Both choices are valid, but they’re not comparable. Physical intimacy involves personal boundaries, emotions, and physical well being. Financial decisions revolve around economic resources and personal values on money.
If a man decides to take that route, I'm sure she will think him a skin flint and drop him in no time. I think most women would agree that the ball is always in his court.
Opinion
42Opinion
Money and sex are two different things. They should never be compared as similar things
u If you view dating and marriage as legalized prostitution, it makes sense.
I get where you're coming from but I think it's important to consider that a woman in this situation is likely to have a totally different view of sex than the guy.
It means something else to her in the context of a relationship, especially if she's a virgin.
The value of something depends on who it's being offered to. A woman's virginity and who they have sex with has an impact on their feminity just like how the woman a guy has sex with and other things have an effect on his masculinity. These things are important to both sexes.
No man wants to feel like less of a man, I'm pretty sure in the same general sense, no woman wants to feel like less of a woman.
I'm trying to say it seems like an apples to oranges comparison.
The way I see it it's like this:
The woman's virginity is obviously very important to her (at least, usually just before losing it), it takes a lot of discipline and self control to say no to something like that long enough to find a husband. It's a value she has as a result of her world view and it's I. Portant to her. So if it's not important to you as a man, you can either show her your way of thinking and accept whatever her reaction is or she's not for you, so stop wasting everyone's time and move on.
About a decade or more ago, Singapore built 2 casinos.
What captured my attention was the license tendering process. One license, with three operators spending more than a million$ each on their proposals.
That day I learned what it means as "cost of investment": that some form of noticeable spending is necessary to achieve something big.
(eventually the government accepted two proposals and issues two licences instead of one.)
The answer to this question is: Marriage is like the license issued. But before issuing, the she may like to know if the man is "up to standard".
If he's not willing to spend that mmillion$, chances are he'll lose to the other competitors.
But spending doesn't mean he'll get her in marriage.
Nevertheless, is he "good enough" to show the world that he's capable?
These I think defines th person - a calculative misor, or a generous person of character?
And this is probably what she's considering before handling her vagina and more importantly her entire person and soul to him.
I would disagree on that one. I don't see what one has to do with the other. If she wants to wait till she's married, and I am leaning that way anyway, I am not about to punish her by not spending some time and money on her/us.
Sex constitutes so little of your overall time together. I would rather spend the time and get to know whether she and I are compatible in other ways first. Besides, as soon as you involve sex, it seems to blind some people as to what the real goal is which is make sure you can spend your life with this person and not want to throttle them 6 months into the marriage.😂
This logic is dumb in my opinion, I believe that money shouldn't be something you spend carelessly on someone of course, but it's also not something you should think of as a trade for sex.
If my friends are short on money, I have no issue with being the person that pays if we go out to eat or go bowling for example. I just think that if you care about someone you should not see an issue in treating each other equally (money-wise). If both parties are in a financial position to do so, why act frugal about this, especially if it's someone you care about? The same goes for a person you're romantically interested in.
Those are not related.
If a man finds a woman who is attractive and nice to him enough so that he'd like to take her out, catering her and accompaning her. I think it's natural for a masculine man to want to be a protector or a provider.
If a woman agrees to have sex with a man she doesn't know well, there's still no guarantee that he'd instantly marry her, right? Worse. She would become a hoe to him, keeping him wondering how many men she had before him? Is she worthy to marry at all because she can't say no to a man who's obviously not her husband... or at least a boyfriend.
You spend money on your friends, family and other loves ones all the time. You buy them gifts, food etc. Do you tell those people the same thing? Just never spend money on a surprise party or Christmas gift for them because they never have sex with you?
Even the way the question is phrased is odd. There are men who don't want to have sex until they get married, and nowadays most women also pay for their partners to an extent. Is sex only worth it if your partner is spending a lot of money on you? Is it only worth paying for your partner if they have sex with you? In that case you are better off just seeing a sex worker instead of trying to date.
Because waiting for marriage is traditional, and men wanting to pay is also traditional. Men who don't want to provide are modern and should stick to modern women. Easy solution. And I'm saying that as someone who didn't accept gifts worth more than $15 from my husband before we were married.
Are you for dude, like you are comparing money with sex. whyy
Listen sex is not something you can do alone okay unless we are talking about masturbating so if a girl denies having sex before marriage the guy does have the same authority to deny or ask for it. So it all comes down on consents. I do not wanna go personal here however if you are really dying for sex why don't you book one for yourself. Its not like you are broke or whatt.
Don't get me wrong but the question is dumb.
Absolutely not, in my opinion. The sex/money equation should not be regarded as a two way exchange, and a woman has every right to refuse to let the guy have sex with her until she's ready to do so. However, in no way does that then give the guy a valid reason to be cheap, stingy and tight with his money. This is my opinion only.
My response to many comments I have been seeing: Only naive women are fail to see the relationship between money and sex. Men learn early on there's is a clear relationship between money and sex. Women expect men to invest in them financially and emotionally before they have sex with them. Rich men tend to have access to more women. And women often screen men based on how much money he makes. It's one of the 2 most common screens women make one being income the other being height.
To answer the question directly: I think it depends on the type of role the woman is respected to bring into the relationship, if she is expected to be a stay at home mom or wife and have traditional duties, I think it's expected for the man invest in the women to summon some extent, but not completely as the relationship would be unbalanced if she's not having sex with him. If she will be an equal or near equal bread winner then no, I don't think men should have to spend money on her.
The question made me laugh so hard I couldn't answer it! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Let's face it, every species of animal has one sex that makes itself appear irresistible to the other one and the other sex that has to do all the courting to win them over.
In humans guess which sex is which?
Womens' power comes from the fact that men are hornier than women. Whoever needs something less has power over the other. So men need to pay to get what they need. It's a fact of human nature.
It's also ok for men to wait until marriage and ok for women not to waste time and money on a guy until marriage. Waiting for marriage and spending money on gifts isn't gender specific, it depends on the culture the person's were raised in and how much they earn
I agree with this. It's called a dowry. Why not? Everyone gets vetted beforehand. Prenuptials deal-breakers everything upfront. Once that's sorted she gets spent in and he gets laid. It worked for a gazillion years but someone decided dating was better. Doesn't seem that way to me...
It's fine to propose that. It's not fine to expect the woman to be okay with it, just as it is not fine to expect a man to be okay with no sex before marriage.
That would make sense only for a person that doesn't see the meaning and value of having a wife and being in a marriage.
If marriage is only a piece of paper to the people involved, there is no reason to even get married in the first place.
So, for men who think it's okay to think like that, maybe look for women who don't care about marriage, or don't want to get married.
Yes... No
The one has nothing to do with the other. If he doesn't want to spend money on her because she is not his wife yet he better move onbecause he is not worthy.
Realy.. these 2 things are not related in any way. { weird question... I don't understand}
Lol, that's crazy. You are not buying a wife here. A person wants to spend on a good natured woman not because of sex you idiot. We do it because we like to take care of her. Do you take a male friend out to eat or watch a movie because you are marrying him too 🤣?
I think in terms of money, they should always go fifty fifty.
Men should also stop dating younger girls, 18-25 age group, who are studying or don't have proper employment options.
Because as a man, it's not possible for you to date a younger gal and expect her to be self sufficient.
Most Helpful Opinions