Is (physical) love worth something ?

[kleinwolf]

I just wanted to have your opinion on the following, which is the basement of transaction : I take here the financial aspect of the deal :

if you are a man, and you think a woman is worth nothing, then you don't pay her when wanting/having done the physical love ??

And for the inverse way for man and woman roles...?

 

[ComputerGeek]

I don't pay for a woman anyway... just put on the charm and get them to date you... it is cheaper in the long run when you want some physical satisfaction than picking up a hooker.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I just wanted to have your opinion on the following, which is the basement of transaction : I take here the financial aspect of the deal :
if you are a man, and you think a woman is worth nothing, then you don't pay her when wanting/having done the physical love ??
And for the inverse way for man and woman roles...?

Makes no sense. How can you want the physical love and say the man/woman is worth nothing? It's a contradiction: if you want something from someone, they are of worth to you.

This thread'll probably be closed because 1) it's illegal in the US and 2) I've just posted on it.

 

[kleinwolf]

That's what I mean, if you don't pay the person explicitely for intercourse, this means it's worth nothing..?! The problem I see, you could argue...the same way for you, so that you give me 100, I give you 100, so it's globally like neutral/free transaction...?^!

In holland it's not forbidden, but they are taxes for the state, so there is "illegal paid work because not on the hooker list"..which is making the state building up a "sex police"...very weird

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

That's what I mean, if you don't pay the person explicitely for intercourse, this means it's worth nothing..?!

Ha ha! I thought you were saying if you got a prostitute and didn't think she performed very well, you wouldn't pay her. Amusing misunderstanding.

Sex is but one thing you can desire from a woman, and time-limited, uninvolving sex with a plain prostitute is worth a lot less than sex with a woman you have feelings for, and who wants to have sex with you.

To give is not to take. And vice versa.

The problem I see, you could argue...the same way for you, so that you give me 100, I give you 100, so it's globally like neutral/free transaction...?^!

Sure, I'm game if you are.

In holland it's not forbidden, but they are taxes for the state, so there is "illegal paid work because not on the hooker list"..which is making the state building up a "sex police"...very weird

Eh?

 

[pattylou]

The idea is that one "gives" love. Not that one "takes" love.

So the idea that there is no worth, since money doesn't usually change hands, is pointless. I give love to my children as well. I give my time at the school, I give my old clothes to charity, I give garden produce to the local food bank. Basically, I'm a really generous person.

Clothing, time, food - all obviously have value.

If you must put a pricetag on the "value" of physical satisfaction, I'd suggest browsing the prices on certain toys.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Besides, prostitution is business. Love, or relationships, are not. If you assess whether you are 'paying' more than the 'worth' of something you are 'getting', you are in a bad relationship.

 

[kleinwolf]

I don't know...with paid services, you get what you want almost instantly (for example out of jail/moastery coming guys)...so no : I have headaches...not today...the children are just the room beside...aso...which means : good relationships...?

Sometimes it's like : well if you have a car, a good house and a good job, then ok, if i can live with you...or if you pay me that car, or that phone, or that gift, then suprisingly, the same night. weird thingsd appear..?

In marriage the "sexmoney" is often hidden in the "common money" in "common finanacial matrimonial regimes"...and I don't need to tell that : Valentine's day, perfumes, all the stfuff, matrimonial agencies...this is not business ?

 

[ShawnD]

If you need to keep buying useless crap to keep a girl interested, it means she doesn't like you at all.
The real currency in any relationship is attention. I would much rather have someone's attention than money. Most women (humans) feel the same way. They would rather have you spend time with them, listen to them, and love them instead of just throwing money at them whenever you feel like having sex.

 

[kleinwolf]

I noticed it lately, after have spent somthing like more than 3000$ at a time, and other stuff...Now I just have debts I cannot give back, and she very happy about this...It's interesting to note that she accepted this, which again shows that money is over feelings...But I hope this crappy piece of meat will die soon.

 

[cronxeh]

Makes no sense. How can you want the physical love and say the man/woman is worth nothing? It's a contradiction: if you want something from someone, they are of worth to you.
This thread'll probably be closed because 1) it's illegal in the US and 2) I've just posted on it.

this is a classic.

but umm..

here is a secret boys:

women want is as much as we do, even more sometimes. the secret to all of life on Earth is that they've learned that if you hold back just a little, you will be able to get gifts and stronger peaks from men. and sometimes a friend will be bit too ambigious about something and make you fall for them, want them, and eventually start reaping the benefits without actually having to give up some other source of physical satisfaction.

it is a well known fact that men are stupid

 

[ShawnD]

it is a well known fact that men are stupid

Only the ones who just want sex are stupid. The rest of us (actually a silent majority) enjoy treating women nice.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Sex is but one thing you can desire from a woman, and time-limited, uninvolving sex with a plain prostitute is worth a lot less than sex with a woman you have feelings for, and who wants to have sex with you.

Well now this may sound shallow, but what you've stated is a matter of opinion. Not necessarily MY opinion, but it is an opinion. Some people just don't want to let 'feelings' get in the way. Does anyone remember Lilith (sp?) from the TV show Cheers? A seemingly feelingless woman, but OMG when she let her hair down...

 

[cronxeh]

Only the ones who just want sex are stupid. The rest of us (actually a silent majority) enjoy treating women nice.

You imply that you are intelligent, and belong to some group of people with similar convictions, and then you make a conclusion about such group's actions.

Which in essence just proves that you are neither intelligent nor know how to treat women

 

[ShawnD]

You imply that you are intelligent, and belong to some group of people with similar convictions, and then you make a conclusion about such group's actions.
Which in essence just proves that you are neither intelligent nor know how to treat women

I have a girlfriend, and half of my friends are girls. Any other guesses you'd like to make?
I know people like me are the majority beacuse my lady friends have boyfriends that are just like me.

 

[Chi Meson]

Kleinwolf:
I feel pity for you.

Read Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" to find out what I mean by pity.

 

[cronxeh]

Kleinwolf:
I feel pity for you.

Read Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" to find out what I mean by pity.

I won't consider most of her works in philosophy authorative due to the conclusions she draws. She may have mastered the technique of arguing and took advantage of logic's inefficiency, but her common sense, to say the least, is lacking.

 

[Chi Meson]

I am not referring to her philosophy, just her use of the word "pity." I happen to agree with you re the conclusions she draws. How convienient it is to use fiction to prove your point! (Crighton is the latest to do so.)

Fountainhead is still a good book from a literary point of view. She wrote it before she got too full of herself.

Edit: oh yeah, "pity" is a rather useless emotion; when you can't help someone, and they are beyond helping themselves, you feel this kind of pity.

 

[kleinwolf]

Yes, most of the time when people have pity for someone, for example in the street, it's because they would like to give money, but they see (with the paranoia eye), they will be trapped...

The second is the following expression from a previous post in this thread :

a plain prostitute is worth a lot less than sex with a woman you have feelings for

first of all, just on the first level meaning : it's a sex-discriminating expression. Secondly, this "plain prostitute", which has negative connotation, is locally at least (in space-time, or maybe psychological abstract area), obsolete, and more and more replaced by "full-time pleasure giver" even if "giver" is here not exactly financially correct...while "part-time" is still debated.

Secondly, when I read that people write "you know those less than animal **** of humanity that have seen (?) more asses than public buses" are most of the time, the ones who give the more money out for like you say "prostitution pleasure"...

It like if you say : you know my car I paid 100'000$ is much worse than my 2000$ i use everyday...

 

[kleinwolf]

I read sdy wrote : prostitution is illegal. But which side is illegal at which ratio : both party know it's illegal..the payer who accepts or the "tricking out" asker of money for sex...

on the other hand, even if it's legal, it's not really in agreement with good behaviour : imagine the opposite situation : a man asking for 300$ for going in bed (for sure you have to pay night rents ...but...) it's like instulting inderictly : I need to be paid to sleep with you because you are really ugly, or other reasons...

Prostitution is really interesting for lawyers : if you give money, you don't need to force..it's indirect forcing, like the carrot making the donkey going forward...if you pay more, so the girl likes you less ? Or are you allowed to "make more things"...because she hates you more...So that in the end, if you pay enough, you can legally kill her...it's like that that things work...

 

[cronxeh]

I read sdy wrote : prostitution is illegal. But which side is illegal at which ratio : both party know it's illegal..the payer who accepts or the "tricking out" asker of money for sex...
on the other hand, even if it's legal, it's not really in agreement with good behaviour : imagine the opposite situation : a man asking for 300$ for going in bed (for sure you have to pay night rents ...but...) it's like instulting inderictly : I need to be paid to sleep with you because you are really ugly, or other reasons...
Prostitution is really interesting for lawyers : if you give money, you don't need to force..it's indirect forcing, like the carrot making the donkey going forward...if you pay more, so the girl likes you less ? Or are you allowed to "make more things"...because she hates you more...So that in the end, if you pay enough, you can legally kill her...it's like that that things work...

Lawyers and prostitutes operate on the same principle : getting your money and weaseling around the law. Lawyers and prostitutes are the same type of people.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Prostitution is really interesting for lawyers : if you give money, you don't need to force..it's indirect forcing, like the carrot making the donkey going forward...if you pay more, so the girl likes you less ? Or are you allowed to "make more things"...because she hates you more...So that in the end, if you pay enough, you can legally kill her...it's like that that things work...

I'd love to be a fly on your inner cranial wall. You may have to consider the possibility you are a psychopath. No offense meant.

It's just business dude. If I buy a pint in some village in northern England, say it's £2.00, I'm not forcing directly or indirectly the landlord to supply me with that pint. We are agreeing terms of business based on demand (I want a pint), supply (landlord can give me a pint), worth (how much is one pint worth to me, how much beer is my two pounds worth to the landlord), competition (the landlord can sell a pint for £2 to someone else) and an unspoken agreement to proceed (I pay, he vends).

If I go to London and ask for a pint, I may get charged £3.50. Terms of business are simply different here. It doesn't mean the landlord hates me and so wants me to pay more, nor does it mean that I'm getting more for my £3.50. Whatever happens, there will be an agreement to proceed or no business.

 

[marlon]

If you need to keep buying useless crap to keep a girl interested, it means she doesn't like you at all.

Sorry but isn't this a bit naive ? I mean, diamonds are a girl's best friend, right ? Do not forget that women (human) are very pragmatic creatures, highly intelligent and very good at manipulating the situation into their advance.

The real currency in any relationship is attention.

You sound just like Dr Phil.
Besides, spending on your woman is also attention, no ? Women want to be overloaded with luxury and who can blame them ? It is a correct attitude.

I say the real currency in a relationship is "financial surprise"

I would much rather have someone's attention than money.

err, this can be debated IMO.

Most women (humans) feel the same way.

They would rather have you spend time with them, listen to them, and love them instead of just throwing money at them whenever you feel like having sex.

But isn't throwing money at a woman a manifestation of love ? I mean taking her out to dinner, sitting at a table covered with roses, playing her favourite music, etc etc...this does not come cheap you know.

Just my two $

regards
marlon

 

[Gokul43201]

Besides, prostitution is business. Love, or relationships, are not. If you assess whether you are 'paying' more than the 'worth' of something you are 'getting', you are in a bad relationship.

I disagree. If you are in a relationship where you are paying much more than the worth of all you get in return, you are in a bad relationship. And refusing to make an assessment of that is just self-destructive.

 

[Zantra]

you can buy sex. you can't buy love. you may hold a woman's interest with bribery and money, but that won't make her love you, just love your money.

Take stock: if you're dating a woman and spending a lot of money on her, and she DOESN'T object, she's interested in your money first, and you second. Personally I'll only accept first place.

This is a very broad generalization, but any halfway intelligent guy should be able to sense when a girl's a gold digger, or when she's genuine.

 

[GCT]

what does sex have to do with anything?;)

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I disagree. If you are in a relationship where you are paying much more than the worth of all you get in return, you are in a bad relationship. And refusing to make an assessment of that is just self-destructive.

There are clear-cut examples where one person can is not giving as much as they receive and are in a bad relationship. A wife doting on her uncaring, unattentive husband, or vice versa. A faithful person dating a philanderer. In these cases it is not required to assess whether you are getting as much as you receive, since it is blindingly obvious. But if it has to be assessed... if you're weighing up the worth of what you give against the worth of what you receive... then your partner is in a bad relationship with you. Sometimes it is not possible for both partners to give equally, especially financially. If, and excuse the stereotype, a man who earns more than his wife goes to the trouble to assess the worth of her love, attention, sexual favours, etc, to determine whether it covers his larger financial contribution to the household and the worth of his material gifts... THAT is self-destructive.

A good relationship is not assessed by financial worth. It is assessed by happiness. Happiness is not determined by equal give and take. If you feel you are giving more than you receive and this makes you unhappy, it is the unhappiness that is the determining factor, not the lack of fair trade. If you give more than you receive and are happy nonetheless, anyone who tells you you are in a bad relationship because of a slight inequality in 'trade' is giving you bad advice.