you smell like a$$, then take a shower before you jump her. 

The unreasonable ones have absolutely nothing to do with getting her sexual motor running. Thats a sex tax. Its just some BS rules or sh!t tests she comes up with you to see if she can make you her glorified butler. She basically wants compensation for her ability to provide sex. She will later resent you for this weak display. Keep her in your frame.

Like a poster said above, it comes down to intent many times. Maybe a foot rub really gets her off (foreplay), likely not, but maybe. But if the foot rub turns into agreeing to buy her a new pair of shoes, you are being sex taxed. Or if you have to do some BS chore to gain access then you are being sex taxed.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I agree it has to do with how you feel about it. But the intent of both parties is needed to determine if it is tax or play.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

I read too much on TAM that guys initiate, get turned down and then offer a foot rub as an alternative. What’s up with that? Covert contract I guess.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

I think for some, it is a sex tax. Like, she'll agree to have sex with you (kinda grudgingly) be only if you rub her feet first.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

Is she F'ing you like a porn star or like you just rubbed her feat?


----------



## I shouldnthave (Apr 11, 2018)

Oh conversation, certainly a sex tax. I mean what man wants to be bothered with talking to the woman he wants to have sex with? It's a obvious chore he must endure to get the sex he desires - while she apparently has so little interest in having sex with him, that he must do these things to get in her pants. 

Same for oral - what a chore, can't she just get off on a few pumps?

Sounds like a recipe for a passionate sex life.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think there are separate things. Sex should be something both partners eagerly engage in - without any need for a "tax" At the same time both partners should share in chores, and also generally do things to make each other happy


----------



## .335487 (Dec 13, 2018)

BigToe said:


> The answer is, intent.


A very concise answer. Clear and to the point.

I can't see using sex for favors (or favors for sex) as being sustainable in the long run.

Still trying to sort this out myself:
1. Don't do good expecting reward.
2. No good deed goes unpunished.


Both items hold true to me currently. Makes it difficult to do good.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Mmmmmmmmmassage.

I love giving and receiving massages. It’s been my experience that men who are awkward about it or who don’t want to give or get them are the least sensual and least intuitive lovers.

It’s a red flag for me if a guy doesn’t know how to properly touch me. Also if he won’t let me properly touch him. Massage (the willingness to give and receive it) is one indicator of this.

If he wants his feet massaged, I’m totally down. It’s all a trade (massage for massage) and works out even over time. Some people don’t like a foot rub, would prefer a shoulder and neck rub. I personally need my calves rubbed mostly.

I love all kinds of other adoring touches as well. It’s all big picture stuff between people who understand what makes sex good. It develops more than pleasurable physical rewards. It also drives up intimacy and body health.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Honestly, no matter what you're trading for what, if your marriage is overtly transactional in nature, it's a problem. If you expect to get paid upfront in foot rubs in order to suffer through sex with your husband, and won't have sex if he doesn't pay up in a direct quid pro quo, that's bad. If you expect to get paid in sex in order to suffer through family dinner or hauling your own hamper to the laundry room, and won't do it if your wife doesn't pay up in a direct quid pro quo, well, that's bad too. Neither situation indicates that you're actually interested in a real _partnership_ where you share love, sex, and daily life with your partner. 

If you have to be paid, in any way, to participate in the normal functions of a healthy mutually loving adult life together, then you probably just shouldn't be married.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> Mmmmmmmmmassage.
> 
> I love giving and receiving massages. It’s been my experience that men who are awkward about it or who don’t want to give or get them are the least sensual and least intuitive lovers.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this one. Now, I understand that some people are not affectionate, I don't understand why.

What I did not understand early in life is that I crave affection both giving and receiving. To me it is part of the process - all of it - the bonding, the sex, the love, all of it. 

So on top of everything, GF and I make everyone sick when we are out together. We constantly hold hands, we kiss whenever, the whole thing. 

All of her friends are so jealous of her and our relationship. Sorry but there is only one of me to go around, LOL. 

But it goes further than that... when we are in bed, morning or evening we cuddle, caress each other, hold each other, it is the most wonderful thing. 

And she does this thing where she lays across my lap with her back facing me, and of course she is naked, which kind of goes without saying... And I get the view of her back, especially the lower/small of her back where is slopes down to her ass... 

Is there anything more beautiful than that part of a woman's body? I say no...

Anyway, all of this goes along with massages, and all the other things mentioned, and more that go along with a loving, sexual, romantic relationship. 

It is all part of the same ball of wax...


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Rowan said:


> Honestly, no matter what you're trading for what, if your marriage is overtly transactional in nature, it's a problem. If you expect to get paid upfront in foot rubs in order to suffer through sex with your husband, and won't have sex if he doesn't pay up in a direct quid pro quo, that's bad. If you expect to get paid in sex in order to suffer through family dinner or hauling your own hamper to the laundry room, and won't do it if your wife doesn't pay up in a direct quid pro quo, well, that's bad too. Neither situation indicates that you're actually interested in a real _partnership_ where you share love, sex, and daily life with your partner.
> 
> If you have to be paid, in any way, to participate in the normal functions of a healthy mutually loving adult life together, then you probably just shouldn't be married.


This 100%. Once you take sex off of a bargaining table relationships are healthier. You bring to the table that which makes the other person happy and they do the same. That’s suppose to be what love is in my book


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Mr. Nail said:


> So the question was raised, is a foot massage foreplay or a sex tax? Feet are ok to me and massage in general is fun if not erotic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Depends how you choose to view it. If you do something nice to someone so you can get something nice in return and then view it as a ‘tax’ then it’s a tax. The whole life can be viewed as a tax. 
It prevents solely selfish behaviour. All of us can benefit more if we engage in a type of ‘symbiosis’ rather than purely selfish behaviour. (Though even symbiotic behaviour can be viewed as selfish, because you are deriving benefits from it). 
It’s once again a language thing. It’s more about balance. It’s nice to do nice things but if someone keeps taking advantage of it, with nothing in return, then it’s not so nice anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

BluesPower said:


> The thing is that for some of us, none of these things are a ploy, and absolutely not a ploy to get sex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But then if she doesn’t have that much sex with you, you dump her? See, it’s another language thing: you will say that if she doesn’t have sex as frequently and enthusiastically with you, it means she doesn’t love you anymore. So you are going to stop treating her well (or stop treating her or being with her altogether). 
But from the outside observer’s point of view, it is still transactional: you gonna rub her feet (or treat her well) as long as she is having sex with you. Once she doesn’t, you won’t. Same difference as far as actions go, just a different way of saying the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> A sex tax is simply any hoops you have to jump through to get sex. Of course there are reasonable ones, that involve foreplay. Or if you smell like a$$, then take a shower before you jump her.
> 
> The unreasonable ones have absolutely nothing to do with getting her sexual motor running. Thats a sex tax. Its just some BS rules or sh!t tests she comes up with you to see if she can make you her glorified butler. She basically wants compensation for her ability to provide sex. She will later resent you for this weak display. Keep her in your frame.
> 
> Like a poster said above, it comes down to intent many times. Maybe a foot rub really gets her off (foreplay), likely not, but maybe. But if the foot rub turns into agreeing to buy her a new pair of shoes, you are being sex taxed. Or if you have to do some BS chore to gain access then you are being sex taxed.




I think it depends how immature you or your partners are 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> But then if she doesn’t have that much sex with you, you dump her? See, it’s another language thing: you will say that if she doesn’t have sex as frequently and enthusiastically with you, it means she doesn’t love you anymore. So you are going to stop treating her well (or stop treating her or being with her altogether).
> But from the outside observer’s point of view, it is still transactional: you gonna rub her feet (or treat her well) as long as she is having sex with you. Once she doesn’t, you won’t. Same difference as far as actions go, just a different way of saying the same thing.


We have been though this a hundred times. 

I do not date women that are not highly sexual, or at least highly sexual with me, never have never will. 

And yes, if my GF, stopped being sexual, it would end. Now, in this serious relationship, I would talk with her and do my best to figure out what was going on. I would def try to work it out and I would hope that she would be honest about whatever the issue was. 

But yes, if it did not get fixed in a relatively short amount of time, weeks, a month, it would be over. 

It is not something that I have ever dealt with, nor is it something that I will ever deal with. 

And yes, I believe desire, attraction, and sex are linked to love. And they are. 

I can have sex with a woman I don't love, but I cannot love a woman that does not desire me and want to have as much sex as I want. 

I have broken up with women for a lot of reasons, lack of sex was never one of them. 

I think that the women I choose to date are one of the reasons that the lack of sex thing is not an issue. 

So, no, the thing I do for my partners, are the things I do, it is never transactional nor will it ever be. 

But yes, a woman that I am in a serious relationship with, will get more attention because it is a serious relationship, but not to get sex. 

If women find me attractive because of the way that I treat them or because I am decent in bed, so much the better. My behavior does not change in any of these situations...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

BluesPower said:


> But yes, a woman that I am in a serious relationship with, will get more attention because it is a serious relationship, *but not to get sex*.


But if you don't get it, you will dump them eventually. I am not trying to be obtuse, just explaining that it's just another way of putting the same thing. (Because you keep saying that you don't understand why other guys think how they think. On some level, it is 'transactional' for you too. If it was merely altruistic (because of 'love'), you would rub their feet until the cows came home, without expecting sex. Now you say you don't overtly 'expect' it, 'it just happens', but there are still consequences if they don't sleep with you. So it's just a little bit more covert than with the other guys. But the outcome is the same. I know you won't like me phrasing it that way.)


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> But if you don't get it, you will dump them eventually. I am not trying to be obtuse, just explaining that it's just another way of putting the same thing. (Because you keep saying that you don't understand why other guys think how they think. On some level, it is 'transactional' for you too. If it was merely altruistic (because of 'love'), you would rub their feet until the cows came home, without expecting sex. Now you say you don't overtly 'expect' it, 'it just happens', but there are still consequences if they don't sleep with you. So it's just a little bit more covert than with the other guys. But the outcome is the same. I know you won't like me phrasing it that way.)


No dude, it is not. And for the record I have never broken up with a woman because there was not frequent and enthusiastic sex. Not one time. 

I have broken up for other reasons, sure. But never because there was not enough sex. 

Then main reason for that is that I DO NOT DATE WOMEN THAT ARE NOT SEXUAL. That is one of the reasons, the I do not run into this problem in the first place. 

So no, it is not nor will it ever be transactional for me in any way. 

Have I not called back a woman that I did not feel a good sexual chemistry, sure. But that is different than not having enough sex, in a relationship, and then breaking up. 

However my behavior does not change in any of these situations, ever. I am who I am, the behave the way that I behave. 

I cannot explain it any other way...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

BluesPower said:


> Then main reason for that is that I DO NOT DATE WOMEN THAT ARE NOT SEXUAL.



No I get it. But remember most relationships start out as sexual and then decline in that department over the years (especially after kids etc). What would you do in those circumstances? You can’t really predict it beforehand. Woman’s (or man’s) interest can and does wane in that area quite often. That’s what’s so hard about it.
Just because you haven’t been in that situation doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You just managed to avoid it, whether by luck or skill.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> No I get it. But remember most relationships start out as sexual and then decline in that department over the years (especially after kids etc). What would you do in those circumstances? You can’t really predict it beforehand. Woman’s (or man’s) interest can and does wane in that area quite often. That’s what’s so hard about it.
> Just because you haven’t been in that situation doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You just managed to avoid it, whether by luck or skill.


OK, I understand that you think I am full of ****, I get it. That is fine. 

As bad as my last marriage was, 26 years, it was sexless at any point. I have wished many times that some how it had been, because that is the one thing that I could have understood sooner and gotten out of the marriage sooner. 

In fact the sex was great for the most part, so I never had any complaints. 

As I have said, I have never had issues with sex in a relationship, for various reasons, the main one is that I don't date of marry women that are not sexual. 

But yes, if it did happen to me, I would most def leave the relationship or divorce. 

Now I am older than you I think and I am past having children at 54, however, even with three kids in my last marriage, the sex never stopped. 

So maybe I am just lucky as far an you are concerned, however in this case I tend to think that I have made my own luck...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

BluesPower said:


> OK, I understand that you think I am full of ****, I get it. That is fine.
> 
> As bad as my last marriage was, 26 years, it was sexless at any point. I have wished many times that some how it had been, because that is the one thing that I could have understood sooner and gotten out of the marriage sooner.
> 
> ...


Haha, I don't think you are full of ****! I sometimes break your balls a bit because you appear so uber-confident and a bit condescending towards people who have trouble in their sex-life. But I don't think you are making **** up. Just that sex is obviously the most important part in a relationship to you and if you don't have it, you dissolve it. Which is fair enough. I am not judging you.

But yes, it does happen quite a lot that a relationship starts out with wild monkey sex and then dies down. (It hasn't happened to me: we had a brief period where sex wasn't frequent while she was popping out kids but the reason I mainly post and read here because I want to understand a bit better what goes on in women's heads (not in a bee-hive way, just that there are certain aspects that I might not consider or relate to - because pen1s; my wife doesn't always tell me what she thinks and what she tells me, I don't always know if it's because it's something I want to hear or maybe she doesn't know either..I am interested in human psychology and cognitive biases etc).


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I love giving and receiving.

The problem is that everytime I get my hands on her, something else of mine ends up in her.:wink2:


----------

