You Will Always Pay for Sex

[STR8UP]

Maybe the sex was too good for her to withhold short of a clean break . That's been my experience too, but I can see if the relationship went on for several years or was in a marriage there could be a withholding of sex.

I'm not even that excited about sex anymore, but even so it is an important part of a healthy relationship. I honestly don't know what I would do if sex became an "issue" in a relationship (outside of being an effect of a larger problem such as a legitimate fight). Actually, I do know what i would do. I would look at the situation briefly and analyze whether or not there might be a MEDICAL reason behind it, and if not I would proceed to head for the door.

The one relationship i had where the sex tapered off I confronted her about it, and when she answered honestly that she "just wasn't feeling it anymore" I promptly made my exit.

Bottom line- either the desire is there and she is using sex to manipulate (which luckily I have not experienced), or the desire is simply gone. Either way it's a losing proposition that you need to get out of sooner than later.

 

[sodbuster]

Ok, don't know how to put my age up in the profile,but I'm 49. So, I was pimping before NewMan popped his first pimple. I was married BEFORE "AL gore invented the internet", so I wasn't able to learn from older,wiser men. BUT, NewMan, maybe you should check with a lawyer about how good a prenup really is. I'm betting[from my understanding of my conversations with my divorce lawyer] you don't get to decide how much child support you get to pay in a Prenup, you can't shelter income earned during the marriage etc. You can probably only protect what you bring in. If you try to get too good a deal, Prenups can be set aside just like non-compete clauses that are too restrictive[prevent them from making a living in their area of expertise]
The reason the Kennedy's treat women like toilet paper is because EVERYTHING is tied up or owned by trusts.

 

[Martin Shabazz Jr.]

Usually you post some good threads Rollo, but this one is a disappointment.

So you always pay, so what? Saying that is the equivalence of saying that no matter what you do, one day you are going to die. It's obvious to the point of being superfluous.

How is that going to improve a guys sex life?

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

 

[edger]

The one relationship i had where the sex tapered off I confronted her about it, and when she answered honestly that she "just wasn't feeling it anymore" I promptly made my exit.

My ex-girlfriend's excuse for why the sex tapered off was: "Well things change."

Riiiight.

 

[edger]

Onto this topic, I haven't read all the responses, there's just too much writing and too many posts for me to have the patience to sift through all of 'em..but I just wanna say, regarding the, "You'll always pay for sex" statement, I'll say; you're always gonna pay for ANYTHING you do in ANY area of life.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

How is that going to improve a guys sex life?

The point being, Caveat Emptor - Buyer Beware. Far too many guys fool themselves into thinking that the cost they're progressively paying for is worth the price as returns diminish, without a real assessment of what they're paying for in time, effort, money and opportunity. I realize that sounds horribly mechanical, but it's really pragmatism. I linked the article in the OP as an illustration. When we don't look at the numbers and we're oblivious to what we're paying because we're consumed with a limited reward - in this case sex - looking at it mechanically can help us evaluate what it is we're investing in.

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

Then slap the smile off my face. The first part of ignorance is "ignore". As you stated earlier, a lot of things seem blatantly obvious, but it's the point that we ignore them without a passing critical thought that is when they're most effective. Questions don't scare me, it's people who have none who scare me.

 

[STR8UP]

Questions don't scare me, it's people who have none who scare me.

Most folks are content to put the blinders on and go about their business. It's all good and fine until they get BLINDSIDED wondering "why, why, why????"

I firmly believe that the more you understand the people around you the better you are equipped to avoid perilous situations. Already been in enough of those in my lifetime, thank you.

 

[TheHumanist]

The point being, Caveat Emptor - Buyer Beware. Far too many guys fool themselves into thinking that the cost they're progressively paying for is worth the price as returns diminish, without a real assessment of what they're paying for in time, effort, money and opportunity. I realize that sounds horribly mechanical, but it's really pragmatism. I linked the article in the OP as an illustration. When we don't look at the numbers and we're oblivious to what we're paying because we're consumed with a limited reward - in this case sex - looking at it mechanically can help us evaluate what it is we're investing in.

Just one thing I want to ask then, I tried to say before that the equation involve more than just sex vs what invested. Doesn't just going for sex vs investment means the easiest form is just paying a prostitute? Someone pointed a quote earlier in this thread about that.

 

[sodbuster]

depends on what you value your time at. In the office,My time is worth $100/hour. If I value my time at home the same[I don't],then the 7-10 hours chasing a woman to get laid costs me $700-$1000. For a woman that is only "good for 1 thing" and I can only tolerate her until I get laid; it's cheaper to rent a pro. IF she is someone I can be in a relationship with[have sex for a couple months/years],then the cost per unit of sex will go down and she'll be cheaper than a pro[until you are married,then the cost equation changes again].

 

[ketostix]

Most folks are content to put the blinders on and go about their business. It's all good and fine until they get BLINDSIDED wondering "why, why, why????"

I firmly believe that the more you understand the people around you the better you are equipped to avoid perilous situations. Already been in enough of those in my lifetime, thank you.

A lot of guys do put the blinders on, and this is why I think women continue to do all the things they do, no accountability. If men can't admit to themselves how a woman is acting than why would it be a surprise that she wouldn't admit it? "Ignorance is bliss", but they also say "A fool and his money are soon departed" and a lot of other better counter sayings to ignorance is bliss that I can't think of at the moment.

I think putting on the blinders all ties into your thread about men being the romantic ones. Women are pragmatic in relationships. It may seem like they are all about silly emotions and that's partly true but really they are masters at manipulating men's emotions. In a logical argument they would be a fish out of water and so they refuse to play in that field, prefering to stay in the murky waters of emotion where they do best.

 

[STR8UP]

I sometime think it would be easier to live the uneventful parts of your life oblivious to what goes on around you. True knowledge of human sociology is a burden because it tends to dull your emotions and to an extent make you paranoid.

But during times when a woman (or man for that matter) is trying to manipulate you, having the knowledge of the inner workings of human interaction is your best line of defense to avoid getting scammed.

I think putting on the blinders all ties into your thread about men being the romantic ones. Women are pragmatic in relationships. It may seem like they are all about silly emotions and that's partly true but really they are masters at manipulating men's emotions.

Women ARE all about silly emotions, but there is a method behind the madness- they know how to use these emotions to manipulate and control men. I doubt they are even conscious of it much of the time. It simply comes along with the territory of being the more dependent sex.

In a logical argument they would be a fish out of water and so they refuse to play in that field, prefering to stay in the murky waters of emotion where they do best.

That's why I always say you can't win an argument with a woman via logic, you have to win it psychologically. She cannot and will not play on your court. Any attempt to win, no matter how right you are, will result in a loss for you. Better to learn to fight on HER turf where she will actually "engage". If you can learn to fight emotionally and psychologically you have untold power over women.

 

[Trader]

That's why I always say you can't win an argument with a woman via logic, you have to win it psychologically. She cannot and will not play on your court. Any attempt to win, no matter how right you are, will result in a loss for you. Better to learn to fight on HER turf where she will actually "engage". If you can learn to fight emotionally and psychologically you have untold power over women.

Please elaborate on this.

From my personal experience, winning arguments with her depends not on logic, but based on how dominant you are. If you are dominant, she will end up giving in.

 

[ketostix]

Please elaborate on this.

From my personal experience, winning arguments with her depends not on logic, but based on how dominant you are. If you are dominant, she will end up giving in.

I think the simple answer to this conundrum is that being dominate is "speaking" to her on an emotional level. I mean, in a way dominance is what you resort to in life when the other party won't listen to diplomacy or logic. I think STR8UP made some great point and maybe he could amplify on this point. Baring the 10 post rule of course :woo: .

 

[potato]

Maybe you pay but I certainly don’t. The women I carry on with tend to be within my income bracket with cost being shared rather equally. Even if you construe paying to include my time and energy, this too is not really a cost. My time with women tends to fall under the heading of leisure time. It’s what I do for fun. Going for a walk takes time and energy but it isn’t really a cost.

The market analogy of sex, of male/female relationships is and always will be a flawed one. In markets it is always one trying to take advantage of another with the most successes going to those who most successfully take advantage of others.

In relationships with women, or at least the ones that I have relationships with, there tends to be a cooperative spirit. If I meet up with a woman and we decide to run off and pleasure each other we will be most successful with a cooperative effort rather than one that requires one or the other to gain an advantage over the other.

 

[ketostix]

Maybe you pay but I certainly don’t. The women I carry on with tend to be within my income bracket with cost being shared rather equally. Even if you construe paying to include my time and energy, this too is not really a cost. My time with women tends to fall under the heading of leisure time. It’s what I do for fun. Going for a walk takes time and energy but it isn’t really a cost.

The market analogy of sex, of male/female relationships is and always will be a flawed one. In markets it is always one trying to take advantage of another with the most successes going to those who most successfully take advantage of others.

In relationships with women, or at least the ones that I have relationships with, there tends to be a cooperative spirit. If I meet up with a woman and we decide to run off and pleasure each other we will be most successful with a cooperative effort rather than one that requires one or the other to gain an advantage over the other.

Yeah I can believe that when two lesbians come together, it's all cooperation and they run off and have lesbian sex. Or of course if your Potato, the most handsome 49 year-old man of all with the best personality. Then women drop all their games and agendas, other male competitiors, and become compliant and giving little angels in your presence

 

[STR8UP]

Please elaborate on this.

From my personal experience, winning arguments with her depends not on logic, but based on how dominant you are. If you are dominant, she will end up giving in.

Exactly. She will "give in". That doesn't mean you were the winner.

 

[sodbuster]

She will give in, but you arent smart enough to realize the arguement isn't over yet. Hell,my ex still thinks we need to fight about stuff.