Women: Before there can be sex, show me the money!

[bronzeage]

....

The article talks about a relationship therapist noticing a growing preoccupation with money among her clients and speculating about the way that preoccupation affects intimacy in their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's worlds away from saying that women bail out when the money's gone, and a completely different issue from "What do people look for in a prospective partner?"

But if you want to make it about that, I still don't see anything particularly embarrassing to women. Xssve says most women would rather date a doctor than a homeless person. If that's supposed to be incriminating, I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Would a guy rather date a doctoress or a bag lady? How about a beautiful woman or an ugly one? One who loves sex or one who doesn't? One he could rely on as a partner or one that couldn't be trusted not to burn down the house? Etc, etc.

...

Has their ever been a time in history when a woman was expected to form a long term relationship with a man who had no prospects for a better life.

When did good judgment become a character flaw?

 

[3113]

So far you have absolutely failed to produce any citations that actually counter the citation I posted. As I said before, you're not very bright at all.

Bright, no. Brilliant, yes Of course I'm not producing any citations, I'm not trying to countering your article with counter articles. I'm countering the article by taking apart what it says and showing that, first, it doesn't seem to present enough evidence, and second, what evidence it produces doesn't nearly put so bad a spin on the situation as you have.

This is because the article doesn't focus just on women. It notes "couples," "relationships" meaning men and women. Note also that one of the women quoted says: "having money in the bank" is important, but doesn't say that this money needs to come from the man. Even Mitchell there says "People...When they're scared, we have no interest in being vulnerable or being open to taking risks or allowing other people in."

Last I looked, men were people, too. And I will very much object to your sexism if you tell me that they're not! So, all this article seems to be saying is that American couples "are concerned with making more money, and are reportedly making a lot less love" because of that concern. And with the economy in the shape it is, men and women end up wanting to make sure that finances are secure, that they will be able to retire and pay the mortgage.

I don't know about you, but if I were worried about paying the rent, I would want that worked out. And I'd have a hard time enjoying sex with anyone if I was wondering if I'd have a place to have sex in next month or if I was going to be out on the street.

But I'm curious--who are these women that get quoted? I know the city where they live, but are they poor? Middle class? Single? Steady boyfriend? Do they have kids? Do they have a job? Does their boyfriend? And how many people did Mitchell study for this study? How many men and women? Did they have jobs? Were they all married? All single? Did they have kids?

Even you have to admit that it would skew the results if these women had kids and need to put food on the table for those kids. They would care a lot more about money than sex in such circumstances. As would any good father, I assume, who was also the single parent caring for his kids.

Yet the title you gave this thread implies that women are demanding that men give them money before they'll have sex. Yet as you see, with no need for counter articles, the article itself doesn't really support that, at least not well. If you're going to post such an article and make such a claim, shouldn't we have more relevant information?

Also, this Elizabeth T thing...don't remember it. Was it important? And who else laughed? Do you keep a grudge list?

Oh, and I don't understand your bet:

"How many AH male bashers did you call out for their bullshit vs how many you gave a free pass?"

I don't know. How many? That's a test question not a bet. A bet says that if you can do or prove X I have to do Y. But if I can do or prove Y you have to do X (that's XY for guys, get it? ).

I'd be more impressed with your assertion that I'm not so bright if you could construct a bet rather than asking a question and saying that was a bet. That would prove I could trust your judgement about my brightness.

 

[3113]

When did good judgment become a character flaw?

Exactly so, but we did have this whole discussion about women and money for sex back when Heidi Fleiss was saying that she planned on opening an all male brothel for heterosexual women clients. Said Nevada brothel never materialized--the story of what happened is pretty strange, leave us say that Heidi inherited a bunch of parrots, became a parrot lover, created a bird sanctuary in her Nevada house, and then sunk the rest of the money into a coin laundry business.

Anyway, the discussion was fascinating, but it was pretty well agreed that when it comes to just sex (meaning a quick and dirty fuck or blow job), men will pay for it and women probably won't. This is because a woman can stand up and say, "I want sex" and (presumably) men will volunteer--so long as she's not too picky and they're not so picky she can have it for free. But (presumably) it is not so easy for a man to stand up, say the same and get free sex.

However, we also agreed that while women might not pay to have sex, they *would* pay to have romance. So if the hypothetical male prostitute threw in a lot of gentle foreplay, reading of poetry, pampering and such as well as attentive sex, women would pay for it and generously.

Now, of course, this was all theorizing on our part. There was no unbias study behind it, so who knows if we were right or wrong. The only evidence we had that it might be true was the very small number of heterosexual male prostitutes vs. the the huge number of female prostitutes (many of whom don't have to do much beyond blowjob or intercourse to get paid). But it's difficult to say if that really proves the point or not. Culturally, of course, women have pretty well been forced to go after men for financial security as they couldn't earn it for themselves, but that balance has changed recently in the Western world, and we are seeing women marrying less prosperous men or not caring what men make because they make enough to support the both of them.

On the other side of the coin, there seems to be little question about the fact there are women who are attracted to men with power/money/fame and will offer themselves gratis to rock stars, politicians, and sports figures. But I'm not sure if that is a comment on women wanting all that vs. people wanting all that. It seems that people want those lifestyles and if they can't make the music (and gain that fame via music) themselves, they'll happily throw themselves at the famous musician.

This, by the way, is not an example of good judgement, but then the object of their affection doesn't usually show good judgement either in those circumstances.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't see anything different. Almost all my sex partners have asked for the money first.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Exactly so, but we did have this whole discussion about women and money for sex back when Heidi Fleiss was saying that she planned on opening an all male brothel for heterosexual women clients. Said Nevada brothel never materialized--the story of what happened is pretty strange, leave us say that Heidi inherited a bunch of parrots, became a parrot lover, created a bird sanctuary in her Nevada house, and then sunk the rest of the money into a coin laundry business.

Anyway, the discussion was fascinating, but it was pretty well agreed that when it comes to just sex (meaning a quick and dirty fuck or blow job), men will pay for it and women probably won't. This is because a woman can stand up and say, "I want sex" and (presumably) men will volunteer--so long as she's not too picky and they're not so picky she can have it for free. But (presumably) it is not so easy for a man to stand up, say the same and get free sex.

However, we also agreed that while women might not pay to have sex, they *would* pay to have romance. So if the hypothetical male prostitute threw in a lot of gentle foreplay, reading of poetry, pampering and such as well as attentive sex, women would pay for it and generously.

Now, of course, this was all theorizing on our part. There was no unbias study behind it, so who knows if we were right or wrong. The only evidence we had that it might be true was the very small number of heterosexual male prostitutes vs. the the huge number of female prostitutes (many of whom don't have to do much beyond blowjob or intercourse to get paid). But it's difficult to say if that really proves the point or not. Culturally, of course, women have pretty well been forced to go after men for financial security as they couldn't earn it for themselves, but that balance has changed recently in the Western world, and we are seeing women marrying less prosperous men or not caring what men make because they make enough to support the both of them.

On the other side of the coin, there seems to be little question about the fact there are women who are attracted to men with power/money/fame and will offer themselves gratis to rock stars, politicians, and sports figures. But I'm not sure if that is a comment on women wanting all that vs. people wanting all that. It seems that people want those lifestyles and if they can't make the music (and gain that fame via music) themselves, they'll happily throw themselves at the famous musician.

This, by the way, is not an example of good judgement, but then the object of their affection doesn't usually show good judgement either in those circumstances.

Not only are there few male prostitutes, I believe the majority of them cater to gay men. There are gigolos who provide romance for money or gifts, although it is not usually a quid pro quo arrangement, because that would destroy the fiction. However, they are expensive to maintain.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Bright, no. Brilliant, yes Of course I'm not producing any citations, I'm not trying to countering your article with counter articles. I'm countering the article by taking apart what it says and showing that, first, it doesn't seem to present enough evidence, and second, what evidence it produces doesn't nearly put so bad a spin on the situation as you have.

It doesn't present enough evidence? Oh, you're good with the copouts and denials. I'd bet you that it's damned easy to prove this no matter what standards of proof you present, but you'd chicken out by claiming I didn't construct a bet. Agent Smith can't dodge as good as you.

This is because the article doesn't focus just on women.

Wow, that "especially" part just doesn't compute, does it?

It notes "couples," "relationships" meaning men and women.

Yup, that "especially" part that they put in is really, really inconvenient, isn't it?

The whole message that everyone is affected by financial problems but women are more affected, is apparently too hard to swallow. But it is easily provable.

Note also that one of the women quoted says: "having money in the bank" is important, but doesn't say that this money needs to come from the man. Even Mitchell there says "People...When they're scared, we have no interest in being vulnerable or being open to taking risks or allowing other people in."

But her point was, along with the woman reporter, women have even less "interest in being vulnerable" than men during times of financial distress.

Last I looked, men were people, too. And I will very much object to your sexism if you tell me that they're not! So, all this article seems to be saying is that American couples "are concerned with making more money, and are reportedly making a lot less love" because of that concern. And with the economy in the shape it is, men and women end up wanting to make sure that finances are secure, that they will be able to retire and pay the mortgage.

And the story's point was women are less interested in sex during these times than the men in their lives.

I don't know about you, but if I were worried about paying the rent, I would want that worked out. And I'd have a hard time enjoying sex with anyone if I was wondering if I'd have a place to have sex in next month or if I was going to be out on the street.

What you're missing is that women feel that way more intensely than men.

But I'm curious--who are these women that get quoted? I know the city where they live, but are they poor? Middle class? Single? Steady boyfriend? Do they have kids? Do they have a job? Does their boyfriend? And how many people did Mitchell study for this study? How many men and women? Did they have jobs? Were they all married? All single? Did they have kids?

Sounds like they were all in relationships and started withdrawing from their spouses/SO's when the money got tight.

Even you have to admit that it would skew the results if these women had kids and need to put food on the table for those kids. They would care a lot more about money than sex in such circumstances. As would any good father, I assume, who was also the single parent caring for his kids.

Yes but this doesn't justify "money, not sex" as is implied by the article.

See, this is what you're not understanding. Couples tend to withdraw sex during financial hardship, but women are especially likely to do so. Withdrawing sex is also tantamount to punishing your partner for said hardship. It doesn't help a relationship at all; in fact it creates even more hardship.

I know you don't like the idea that women do this a lot more than men, but I guarantee you it can be demonstrated.

Yet the title you gave this thread implies that women are demanding that men give them money before they'll have sex. Yet as you see, with no need for counter articles, the article itself doesn't really support that, at least not well.

Not for you it doesn't.

If you're going to post such an article and make such a claim, shouldn't we have more relevant information?

It doesn't matter how much relevant information is presented. You'll reject it regardless.

Also, this Elizabeth T thing...don't remember it. Was it important? And who else laughed? Do you keep a grudge list?

Oh, you guys kept a hell of a grudge against me for standing up to her stereotyping of men. You engaged in name calling, personal attacks, and so on. I'd have to take her off ignore to find and bump her thread to jog your memory but I'm sure you'll see what happened and find new and innovative ways to deny, deflect and make excuses.

Oh, and I don't understand your bet:

Oh, for God's sake. Get a reading assistant, I put it forth in plain English for you.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Nope. I have precious little interest in gender-finger-pointing topics, from whichever side they may come. The only reason I responded was that the article belongs to the "Sodomized by Aliens!" style of reporting yet you asked us to accept it as 'facts'. You also added your own spin on top of the article's spin, so I was tempted.

The article talks about a relationship therapist noticing a growing preoccupation with money among her clients and speculating about the way that preoccupation affects intimacy in their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then you missed the 'especially women' implications in her words. Or did you watch the video?

That's worlds away from saying that women bail out when the money's gone, and a completely different issue from "What do people look for in a prospective partner?"

But if you want to make it about that, I still don't see anything particularly embarrassing to women. Xssve says most women would rather date a doctor than a homeless person. If that's supposed to be incriminating, I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Would a guy rather date a doctoress or a bag lady? How about a beautiful woman or an ugly one? One who loves sex or one who doesn't? One he could rely on as a partner or one that couldn't be trusted not to burn down the house? Etc, etc.

Well, since we're going on the bag lady vs homeless dude thing...

More guys will date a bag lady than vice versa. There's an entire mindset from which this springs: the white knight and the damsel in distress.

Funny, how there is no concept of a white she-knight for guys in distress. The whole concept would make most women laugh. Ever wonder why there are so many romance subjects about down and out women being rescued by guys but almost none of the reverse? You can certainly prove that.

It seems to me we all choose, according to what matters to us. But women should be somehow ashamed for having any kind of preference.

Well hell, guys are always being called out for their preferences. "Shallow Hal", anyone?

Whether it's for situated guys, handsome guys, funny guys, or guys with big dicks, she's being 'mercenary' if she chooses. As if every woman should find all men equally attractive, and as if every man finds all women equally attractive.

I guess you don't know the flak a guy catches if he says he wants someone with big boobs or doesn't want a fat woman. It's a hell of a lot more flak than a woman gets for establishing a minimum income or height on a personal ad...

 

[xssve]

Thing is, I bet a lot woman would pay for sex, for the simple reason that they can walk away afterward without all the baggage and expectations of reproductive politics.

And there was a time when women were not so preoccupied with status, and successful guys were getting dumped right and left because they 'weren't any good in bed", and yes, I have known women who dated men who lived in their cars, and homeless guys, etc., you can get away with that sort of thing under certain conditions, presumably, the women being interviewed in the article were living in one of these "fishbowls" you find in urban culture here and there.

W/regard to the current situation, yes, In some respects, sex is partially an economic exchange in "mainstream" culture - the man is still expected to bring money, the woman, domestic labor and childrearing, it really isn't about sex, per se, it's more about the partnership, and yes, one looks for the best deal - I made a bad deal myself, somebody who didn't hold up her end; we both suffered economically and socially for it however, I had to abandon a growing business in order to care for the kids, and I'm stable but marginal, economically, she sponges off friends who, needless to say, don't stay friends long.

When it comes to sex, I think the problem is that during a recession, men default to more of an r strategy, i.e., have as much sex as possible: it increases your status (theoretically), and relieves stress - women, who bear most (or all) of the reproductive costs, default to a K strategy, where they get much choosier - there is the old observation that hemlines fall during a recession, etc., and in general I think women become more conservative in their outlook.

This might be noetic, i.e., it is a perfectly rational response, given the situation, but it may well be anoetic as well, i.e., subconscious calculation of the risks - I have seen studies that went both ways on this, women who became more amorous during their fertile phase, and more recent one that claimed they became more socially withdrawn and kept their legs together - literally - i.e., the wore longer skirts, and sat with their legs pressed together.

Hypothetically, on might surmise that they are being more restrained in order to attract the right sort of man, i.e., one that won't just bolt after the deed is done, but given that being horny is more of a simple physical urge, I tend to think these women are simply trying not to get themselves into anything, i.e., it's more of a short term than a long term strategy - trying to get over, "the hump", lol.

Anyway, in neither case was the study correlated to economic or social conditions or anything else, making it hard to draw any real conclusions from them, but pregnancy, like most other things, is not just a physical condition, it's a social and economic condition as well - men, being able to walk away, can dispense with any long term calculations, women cannot, and are in many cases, actively discouraged from taking any sort of risk avoidance in this area.

As anecdotal evidence, I can only offer the response to the offer of free condoms in Third world countries, usually typified by high birth rates usually with correspondingly high infant and child mortality rates - when condoms are offered in these places, there is usually so much pent up demand - from women - that they typically run out in a matter of hours.

All of which is to say that women are necessarily, and by nature, think more about long term consequences when it comes to sex - I think we can all agree that this is not an unreasonable thing.

It's probably more of a male attitude to see sex as a purely social exchange, like going out with your buddies for a beer; to have fun and relax, infamously bolting when she want's to "get serious", although that works both ways much more often these days - i.e., she'll sleep with you, but she damn sure isn't going to get married to you - if the social winds indicate that sleeping while waiting for Mr/s Right comes around hurts her chances of landing a more suitable mate, then you're outta luck.

It's why we're so good at lying anyway.

 

[3113]

It's probably more of a male attitude to see sex as a purely social exchange, like going out with your buddies for a beer; to have fun and relax, infamously bolting when she want's to "get serious", although that works both ways much more often these days - i.e., she'll sleep with you, but she damn sure isn't going to get married to you - if the social winds indicate that sleeping while waiting for Mr/s Right comes around hurts her chances of landing a more suitable mate, then you're outta luck.

Nicely put, Xssve. I think that sums it up pretty well. I'll just add, excepting condoms, birth control methods are still all for women, and those for women all cost a bit more money than the condoms--especially if you want the most effective, the birth control pills or patches. When the economy tanks and a woman is budgeting hard, she's going to have to consider even if she can afford the contraceptive gel. I'm pointing this out not to say that women in hard economic times are going to lose money on contraception, but to point out that they might go for methods less reliable and the chances of pregnancy go up, thus putting into effect all you said.

The women have to think a lot more about whether the man they're with can contribute to the budget and is going to stick around. Because if there is an accident, from broken condom to birth control that isn't in the highest percentile of working, they're going to need someone there to help them deal with the results--financially as well as in other ways.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Thing is, I bet a lot woman would pay for sex, for the simple reason that they can walk away afterward without all the baggage and expectations of reproductive politics.

And there was a time when women were not so preoccupied with status, and successful guys were getting dumped right and left because they 'weren't any good in bed", and yes, I have known women who dated men who lived in their cars, and homeless guys, etc., you can get away with that sort of thing under certain conditions, presumably, the women being interviewed in the article were living in one of these "fishbowls" you find in urban culture here and there.

That was the 1960s, right? Man, I wish that era was still here

When it comes to sex, I think the problem is that during a recession, men default to more of an r strategy, i.e., have as much sex as possible: it increases your status (theoretically), and relieves stress - women, who bear most (or all) of the reproductive costs, default to a K strategy, where they get much choosier - there is the old observation that hemlines fall during a recession, etc., and in general I think women become more conservative in their outlook...

(rest snipped but acknowledged)

Well now, it appears to me that you have not only confirmed what I was saying about money troubles depressing a woman's sex drive more than a man's sex drive, but you've also given a good theory as to why.

I would add that if you're right, this really sucks for men - for one simple reason. It is a fact of history and nature that all women are young and most are fertile at some point in their lives; not all men, however, can come up with the means to qualify as steady providers, even if they wanted to.

I also find it funny that movies like "Shallow Hal" would come along in light of the fact that a man first has to prove he's going to be a woman's white knight before she will have him. Hey, if I gotta be the provider, then I get to choose who I provide for. Right?

 

[ples]

I lost the point somewhere along the way. I like money and I like sex. However, sex doesn't go as far as money. Give money and then talk sex - wait, sleep is a close second. No, it is second - money, sleep, and then sex