Is this true, do women sell their body for protection, emotional fulfillment and resources?

[Anonymous]

"obviously if you want physically strong offspring looks are the thing to go by, this attraction is relevant for both men and women for pretty obvious reasons. The second thing is emotional attraction, which is way more relevant for women than it is for men, so I guess women are more likely to feel it. The main reason why is because in nature women are responsible for raising their children. The average human child would need its parents to look out for it for about 10 to 12 years the mother would a man to be around to take care of her and to protect her during this time because it would increase her chances of survival significantly. The reason this isn't the same guy as the guy I previously mentioned is because he's the kind of guy who's successful from biological point of view, so he'd have too many children to look after. So the woman needs to find someone else. That would have to be someone who wasn't successful in spreading his genes and is therefore more likely to stick around. But because the guy's genes aren't that great for creating offspring there would need to be a different kind of attraction, which would be the emotional attraction. Of course the guy would still want to reproduce, which is where the woman's willingness to have sex comes in, despite the fact that there might not be actual sexual attraction from the woman's side." The part about women not actually being sexually attracted to their "beta"husbands but pretty much only have emotional attracted to him. is that true? if so, That's sad.

[udolipixie]

Is this true, do women sell their body for protection, emotional fulfillment and resources?
Some gals do considering it seems guys solely/mainly desire sexual interaction with gals while gals desire protection, comfort, and a life to build together (resources). Thus understandably gals give guys what they seek in return for getting what she wants.

The part about women not actually being sexually attracted to their "beta"husbands but pretty much only have emotional attracted to him. is that true? if so, That's sad.
Likely it is true if she picked him for emotional reasons rather than sexual ones. I don't see it as sad though that may be because I find more value in an emotional connection than a sexual one.

[Asker]

It makes them a whore, you use sex to get what you want, so you semantically are a whore. They are having sex with a man they are not actually sexually attracted to to get other things, that's disgusting, and if the man knew she wasn't actually sexually attracted to him, he wouldn't waste his time on her.

[udolipixie]

It's disgusting by opinion for a gal to have sex with a man they are not actually sexually attracted to to get other things. Whether the guy would waste his time on her if he knew she wasn't sexually attracted to her is a tossup. I find outside of an ego boost most guys don't really care if their partner is sexually attracted to them, enjoys sex with them, or even desires sex hence the seemingly popularity of duty sex/maintenance sex aka having sex for his benefit or she's denying/withholding. It seems an even trade to me the guy gets what he wants (sex) and the gal gets what she wants.

[Asker]

It still means the women is a whore, it's politically correct prostitution, can you really have sex with and be in a relationship with a man you aren't sexually attracted to? could you really be happy with that? Only men who don't have the choice will accept a women not being sexually attracted to him, at least initially (if it's after years of marriage and there is a kid, he would accept his wife losing attraction to him over the years because he's already invested in the relationship and family, another exception might be an obvious trade off with an old man and a young women).

[udolipixie]

If you mean 'you' personally- no. I would never willingly or happily have sex with a guy I don't find physically attractive and sexually attractive. However it seems by societal standards I'm an oddity and my standards make me a stuckup b*tch (undesirable esteem most gals don't aspire to). If you mean 'you' generally- likely many gals can have sex with a guy they aren't sexually attracted to because they love him/are emotionally attracted to him. There are plenty of gals happy with their relationship as they love the guy and value emotional attraction over sexual attraction. The guy likely will not know about the lack of sexual attraction. In his view she is sexually attracted to him so again it seems an even trade to me the guy gets what he wants (sex) and the gal gets what she wants.

[Asker]

Yes if he doesn't know, obviously he won't care, as you said he won't know of the lack of sexual attraction, but if he is aware of it, most won't accept it. And that is selling your body for other wants like the title said, which i personally find disgusting, it is also deceitful if the women knows he thinks she is sexually attracted to him. I guess women have evolved to use sex to get what they want, whores!

[udolipixie]

Most guys likely won't be aware of it as so his awareness seems a moot point. Egh the gal isn't being deceitful unless she lies telling him that she is sexually attracted to him. Otherwise the guy is making the assumption that she is sexually attracted to him. That's on him. No different than gals who think because a guy f*cked her that he loves her and will be he bf who'll marry her. Both are assuming they know why the person had sex. The husband thinks it's due to sexual attraction she's not deceiving him he's assuming.

[udolipixie]

In my opinion gals likely always used sex to get what they want as they rarely could get it any other way considering likely male oppression. Plus it may be the 'easiest way'. Prostitution is likely the oldest job as it seems guys often regard sex as something to be given in which they treat it as a transaction. Ex: a guy is nice to get sex he's paying for sex by being nice. To me both genders are traders when it comes to sex yet only the gal seemingly gets slightly labeled.

[Asker]

If you are in a relationship, you assume that your partner is both sexually and romantically attracted to you, the guy is both sexually and emotionally attracted to her (we are talking about somewhat long term relationships) it's still trading sex, it would still make this women a whore. I don't understand how women can be in a relationship where sex wasn't a mutual want from the beginning, but they do it knowing it's a one sided street, it's disgusting.

[Asker]

Would you say most women are like this, they see sex as a chore, not a mutual want, and they aren't sexually attracted to their man? and i am a bit hazy if you are like this? women are only painted in the negative because sex is supposed to be a mutual want, being a whore is way worse than being a slut. If it is an obvious trade off, the man will also be seen in a negative light (old rich man dating a really young girl, a man hiring a prostitute etc.)

[udolipixie]

As there are many types of relationships and many reasons people get in one it's unreasonable to assume your partner is both sexually and romantically attracted to you just because you're in a relationship. To me it's like a gal assuming because a guy is her bf he will marry her. Meh they're both trading for sex as likely he is training his time, effort, energy, etc with the expectation of sex. Both are traders- one sells and one pays. It's disgusting by opinion for a gal to be in a relationship where sex wasn't a mutual want from the beginning. One sidedness doesn't necessarily mean something is disgusting sexual pleasure/orgasm is often male one-sided and I hear few male complaints about that. You're assuming because she isn't sexually attracted to him that she also doesn't want sex. That's a toss up. She could want sex out of love or desire to please him.

[udolipixie]

I'd guess for most gals there are many times when sex is a chore and not a mutual want There were studies/surveys on gals ad how any had sex with their husbands fr ulterior motives. I highly doubt most guys would have sex only when it's a mutual otherwise notions like duty/maintenance sex wouldn't be seemingly popular. I highly doubt gals are only painted in the negative because ' sex is supposed to be a mutual want,' Guys are paying for the sex meaning they do not care if it's mutually wanted. If they thought sex was supposed to be a mutual want they wouldn't pay for it. Yet no to little negativity on guys trading for sex. Likely gals are seen in the negative as sex is something done to them and they are the products while the guys are clients.

[Asker]

wow, i would much rather be the slut than be a whore like women seemingly are, and i am not talking about sex sometimes being a chore for a certain reason, i am talking about it being a chore because she isn't sexually attracted to him, not because that night she wasn't in the mood. What people think makes something disgusting or not, somethings are disgusting to some and not to other, generally people find a women selling her body for other things disgusting, thus it is disgusting (to most). The man doesn't think he is buying sex if he is in a romantic relationship, "If they thought sex was supposed to be a mutual want they wouldn't pay for it." most people don't think their women is a whore who trades sex for other things, they don't think they are indirectly paying for sex, if that where the case, far more men would just hire prostitutes, and not be concerned by women otherwise.

[Asker]

And expecting marriage out of your boyfriend isn't nearly similar, you expect commitment as that is the now, but not marriage, sexual attraction is also the now, if you go on to loose attraction to your bf that's fine, you can't help it, but getting into it without sexual attraction deplorable. If you ever date a guy for emotional and financial reasons, without sexual attraction (and it isn't an obvious agreement) tell him, if he isn't a huge beta male, he will be out of there fast.

[udolipixie]

The guys likely does think he is buying sex if he is in a romantic relationship. I highly doubt he'd pursue a sexless romantic relationship. The guy behaves in a certain manner to get sex so he is paying/buying sex. Considering how commonplace it is to refer to gals as b*tches I also doubt that most guys do jot think their gal is a whore who trades sex for other things. It seems most guys do regard gals as whores thinking 'niceness, effort, time = he gets sex' not 'sexual attraction = they have sex'. Guys likely do not hire prostitutes in this regard because of the ego blow as their method of paying can be seen as achieving while cash is not achieving.

[udolipixie]

It is quite similar. Both are cases of assuming motives behind an action rather than taking the action at face value. Assuming that the person must have felt X, Y, Z in order to have sex is no different than thinking a person got into a relationship with you in order to marry you. "If you ever date a guy for emotional and financial reasons, without sexual attraction (and it isn't an obvious agreement) tell him" Just because you want gals to do that doesn't mean they do, would, or should. I see no reason for a gal to slight her chances when the guy will get what he wants (sex) and she gets what she wants.

[Asker]

Trust me guys for the most part think women regard sex as a mutual want, we might not think they want it as often and maybe not as much, but we still think it is something they want (ask the question on her if you want). If you go into a relationship knowingly using sex in the way you describe, you are a deplorable whore!

[udolipixie]

I highly doubt guys for the most part think gals regard sex as a mutual want otherwise: - it wouldn't be so common to regard sex as something done to a gal instead of with her - it wouldn't be so common to regard sex as something the guy gets and the gal gives (that is setting up the buyer/seller model for trade by thinking 'niceness, effort, time = he gets sex' not 'sexual attraction = they have sex') - it wouldn't be so common to regard sex as a duty or maintenance notions that completely dismiss a partner's desire for sex to ensure another partner has sex (no mutual want there) By opinion if a gal gets into a relationship having sex without sexual attraction they are deplorable. By opinion such a gal is rational as most guys would not start/continue a sexless relationship so if she wants a relationship sex 'must' be a part of it. Since sex can be had for many reasons she chooses starting a relationship and emotional attraction.

[Asker]

"it wouldn't be so common to regard sex as something done to a gal instead of with her" who says that? besides meaning the actual physical dynamics (as in penetration is normally done to someone who is penetrated) rather than who wants it or not. "it wouldn't be so common to regard sex as a duty or maintenance notions that completely dismiss a partner's desire for sex to ensure another partner has sex (no mutual want there)" i have only heard that of couples that have been together a long time and one is bored with the sex life, bot something that was decided before commitment. - "it wouldn't be so common to regard sex as something the guy gets and the gal gives (that is setting up the buyer/seller model for trade by thinking 'niceness, effort, time = he gets sex' not 'sexual attraction = they have sex')" The reason is modes of arousal and attraction, continued-

[Asker]

men are only visually aroused by women, so men are already ready to go just by the women existing and looking half decent, a women needs courtship and a feeling of being desired to give her desire to have sex, it still means she actually wants the sex, but it is harder to get her in the mood,www.indiana.edu/.../...ers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf (research on visual arousal), i have read some of your other comments, and you seemingly think sex is the only thing men want from women, and that emotional commitment is the only thing women want from men, so you are a bit biased to sat the least.

[udolipixie]

Are you being obtuse or are you unaware of the various societal messages/media showing sex is something done to a gal such as a guy gets laid a gal is a lay? When the duty/maintenance sex happens doesn't dismiss that it is not about mutual want which goes against the idea that guys for the most part think gals regard sex as a mutual want. The reason is not modes of arousal/attraction when the guy isn't doing such to create sexual attraction/arousal. The action is 'being nice = he gets sex' NOT 'being nice to arouse her = they have sex'. I'm no the one adding in personal judgment/labels like disgusting/deplorable/etc so I'm not the one a bit biased.

[udolipixie]

I also question your reading comprehension if you got I seemingly think 'that emotional commitment is the only thing women want from men' when I've repeatedly brought up attraction, sexual enjoyment, wealth (security), status (vanity), etc. It seems you're just reaching for things because you don't like the notion that it's doubtful guys for the most part think gals regard sex as a mutual want and that guys are complacent in the trading for sex by paying for it.

[Asker]

I only read a few of your comments, you just said the same things again and didn't bring up a new points, and you gave the same explanation for your points. As i said, post a question on here if men see sex as a transaction and not a mutual want, 90% will say no. And it is deplorable, it makes you a prostitute.

[udolipixie]

What guys see sex as /= what guys do. A guy may not see sex as a transaction that doesn't mean he's not using it as a transaction. For example, Steve may not see sex as a transaction but he's nice in order to get sex thinking being nice means he'll have more chances at sex. He is using his niceness as a transaction for sex as he's not using sexual attraction or mutual want of sex to have sex. By opinion it is deplorable. It's interesting you claimed I seemed a bit bias when you're being emotional and making personal opinions/labels.

[Asker]

The only thing that makes something deplorable is opinion, so if by opinion it is deplorable, then it is deplorable. Last time i checked women don't have sex with someone just because that person is nice to them, unless they are also sexually attracted to him (at least most of the time). Mutual want is triggered by different things, but most of the time sexual attraction by both parties has to be present.

[udolipixie]

It is deplorable by opinion. Opinion is subjective unless you known what most people's opinions are you can not state that something is deplorable as that would be making a general opinion. You can state it's deplorable to you (personal opinion). You are correct gals generally don't have sex with someone just because that person is nice to them that doesn't mean many guys don't use niceness as a transaction for sex. Plenty of people do things that are not successful. "most of the time sexual attraction by both parties has to be present." this is a case of it not being present and the gal using emotional attraction for her want of sex.

[Asker]

We decide what is good or bad, something can't be innately deplorable (even murder), so yes everything is opinion, but that would make words useless. "this is a case of it not being present and the gal using emotional attraction for her want of sex." elaborate, i don't fully understand

[udolipixie]

You gave a scenario of 'women not actually being sexually attracted to their "beta"husbands but pretty much only have emotional attracted to him'. Therefore her want of sex is from emotional attraction to a guy who has what she seeks instead of her want of sex being from sexual attraction to a guy who has what she seeks.

[Asker]

So mutual want of sex for different reasons? Is that a semantically sound? mutual want of sex be it for pure physical pleasure or emotional fulfillment could still count as sexual attraction as you are attracted by the idea of sex with the person, i think?

[udolipixie]

In your scenario the gal isn't having sex for emotional fulfillment. She is having sex because she is emotionally attracted to the guy and this is something he wants. Her want of sex isn't for her getting something out of sex but because she's emotionally attracted to him and he wants it.

[Asker]

Is this common place? glad i am ripped and good looking, only sleeping with girls no commitment crew checking in.

[udolipixie]

In my experience/observations it's quite common place as there are various reasons gals have sex.

[Asker]

As i said before, that is in most peoples opinion disgusting, and it makes the women a whore.

[udolipixie]

As I said before you don't know most people so don't speak for their opinion that it is disgusting.

[Asker]

And i am not talking about the women simply not wanting sex in that particular instance, but going through with it because their partner wants it. I am talking about the women not being sexually attracted to her partner at all, but stays in the relationship and sleeps with him for other reasons, surely that can't be commonplace?

[Asker]

And by the same token that you say it seems commonplace, through my observations, most people (that i have come in contact with) see it as disgusting. It would also make her a whore, which is a derogatory word for a reason.

[udolipixie]

A gal having sex with their partner because he wants it is what I'm talking about recall I said she's having sex because 'she's emotionally attracted to him and he wants it'. In my experiences/observations a gal not being sexually attracted to her partner at all, but stays in the relationship and sleeps with him for other reasons is quite commonplace. Many gals prioritize other traits in a partner in exchange for sexual attraction. Plenty of guys are chosen for being good/decent guys not because she is sexually attracted to.

[udolipixie]

It's not by the same token as I'm stating 'what seems to be' (a possibility) you're stating 'what is' (a certainty). You do not know most people so you can't claim it's disgusting (general opinion). You can claim it's disgusting to you (personal opinion). You can claim most people you know find it disgusting (observational opinion).

[Asker]

"In my experiences/observations a gal not being sexually attracted to her partner at all, but stays in the relationship and sleeps with him for other reasons is quite commonplace. Many gals prioritize other traits in a partner in exchange for sexual attraction. Plenty of guys are chosen for being good/decent guys not because she is sexually attracted to." that is god damn frightening, i am literally going to make sure that any women i date is truly sexually attracted to me, and if not ill immediately dump her, trust me most men will see this as disgusting, and see the women as a whore. Ask as many men as you like because i can't prove it, i bet 90% will think it deplorable (go ahead ask as many men as you want). A little comfort for me is that i asked a question on this site after this one, asking if you could date someone without being sexually attracted to you partner, every women said hey had to be sexually attracted to the man. www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1360165-can-you-date-someone-without-being-sexually-attracted-to-them

[udolipixie]

Unsure why you linked to it as this is a small segment of a population. But whatevas may you feel better.

[Asker]

That's why i said a little comfort, i have also never met a women near my age that could be in a relationship without being sexually attracted to the man. And as i said, ask as many men as you want, most will see the women as disgusting and a whore.

[udolipixie]

More likely you've never met a gal who admitted such as I find most do not admit things they know may be perceived negatively. I can ask as many guys yet I would likely never know the entire male population to get the view is disgusting. So it's disgusting by personal opinion or observational opinion.

[Asker]

Go viral with it ask millions (obviously that will depend on interest) the response will be one of disgust. I know the misc (there is a lot of trolling on there, but they have a set honest ideas and convictions) which is the fourth biggest internet forum in the world and predominantly men, have almost all members seeing it as something disgusting and wouldn't date a women who isn't sexually attracted to him. If women know it is a negative trait , and know the man doesn't want to know it and deliberately make it seem like she is sexually attracted to her man, then that is very deceitful and deplorable. Don't use your example about marriage as the man isn't making it seem like he will marry her.

[udolipixie]

Again the seemingly commonplace notion of duty/maintenance makes it doubtful most at least most guys would find it disgusting for a gal to not be sexually attracted to her partner at all but stay in the relationship and sleeps with him for other reasons. It appears guys only find it disgusting when they're not the one in control of gals doing it. It's seemingly insisted that gals have sex when they're not sexually attracted to their partner because he's a good guy and that's denying/withholding. Yet it's not okay when a gal chooses to have sex with a guy because he's a good guy not because she's sexually attracted to him.

[udolipixie]

"If women know it is a negative trait , and know the man doesn't want to know it and deliberately make it seem like she is sexually attracted to her man, then that is very deceitful and deplorable" It 'may be perceived negatively'. Whether it is a negative trait a tossup. She's not being deceitful as she hasn't lied or mislead him by not bluntly stating something he did not bring up. Nor is she deliberately making it seem like she is sexually attracted to her guy. She is having sex with him if he assumes anything else that is on him. " Don't use your example about marriage as the man isn't making it seem like he will marry her." The marriage example stands as the gal isn't making it seem like she has sex with him because she's sexually attracted to him. The guy is assuming her motive for having sex just like a gal assuming a guy's motive to be in a relationship is to marry.

[Asker]

duty/maintenance sex is having sex when you don't want it at a that time, not being in a relationship where you sleep with a man you aren't at all sexually attracted to, that's pure prostitution. Guys aren't disgusted by the former, trust me men will be disgusted by the latter (you said earlier that men think the women is sexually attracted to him, you are contradicting yourself) , as i said i can't prove it, but the men (and women) i know find that disgusting and the misc which has a few million members finds that specifically disgusting. As i said i can't prove it but ask and get as much empirical evidence you need, a women not being sexually attracted at all to the man from the outset of the relationship isn't tolerated by most if known.

[Asker]

And you assume sex is for sex, you have got to that point already (it is natural to assume that if someone is having sex with you, they are sexually attracted to you), you haven't got to the point of marriage (it is not natural to assume that the guy is going to marry you if he hasn't hinted at you, sex is natural, marriage is man made)

[udolipixie]

An act of prostitution (duty/maintenance sex) and 'pure prostitution' holds little difference to me as both are prostitution. Again it seems the issue is wanting gals to prostitute themselves when it suits guys but not wanting gals to be prostitutes as it seems the guy is getting short-changed. "you said earlier that men think the women is sexually attracted to him, you are contradicting yourself" I said if the guy assumes anything like she is sexually attracted to him. I didn't state guys think gals are sexually attracted to him. I'm not contradicting myself. Stating 'if he assumes X' /= 'guys think X'. As I said you don't speak for most so whether it is or isn't tolerated is a tossup. You believe it isn't tolerated I believe it's a tossup/unknown.

[udolipixie]

"And you assume sex is for sex" No I don't. In fact I repeatedly stated there are various reasons people have sex. I assume a person having sex is a person having sex. I don't assume motives for why they have sex. It is natural to assume a lot of things it doesn't mean it's right or that a person deceived you because your assumption was incorrect. In regards to the marriage it is natural to assume if someone is married they had a relationship. Thus arguably it is natural to assume a guy is going to marry you if you are in a relationship. It's telling that you see the lacking logic of my example to show your point's flaws. That it's unreasonable to assume the motive for being in a relationship yet you can't grasp that it's unreasonable to assume the motive for having sex.

[Asker]

o i know for most, either the majority of men are disgusted by it or they aren't, and you know the majority are disgusted by it, you yourself agree it is prostitution, you know most people see prostitution as negative. Anyway i am sure most women (even though a lot do) don't date men they are not sexually attracted to at all, that is bad for both partners, it's the equivalent of the man seeing the women as nothing more than a lukewarm hole between her legs for him to put his dick in, both are somewhat extreme even though they do happen.

[udolipixie]

" know for most, either the majority of men are disgusted by it" No you don't... as you don't know most guys. "you know the majority are disgusted by it" No I don't... as I don't know most guys. "you yourself agree it is prostitution, you know most people see prostitution as negative. " You are aware there are several labels for an act and which label the act gets is subjective. Some may see it as prostitution, some may see it as logical, some may see it as evolution, some may see it virtuous for not being so 'shallow'/'sex obsessed'. So thinking I labeled it prostitution means other will too is incorrect.

[udolipixie]

"it's the equivalent of the man seeing the women as nothing more than a lukewarm hole between her legs for him to put his dick in" No it's not as in this case the guy isn't trading something to get what he wants. The gal is having sex for other reasons she's not judging the guy as X like your example is a guy judging a gal as X. The equivalent would be guys trading emotional intimacy, security, comfort, and companionship for sex... which hey is seemingly what most guys do.

[Asker]

Can you personally be a prostitute like this? do these women not care about sexual fulfillment? they will probably cheat on their partner. And men are emotionally attracted to women too, even though sexual attraction is very important, very few men are exclusively sexually attracted to women, just like i am sure very few women are excursively emotionally attracted to men. Now since we can't absolutely prove either of our points, we have to assume, there are so many things we don't and can'know for certain. So do you honestly think that the majority of men won't care about women being whores like this and not at all being sexually attracted to them (if directly known) i can't be absolutely sure, but i would bet a life of eternal torture that most men will find it disgusting, and wouldn't date the women if this is expressly known.

[Asker]

It's the same as you having a long term relationship with a man that doesn't love you and only wants you for sex, could you date him knowing that? it's pretty much the same thing.

[udolipixie]

"do these women not care about sexual fulfillment?" Likely these gals get their sexual fulfillment from masturbation and/or cheating. Even if a gal had sex out of sexual attraction it;s doubtful she'd be sexually fulfilled considering the orgasm gap, studies on male selfishness, surveys showing many/most gals aren't sexually happily, and notions like duty/maintenance sex/her orgasm is her responsibility. At least by having sex for other reasons the gal is seemingly more likely to get what she wants.

[udolipixie]

Egh I didn't state or suggest guys aren't emotionally attracted to gals so I'm unsure why you're telling me this? What was that purpose? Are you being contradictory just be contradictory? o. O I'm unsure why you're asking if I "honestly think that the majority of men won't care about women being whores like this and not at all being sexually attracted to them (if directly known)" when I've remained neutral. Unlike you I haven't made claims on what most guys think as in guys think X or guys think Y. I honestly think what the majority of guys will care about or won't care about in this regard is a tossup.

[udolipixie]

"It's the same as you having a long term relationship with a man that doesn't love you and only wants you for sex, could you date him knowing that? it's pretty much the same thing." It's not the same thing as your QA clearly involved the gal trading something. It is more similar to a guy that doesn't love a gal but is otherwise what she wants in a bf in exchange for getting sex.

[Asker]

And you specifically? have you sold your body to get what you want from a relationship? female sexually is the narcissistic one, women get off to female pleasure, men get off to female pleasure, www.psychologytoday.com/.../what-do-women-really-want , www.indiana.edu/.../...ers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf "straight" women are more aroused by other women than to men in regards to visual stimuli, supposedly straight women love lesbian p*rn etc, female arousal is based more on being desired than desiring and is very selfish.

[Asker]

It is more similar to a guy that doesn't love a gal but is otherwise what she wants in a bf in exchange for getting sex. that's what i just said, "It's the same as you having a long term relationship with a man that doesn't love you and only wants you for sex" it's the same thing

[udolipixie]

Now for your personal questions: "Can you personally be a prostitute like this? " No because it doesn't seem rational long-term. It's effective for immediate results however my ability to get what I want would depend on how appealing I am to those that have it. I would rather get what I want for myself as I find it better to rely on myself than a male. "could you date him knowing that?" Yes if he fit my criteria for a partner. Whether he'd date me is doubtful as I pursue sexless dating. I couldn't care if he loved me as I don't hold much value in that as even if he did love me I'm be burdened with compromises, sacrifices, and it'd be based on my youth/beauty/sexual availability.

[Asker]

Wow you are more fucked up than me!

[udolipixie]

Egh you didn't just say that. You said the guy offers a long-term relationship not that he is offering what a gal wants in a guy for a long-term relationship. "having a long term relationship" /= "what she wants in a bf"

[udolipixie]

"Wow you are more fucked up than me!" By opinion.

[Asker]

Yes by my opinion. Well what i said is inclusive of what you said, you just added some unknown factor (s) and you saying that would assume that what we previously talked of is exactly what a man wants in a relationship. I am confused to what you want in a relationship, you said you pursue sexless relationships and that you don't care if the guy loves you, that's like just pursuing friendship or some weird unrequited love.

[udolipixie]

I didn't add in an unknown factor- the guy trading some was a known factor as the gal traded sex for other traits. Thus the guy trades being a 'perfect' bf for sex "pursuing friendship" Presumes I'm seeking companionship. I'm not. "some weird unrequited love" Presumes I'd love the guy. I wouldn't. What I want in a relationship is irrelevant as topic was the likelihood of gals being emotionally attracted to their bf and having sex with him for other reasons than sexual attraction. Your error was assuming my motives for dating/relationships and thinking I'd be put off by the male equivalent of this a guy being sexually attracted to a gal and trading intimacy/comfort/etc for other reasons than emotional attraction.

[Asker]

Once again my questions asked now don't directly relate to what was talked about before, i am just interested in your warped intentions and drive towards relationships (and this time it isn't warped by opinion, it's warped by seeming rarity)

[udolipixie]

I know the questions you asked now don't directly relate to the topic hence why I answered them in a separate comment and addressed it as 'now for your personal questions'. I was reminding you that my personal life isn't relevant as you seemingly thought you could use my personal opinion to cloud my view on the topic. It seems you were trying to get an emotional reaction out of your questions so I could change my view on the topic.

[bunnyy]

What are you asking here? that was kind of a jumbled mess. In order to be with someone and have emotional attraction you have to at least find them sort of attractive, not everyone is as shallow as you seem to want to think though. Also just because a man doesn't want or can't have kids it doesn't make him "beta" or less and same with women who can't have kids or don't want them. You are talking about human being as if they are a tribe of monkeys here and it's really silly.

[Asker]

In a biological sense the man who can't have sex without committing is a beta male. I was hoping for women in an older age category to answer, you don't have the same needs and emotional wants that would supersede attraction yet.

[shadowlegend]

She's right. She knows what she's talking about. Don't diss a smart girl for her age.

[bunnyy]

you seem really short sighted and socially stunted I'm sorry about that. But why bother asking questions on here when no matter what you think you are right an are not willing to listen to anyone else's view? why bother if you think you are right and you are just going to be stubborn do you really need to seek out other's opinions?

[bunnyy]

@shadowlegend thank you I have no clue what sense he see's in this way of thinking he obviously just thinks poorly of all women for some sick reason. Sir if you think women just want to use you and have no faith in others than it is your choice to stay alone, no one is forcing you to date or get married or anything.

[Asker]

I am talking about Innate non sexual attraction to non sexual traits that you would chose over sexual attraction (even if there isn't really any), do you even understand what i am talking about?

[bunnyy]

I understand but it's a biased unfounded view, if you can get me some scientific reports on it then fine but otherwise it seems like you are just blowing smoke out your ass.

[Asker]

I can give you all the empirical evidence (come on you never see a man with a women for her money or career etc.) There are also basic biological principles in place that suggest it's true, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle as in men (with potentially unlimited reproductive fitness) compete to mate with women who have limited reproductive fitness, as in you only need a small amount of men to knock up all the women in the world, because men can knock up multiple women in a day, but women can only get pregnant once every 9 months. So a small portion of men with the best genes can produce all the kids, but they can't support all of them, thus the base of human monogamy (at least the large portion of it) is sex in exchange for resources (whatever those resources may be)

[shadowlegend]

I do know what he is referring to, I've studied psychology as well, and for some, only some women, the same as some men, some people in general do not have a very evolved intellectual mind, meaning that they do make decisions based on their immediate and instinctual needs in relation to all things, including choosing a mate that will give them and their blood line the best chance at survival, i. e. strength and money, or how well they can provide. But the human mind and humans in general have evolved greatly and we simply don't make decisions, like choosing a mate, based on such simplistic or primal criteria anymore.

[Asker]

You wouldn't even know, you wouldn't normally have deep thought about it, as you don't go in thinking, i am with this guy for his resources etc. you just feel an attraction to him, but not a sexual one. As i said Innate non sexual attraction to non sexual traits that you would chose over sexual attraction. Note that i am not saying all women do this, but it is a trait of female sexuality that most women are capable of, and the same thing isn't present in male sexuality.

[bunnyy]

ok so if you say it's only biologically natural then why does it make you so angry?

[Asker]

Rape and murder (violence in general) are natural too, it doesn't mean it isn't a despicable trait.

[bubble_tea]

If everything is already predetermined by the genes...
Do I want pretty ragey kids who have no brains or do I want well mannered, academically successful kids who will have the means to pay for plastic surgery? Hmmm... such a tough question.

[hypno-trip]

peace... 东西

[shadowlegend]

Hi, um, we're in the 21st century now, welcome. Woman don't use their primal instincts alone to choose a mate anymore. We actually don't need a man whatsoever, we have sperm donors for children if we want and we can also have careers and look after our children with help or on our own, a man doesn't actually have to come into it at all. So, no, a decent, respectable woman doesn't "sell" her body for any reason, not for protection or comfort or to entrap a certain male into getting her pregnant.

[Asker]

It isn't a thought out plan and can't be helped (the women doesn't scheme to gold dig etc.), there is science behind it, it's based of bateman's principle. Innate non sexual attraction to non sexual traits that you would chose over sexual attraction

[shadowlegend]

Some of us women are actually intellectual and value other things besides a mans income. You're very ignorant about women if you think it's "natural" for a woman nowadays to choose a mate based on physical strength, money or appearance.

[Asker]

You are supporting my idea by suggesting attraction to non sexual traits, and choosing these over sexual traits

[I_M_LEGEND]

what you say is true, but this isn't what you see in single women, or the general public of females. they are needy, unhappy/unfulfilled when single. they want someone to lean on because they become tied down once they have a child... they want someone to run to whenever they need to, they want companionship and someone EXCLUSIVE. so, while what you say is possible, this isn't the choice for a great majority of women. in fact, its avoided to get some of the weight off of her... its not for most women although our modern society can support that to those who have the money. the bigger truth is, marriage isn't worth it for men in the modern society and women still dont make as much nor are they valued higher than men in the work field. i learn about this in employment law.

[shadowlegend]

It's not true that women in general need men these days to accomplish anything or live a life of fulfillment, nor is it true that all men don't want the same things women do. Men and women want each other for different reasons; men want a woman who can comfort, support and nurture them, whilst women want a man who will encourage, praise and adore her. No, women still don't get equal pay for the same job that a man does and it's a travesty in the modern world but women as a gender in general are actually far more skilled at multitasking, which includes having careers and children and being providers. You're either very ignorant or very sexist, either way, the women of today know what they want, not you.

[Asker]

If they could hire a women to do the same job as a man, but pay her less, why wouldn't they just hire only women and save a lot of money? the "wage gap" is calculated on a gross total per sector not for the same work. There are literally legal statutes in almost every country that makes equal pay for equal work law, for example it has been federal law in america since 1963, and since 1958 in Australia, i have lived in many African countries and it's law in pretty much all of Africa. Very few countries don't have a law in place that ensures equal pay for equal work, and the ones that don't have it as law, have much bigger problems to worry about than that. Stop listening to feminist bullshit. And yes women are better at multitasking than men as they have a lot more white matter in their brain, but men are better at specialized and complex work as they have a lot more gray matter in their brain.

[shadowlegend]

So you're sexist, got it.

[Asker]

hahaahhahahaha, are you insane? you are hysterical! either a big troll or cognitive dissonance, www.huffingtonpost.com/.../...-gap_b_2073804.html, www.wsj.com/.../SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472, www.cbsnews.com/.../ do you want more links? there are a million news sights saying it's a myth and economists themselves, do you not undertand it is literally illegal to pay a women less for the same job (provided she works the same hours, has the same experience etc).

[Asker]

*sites

[shadowlegend]

Ignorant and sexist then.

[Asker]

Prove me wrong then, please give evidence that isn't some feminist article, what country do you live in? ill give you a link to the actual statute that makes it law in your country, you don't have an argument or any proof, you are just crazy.

[shadowlegend]

You believe every article and fact and figure written up by the government or the media? What is written in an article is not fact for every business or company. Many men are still paid higher wages than women who hold the exact some job title, description and who are give the same responsibilities. To believe what media tells you, is ignorant.

[Asker]

What about it being law? They can literally go to court and sue if they get payed less simply because of their gender, they wouldn't have to pay for an attorney in most cases either.

[shadowlegend]

Ha, the law. Companies have a million ways to cover their arse and change paper work to justify why the male was paid more for doing the same job. It happens all the time and you are really naiive if you think "the law" is respected and upheld in every company or business or by every employer. Employees would do better to shut up about it and keep their job than make a fuss and find themselves without one.

[Asker]

Why would they then? it sounds like you think there is some conspiracy to still keep women oppressed. Like i said before If they could hire a women to do the same job as a man, but pay her less, why wouldn't they just hire only women and save a lot of money? and if they somehow still pay men more, then he is obviously better at the job, and the women doesn't deserve equal pay (by performance, not because she is a women).

[shadowlegend]

You're an ignorant and sexist male. It's pointless going over it with you.

[Asker]

You are crazy, seemingly a radical feminist, most people of your own gender would agree with me. The wage gap isn't a discriminatory problem!

[shadowlegend]

Crazy? Radical? I have an opinion different to yours. Men really overreact.

[Asker]

Mine isn't an opinion, it's a fact, the wage gap isn't based on the same work, that's a fact, not an opinion

[shadowlegend]

You believe what you read in articles or on the internet, good for you.

[Asker]

I believe constitutional rights and law books, actual official doctrines, do you believe murder isn't a crime?

[shadowlegend]

You were talking about women being paid less for doing the same job a man does. You believe that because there is a law about it, that it doesn't happen, which makes you very ignorant because it does happen. People break the law all the time, including companies and businesses.

[LauraMarx]

you need to find the enter key on your Damn keyboard.

[Asker]

it was copied from someone else, that's why it is in inverted commas.

[LauraMarx]

couldn't u have done some graceful editing for him or sth. I can't read this lmao

[miserybusiness]

Where's all the loveeee

It's all about looooove

[Asker]

A long term relationship with love and no sexual attraction, is as bad as a long term relationship with sexual attraction and no love.

[miserybusiness]

i agree wit u, ohpee