Pity sex

[Cypress25]

Yet women very regularly trade sex for attention, drugs, power, proximity to power money wealth, super hot guys with no emotional connection, etc. as I posted prior without any visible ill emotional effects at all.

 

Very regularly? No, this behavior is not nearly as common as you think. Sure, there may be some attention whores and crack whores out there, but they are in the minority. Believe it or not, most women have sex with men they like. Just because you can't see why women would like these men doesn't mean they don't like them.

 

For many women, if what they get in exchange is worth enough, really hot, rich, powerful or close to such, all the emotional intimacy claptrap seems to go right out the window. Why aren't -those- women who are capable of separating sex from emotions more compassionate towards their friends and acquaintances? Stock... in... trade.

 

These women are very rare, which is probably why you have not encountered them. Most women are not whores, despite what you may think.

 

What enrages me is that they will put out for some guy that would have them bend over and **** through a mailslot at his front door so as not to deal with her before or after, and then moralize about how special and not-for-anyone sex is with me.

 

And what about the women who don't put out for jerks? What about the women who only have sex within loving, respectful relationships? Do those women get a pass? Are they allowed to refuse pity sex without triggering your rage, since they actually do treat sex as something special? Because I'm getting the impression that this whole thing comes down to jealousy for you. You're jealous of the guys who get laid, you think they don't deserve it. Why them and not you, right?

 

Her friend wants something that she could easily give, has a hard time getting it via normal means, and her giving it would be easy and painless for her to do, maybe even very pleasant.

 

This is where you're wrong. A little biology lesson for you: A woman needs to be physically aroused in order to enjoy sex. Just like you can't have sex without an erection, a woman cannot comfortably accommodate a penis if she is not aroused. If she's not aroused, she will not get wet and her pelvic muscles will not relax. In other words, she will be tight and dry. That is a recipe for painful sex. It HURTS to have sex when the woman is not aroused. This is not easy for her and it is definitely not pleasant. It's physically painful and emotionally damaging. Why you think women can easily engage in sex when they're not turned on is beyond me. This is why prostitution is seen as such a degrading job. It is not at all pleasurable.

 

But if a woman did feel disrespect in that case, of course she shouldn't do it. The question remains though, for women who wouldn't feel such disrespect, why is the notion itself so outlandish? I've already answered it via the storekeeper analogy, stock in trade.

 

You refuse to acknowledge the reality that most women would feel extremely disrespected by this. That's why they have a problem with it. As for the ones who wouldn't feel disrespected by it, good luck finding them. They are very rare indeed.

[dasein]

You seem to want to have the final word on what is a valid statement.

 

Comparing a hetero woman having sex with a hetero man out of compassion to a hetero man having sex with a homo man out of compassion is outlandish.

 

Trying to define setting aside ones basic "sexual orientation" as equivalent to all the factors that add into whether a person is disposed to have sex with another person of complementary orientation is also outlandish.

[johan]

Comparing a hetero woman having sex with a hetero man out of compassion to a hetero man having sex with a homo man out of compassion is outlandish.

 

Trying to define setting aside ones basic "sexual orientation" as equivalent to all the factors that add into whether a person is disposed to have sex with another person of complementary orientation is also outlandish.

 

I accept that as your opinion.

 

In my mind it isn't a bad analogy. Particularly because in both cases the person is being penetrated. When someone is trying to stick something inside you, it's a big deal psychologically. It better be something you want.

[dasein]

Very regularly? No, this behavior is not nearly as common as you think.

 

These women are very rare,

 

IME women trading sex for money, power, being a member of a stud's harem, trips, gifts, drugs, or proximity to those is not rare at all, rather business as usual.

 

Maybe I should move to Utah, because I've been most everywhere else.

[Cypress25]

IME women trading sex for money, power, being a member of a stud's harem, trips, gifts, drugs, or proximity to those is not rare at all, rather business as usual.

 

Your personal experience is not representative of the rest of the world. It's extremely rare. Most women are not whores, no matter what you believe.

 

You also have a tendency to jump to conclusions, even though your actual knowledge is based on nothing. You don't actually know why certain women have sex with certain men. You're just guessing. You see a woman with a financially successful man and you assume she's dating him for the money. In reality, they probably have a healthy relationship based on mutual attraction, love, respect, and shared values. They probably share a very special emotional and intellectual bond. But you don't know about any of that because you've never actually spoken to these people, so you assume it's just a case of the woman trading sex for money. It never occurs to you that she might actually like the guy.

 

Why don't you try this: Stop jumping to conclusions about people you don't even know.

[coffeeaddict]

Well, there's an direct correlation between the amount money a man has the amount of women willing to date him. That's just a reality of modern day life, certainly modern day American life. If "Somedude81" was to win the lottery tomorrow, it wouldn't solve his problems overnight; but I would wager he wouldn't have an issue getting dates anymore. People can deny that until the cows come home, but why not be upfront about it instead?

 

If a man trades access to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for a relationship/permanent sex arrangement with a woman, that's considered to be okay. If a man trades a few hundred dollars for a very temporary sexual arrangement, that's not okay? That's terrible and degrading and bad? From my way of thinking, the latter is basically a microcosm of the former.

 

There's not a whole lot of difference between A) Going out with someone because they have a lot of money, B) Having sex with someone because they have money. Yeah, there's kinda/sorta/maybe a relationship aspect in A that doesn't exist in B. But the relationship is predicated on money, so in both scenarios it ultimately it comes back to money; it's Human attention for money. The only difference is one is short term while the other is long term.

 

If something is a commodity, and sexual access is ultimately a commodity, then whoever controls access to that commodity has a monopoly. If you have a monopoly you set the terms for who gets something and when they get it. Prostitution removes that monopoly. Isn't it simply a question of some women (not all, but some) opposing prostitution because if a man can buy sex when he wants it, they don't perceive it to be in their interests?

 

I know that I will be assailed for describing sex as a commodity, but again let's be upfront. Married women are pretty well known to treat sexual access as a commodity, and to use sex to manipulate men. I mean, that's been happening since we descended down from the trees. Also a lot of the folks who oppose selling sex because it "commoditizes" women are themselves guilty of commoditizing men in all sorts of ways. Commoditizing them according to how they look, how tall they are, how much money they make, and so on.

 

If you select your mate on the basis of these type of things, then I don't think it's fair to cry foul when they, in turn, objectify you.

 

A) I'm against degradation of women.

B) I'm against abuse of women.

 

From my way of thinking, isn't that already occurring? Since the pimps control prostitution and often run the women's lives. If you legalized it and regulated it and it was nice and clean and safe, you could get the pimps out of it and there would be less degradation and abuse of women. There was all kinds of violence and criminality associated with bootlegging liquor during prohibition, now whiskey is sold in nice clean well-lit stores.

 

Last point, a lot of women date men in consensual non-prostitute relationships are degraded, right? The level of anger directed towards those relationships seems (from my observation) to be a lot less than the level of animosity directed toward some mild-mannered 5'2" guy who's called "abusive" because he wants to exchange money for a physical experience which he would otherwise (likely) never have.

 

Perhaps it's because those relationships are characterized by her having commitment-free cock at her leisure, whereas prostitution is commitment-free vagina at his leisure? Or perhaps it's something else.

 

I'll end my post by quoting the late great George Carlin, "Selling is legal" "****ing is legal" "Why isn't selling ****ing legal."

[zengirl]

But if a woman did feel disrespect in that case, of course she shouldn't do it. The question remains though, for women who wouldn't feel such disrespect, why is the notion itself so outlandish? I've already answered it via the storekeeper analogy, stock in trade.

 

To me, the notion of my body, my sexuality, and my emotions as "stock" is what is outlandish. The notion of my body as an object that I should use to pleasure someone is offensive to me. It takes away my personhood. Many women aren't upset about that because they have been taught not to "give away the goods" as you put it, but rather they have been taught not to think of themselves and their sexuality as goods and to take ownership of their own bodies and sexuality.

 

I'll gladly give away my goods -- my material wealth and things -- and my time to others, and I do, frequently. I give more money and time in charity and kindness than most people do. The notion that I should "give" my body (or my mind or my soul or my emotions or my personhood) in any way repulses me because that's simply not the same thing. It's not "goods" at all, and that's what you seem to fail to see in these posts. The fact that some women have decided to reject their personhood (because society and people like you constantly tell them to) and trade on their sexuality does not mean it should ever be a woman's stock and trade.

[William]

The thread starter wrote:

It made me think that the notion of pity sex means different things. Some may think that it was saying that I am pathetic and pity sex was the only way I can get laid. While I can think of it as saying. "He's a good guy that 's having trouble, let's do something nice for him and make his day.

 

Let's keep the discussion focused the meaning of pity sex and save the business (sex as a business transaction) discussions for another thread. Carry on.

[dasein]

To me, the notion of my body, my sexuality, and my emotions as "stock" is what is outlandish.

 

No, enlarging the topic from -sex- to emotions and "body" is what is outlandish when so many women trade sex for consideration every day of the world. If you don't do that, so what? -many- women do. Sex is what is being discussed here, end in itself. If a woman who would have sex with a guy who took her on a nice vacation, a celebrity, a guy who gave her a gift, or even a ride in his Porsche or a sit in the hot tub in his mansion, for example, with no expectation of emotional fulfillment or intimacy, if she would EVER consider a ONS, FWB arrangement, etc., and there are MANY women who do such regularly, why couldn't she also give sex to friends or acquaintances, even if very rarely and subject to lots of conditions, as a matter of simple human compassion?

 

A poster here recently has bragged about starting a NSA deal with a model. Good for her. If the guy is studly enough, she is willing to have sex, and all the "need emotional fulfillment" "body as temple" BULLSH-T goes right out the window. She is in essence viewing sex as an end in itself. Fine, that's great and healthy IMO. If there are women who are capable of this, and there are very many who are, why aren't there even a few women who would consider having sex with a merely acceptably attractive acquaintance out of mere compassion? If they can do it with the hot guy, why is the prospect of doing it with a less hot, but acceptable guy to "do him a solid," so "disgusting?"

 

It's because they aren't -getting- anything extra other than the sex. Has nothing to do with the intimacy strawman, because they are perfectly willing and able to do it with the superhot guy, or the super rich guy, or the guy with the baggy, or with the Porsche, or with the right colored tuque, or the guy who bought them a few drinks.

 

So all of your -body as temple- talk goes right out the window in the context of what women do IRL every day of the world, not -you- but women generally do every single day, trade sex for resources.

 

In essence, you are the shopkeeper enraged at the prospect of giving away the store for free. -WE- didn't set it up as a store, -YOU- all did and have been doing so since the beginning of time. As stated previously, women in the relatively recent past wouldn't -trade- sex for anything other than marriage, PROVING that women have and do view sex as stock in trade, whether -you- do or not.

Edited March 31, 2012 by dasein

[dasein]

Let's keep the discussion focused the meaning of pity sex and save the business (sex as a business transaction) discussions for another thread. Carry on.

 

Huh? The two aren't distinct at all, and part of the same issue.

[William]

You'll get this one opportunity to address the topic or you'll get a vacation. Your choice.

[dasein]

OK. As posted previously, I think the term "pity sex" is unnecessarily negatively charged and pejorative, and much prefer describing the behavior as a function of compassion, not pity. No one likes to feel pity or to feel pitied, so by setting it out as "pity sex" it attributes unnecessary negative baggage to the act.

 

In that context, the question becomes, why women find the prospect of having sex, something they do regularly for -lots- of different reasons definitely not limited to emotional fulfillment or intimacy, offensive if the reason becomes "to help out a friend in need?" Provided the friend was attractive -enough-, what's the big deal? If there are certain women who can't separate sex from emotion, sure they shouldn't do it. But if there are women who are capable of NSA sex, ONS, FWB, etc., what makes the prospect so "repulsive" and unthinkable?

 

The question is not about having sex with someone one finds repulsive, someone of opposite sexual orientation, someone one might get attached to. I'd really like to hear from women who have and continue to engage in NSA sex or FWBs, either frequently or from time to time, for whatever reason, what makes the prospect of having sex with someone "good enough" as an expression of compassion such a wacky notion?

[somedude81]

We women are devious creatures. It may have happened to you and you just never knew it... :p:p

What has already happened? Being offered or actually had pity sex with somebody?

 

I'm very certain that I've never had pity sex.

I've said it before and I'll say it again he wouldn't know what to do with a naked woman if she fell in his lap. He pretty much needs a girl to rape him on some regular basis... any takers?

Really Dust?

Isn't the point of getting laid in part to find a woman who desires to have sex with you?

Of course.

 

Unfortunately, for some men, finding a woman who wants to have sex with him, is harder than just having sex.

Egh most likely you wouldn't know.

 

Many gals fake orgasms and attraction.

I've heard of women faking orgasm, but faking attraction? Never.

That mindset can often lead to pressuring, blackmailing, bullying, forced, and conformity.

That's sexual coercion, which has more in common with rape then pity sex which is 100% the woman's choice.

Not unless she's giving the freebie because she feels sorry for the person.

 

Pity sex isn't like free sex or no strings attached sex as generally in those things both parties are attracted to each other and want to have sex with each other.

 

It's sex because the person feels sorry for you often because they find you pathetic.

Pity sex is free, no strings attached sex generally because the woman feels sorry for the man.

 

 

 

Speaking for myself, and for other women I know, sex is something we have to really feel like doing in order for it to work for us. Whether it's because of emotional aspects or just because we really desire to have sex with that particular person at that time, it's really not the same as sharing our sandwich with a hungry friend or giving a dollar to the needy person on the street corner.

That's why I think pity sex is so rare. Having sex with somebody isn't like giving them $100 when they are on really hard times.

 

I'm pretty sure you would not take kindly if a woman "bit the bullet" and had sex with you just because she felt sorry for you, and if she really did not want to at all.

I wouldn't want that at all.

 

In the ideal situation I imagined, it would be with a very good female friend one has known for a while. She has already established that she does not want to date this man and is not interested in him sexually but still 'loves' him. Knowing that he's really lonely and could use some female company, she sleeps with him. The 'pity sex' would actually be a gift that she gives. And yes I'm aware that the odds of the above actually happening to anybody are very rare.

i would like to see somedude having "pity sex" with a FAT, ugly chick.

 

oh, wait...he has the right to be picky and selective, but women don't...i forgot

LOL, and who would be giving who the pity sex?

Because it would make them feel terrible. Despite what you believe about all women being sluts, most women actually do have standards. Expecting them to have pity sex with you is expecting them to sacrifice their dignity and self-respect just to give you a few minutes of pleasure. Have you thought about how that would make the woman feel? She would most likely feel disgusted and violated, and she'd probably cry herself to sleep over it.

 

For most women, sex is a big deal and it has an emotional impact on them. The vast majority of women are not nearly as casual about sex as you think. Even for the women who have had one-night stands, they did it because they were attracted to the guy, so the sex was enjoyable for them. Having sex with someone you're not even attracted to would be horribly uncomfortable and degrading. Why should anyone be willing to make themselves feel that way?

 

Basically, your whole premise is that the woman's feelings don't matter, and she should be willing to give you whatever you want, even if it makes her feel terrible. Listen, dude. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable for both people. It's not just for your pleasure; her pleasure matters too. You may not like the guys that a woman chooses to have sex with, but obviously she likes them, and it has nothing to do with you. Nobody owes you anything.

Thank you for the informative post. It further explained things I already thought.

 

Though one thing that bugs me and obviously AIDsFan1488, is the women who consistently make, "bad choices." If sex was so sacred, why have it with a guy who doesn't care about her at all and just wants sex and nothing else?

I don't think it's different at all. The way a woman feels who isn't attracted to you is pretty much the same way you feel about a gay guy. You expect a woman to do what you wouldn't do yourself?

It's not that way at all, because in no circumstances whatsoever, would a straight man ever be into a guy guy. Straight women are actually into men and the thought shouldn't be nearly as disgusting. It doesn't go against their sexual orientation. The only comparison that would make sense is trying to get pity sex from a lesbian; which I've actually thought about at one point She was a nice girl but from what she told me about her past, it would pretty much ruin her friendship. It was definitely not something I could ask for.

[counterman]

I would never accept pity sex from someone, even if she is really hot. I know this is purely hypothetical but I just can't see myself doing it. Also, I would never give anyone pity sex. I just don't envisage how giving sex because you pity someone will rectify the situation or circumstances which caused you to pity them in the first place.

[Dust]

AIDSfan you're a smart guy but your arguments are out of touch with reality. It makes perfect sense even in your own logic why girls don't just sleep with lonely guys just because they are lonely guys. You said it yourself they value sex more than that so whether thats artificial or not you can't change reality.

 

I tend to think you're overthinking the situation. You're a healthy guy and actualy pretty witty. If you just start thinking about this diferently getting girls would actually be pretty easy for you.

 

My friend I like to use as an example is only 5'2. He lives at home with his mother. He doesn't work any fancy job but he does work. He has no problem getting pretty gf's who I know he has sex with. He even has been known to use a girl for sex which I don't agree with but the point is he isn't anything special. He has a lot of obstacles just being 5'2 and not some rich guy or brag worthy job. Yet he's very laid back and funny... doubt as funny as you... but unlike you he doesn't think or argue ridiculous positions.

 

You really shouldn't be nice to a girl expecting sex. It doesn't work that way. It's about finding a conection with a girl. Some times that connection is about telling them you're going to fck the sht out of them. Some times its about having a great conversation and then kissing them.

 

The biggest key it seems for me at least was when I started having fun chasing women. You've seen me here I always just flirt and say perverse stuff to girls. I really don't even expect it to go any where even if I've tried. I take that same mentality into my real life. I enjoy the act of trying. Truth be told girls aren't as hard as you think to get. Thats what you need to get through your head. You know when you see a person struggling to lose weight and its as easy as "don't drink all that soda" and "start eating whole foods fruits and vegetables... limit meat"... in fact you could simplify it more to "eat less." Now obviously for some one struggling with weight doing these things isn't that easy.... well for you its like that, you have a poor mindset about pitty sex and what you're owed. Its easy for me to say "hey just stop that and your problem is gone" but since you're the one struggling with this you need to stop it. Can you.

 

Pitty sex is a farce. The truth is any girl who just has sex with a guy because she can't say no because he bought her dinner or was just there is going to pay for it big. Girls arn't guys. They are people, just female people. You can get laid man its not that fricken hard. I know you believe its impossible, but feel free to come visit me man. I've thrown it out to the guys who struggle. It's all about having fun and enjoying the dance. Also I've never looked for girls who are attracted to me, I look for girls who i'm attracted too. big difference. Stop looking for some girl who wants to let you do stuff.. and look for a girl you want to do stuff too. You know you want to do stuff to!

 

If some girl told me she was giving me pitty sex and she wasn't into her I'd laugh. If some girl who some how happened to be hot for some crazy reason was offering me pitty sex I wouldn't be insulted. I'd say "no my dear this is me giving you pitty sex I think you could use it."

 

Truth is I only sleep with girls I like and want to sleep with over and over again.

[Dust]

Guy's like me who's biggest sexual high of the week is reading an awesome Blow-Job description on LoveShack, would take pity sex no questions asked. Anytime, anyday and any position.

 

You sell yourself short you could get the real thing. by the way wheres that awsome blow job description you speak of?

[AIDsFan1488]

Fact of the matter is this.

 

Some men get richer, some men get poorer.

 

I'm in the poorer category and no woman cares. The world isn't fair , don't expect anything different.

[Dust]

Fact of the matter is this.

 

Some men get richer, some men get poorer.

 

I'm in the poorer category and no woman cares. The world isn't fair , don't expect anything different.

 

I'd hate to be a woman. You're not a child. You made it you're a grown healthy man and you're smart enough to be funny. The way I see it the world isn't fair but it would be easy for you to take that to your advantage. I don't feel sorry for you other then what you're doing to yourself.

 

I really feel you want girls to like you. Thats your big mistake. It's not about getting girls to like you... or pitty you or have any feelings for you. You think I have sex with girls because I want them to like me hahahahaah. Come on snap out of it. You said you used to do good with girls because you were in shape. I disagree thats why you were doing good but if its that easy just get in shape. Fact is if you're not fat you'll lok in shape in clothes. Where a sports coat with shoulder pads and you'll look really in shape as long as you don't have a huge gut. By the time you're gettng naked no ones backing out but you most likely hah. I mean examine the things you think and see how many excuses you're making. If girls are so stupid as you say for instance wouldn't that make them easy targets? You need to follow your own logic no flip flop around and look for pitty sex.

[Taramere]

A male friend told me that the three things he gets from sex are

 

1. Physical release

2. A sense of having "conquered"

3. Validation from the woman wanting him

 

One, he can get from masturbation, two and three requires a woman. In the case of "pity" sex clearly 2 wouldn't apply....unless appealing to a woman's sense of compassion was part of a "scamming" strategy to manipulate her into agreeing to sex which presumably isn't the case here.

 

Three wouldn't apply either, because the woman didn't really want to have sex. She did it out of that same combination of duty and compassion that makes people put money into a charity tin. Altruism isn't a great thing to be on the receiving end. It's far more life-enhancing, self esteem building and healthy to feel that another person is doing something for you because they want to. Because they too are getting something they want out of the exchange.

 

Another reason for sex is, of course, the emotional intimacy with another person. A female friend might seem like the ideal person to get that from. However, if she isn't physically attracted to you, she's probably going to detach completely during the sex act in order not to be thoroughly creeped out.

 

Bottom line is, if you're close to a woman but she has absolute no sexual attraction to you, then you're not in friend zone. You're in brother zone....and brothers most definitely are outside most women's orientation.

 

So I suppose my question for the men who believe that women should start going down the "give a man pity sex" road is...what do you believe you would get from it, that you couldn't get far more easily (and without any friendship awkwardness) from masturbation?

 

There's always this talk of women overvaluing their own genitalia.

I don't think women do. I think most probably view their own bodies in a very practical light - as something to be kept fit and healthy.

 

I think the mystique attached to women's bodies is something men place there...and that number 5 missing from all the reasons above involves the look, feel and smell of a woman's body up close. Which, if you want to stop a woman slipping from friend zone into brother zone, is probably something you need to convey your interest in fairly early on in your dealings with her.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Taramere

[oaks]

A male friend told me that the three things he gets from sex are

 

1. Physical release

2. A sense of having "conquered"

3. Validation from the woman wanting him

 

I've never worried too much about 2, but I'd add to my personal list "the satisfaction of giving pleasure".

[Mme. Chaucer]

Though one thing that bugs me and obviously AIDsFan1488, is the women who consistently make, "bad choices." If sex was so sacred, why have it with a guy who doesn't care about her at all and just wants sex and nothing else?

 

It doesn't have to be "sacred," it just (usually) has to be something we really want to do. Whether it is a good or bad choice or whether the "reasons" are right or not isn't the issue.

[ThaWholigan]

It doesn't have to be "sacred," it just (usually) has to be something we really want to do. Whether it is a good or bad choice or whether the "reasons" are right or not isn't the issue.

I guess the challenge for them now is simply to make peace with it and accept is as it is. Difficult, but I figured at least a few years ago that it would be far easier in the long run to be introspective about this particular issue and accept it and see what I can do to enhance my abilities, rather than rail on women just because they won't sleep with me.

[zengirl]

It doesn't have to be "sacred," it just (usually) has to be something we really want to do.

 

Right. I don't know why this notion is so often criticized or missed. Most women I know don't think of sex as "sacred" but they have to actually want to do it to go do it. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with you, it's not like she's placing her lady parts on a pedestal -- she just doesn't want to have sex with you. End-stop.

 

The notion of men saying, "But I'd have sex with someone I didn't want to have sex with," kind of misses the point. Johan tried to point that out with his extreme example -- and the answer is, no, if you were truly not into it, you wouldn't. It comes down to, "I'd have sex with someone I didn't prefer." Many women ALSO have sex with someone they don't fully prefer -- from what I've observed, it's generally not pity sex either* -- but that they want to have sex with at that time.

 

*I actually think 'pity sex' is a funny term because I think most pity sex isn't really pity sex. Calling it 'pity sex' is just a particular way of validating a choice. "Oh, yeah, that guy/gal isn't really good enough for me, but I had sex with them, so it was just pity sex -- I didn't really get into it" in retrospect. But MMV on this, of course. Women are more likely to do this because they are more likely to say, "Sure that chick was ugly, but I just had to get laid!" or something as an excuse.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I guess the challenge for them now is simply to make peace with it and accept is as it is. Difficult, but I figured at least a few years ago that it would be far easier in the long run to be introspective about this particular issue and accept it and see what I can do to enhance my abilities, rather than rail on women just because they won't sleep with me.

 

That's because you are awesome!

[Els]

So... because you can't afford it but want it, you're entitled towards women giving it to you, otherwise they're selfish bitches who are holding back their 'stock' so that they can make a profit out of selling it to others, or just to spite you and make the 'rich richer'?

 

Christ, no wonder you guys can't get any.