Buying a Woman's Affection

[january2011]

I can certainly understand that view.

 

It also made me think of something I read on LS a while back. Some women commented that men can never "use women for sex" because it's the woman's choice to have sex. Isn't this kind of the flip side of the same thing? She can't really be "using" him if he's doing it voluntarily.

 

She's using him if what she gives him is not equitable in value to what he's giving her.

 

What's problematic is how one measures that value. Judging from most of the responses so far, we don't consider that her spending time with him is equitable in value to his gift-giving. We assume that he must want sex or a relationship out of it. She's offering neither. While it's pure speculation on my part, I suspect that the promise of those things are equitable in value in his mind. Thus his continued investment.

 

She says that she isn't going to have sex with him nor does she want a long-term relationship, but her actions in accepting gifts from him and continuing to spend time with him seem to contradict those words. I suspect that he is ignoring what she's saying and is encouraged by her actions to continue his pursuit.

 

Nothing in life is free and one pays one's dues in one way or another. I suggest she pulls away completely before things turn sour.

[threebyfate]

I'm getting some strange vibes in this thread which surround both the resentment of money and the mercenary nature of women. Time for me to back out of this thread.

[EasyHeart]

That's a fair point. The materialism aspect is probably a personality trait; you are or you aren't.

 

The pushiness, now that I think about it, is probably a red flag that he's still healing from his divorce. I've seen that before in recently divorced men.

[gaius]

She's using him if what she gives him is not equitable in value to what he's giving her.

 

What's problematic is how one measures that value. Judging from most of the responses so far, we don't consider that her spending time with him is equitable in value to his gift-giving. We assume that he must want sex or a relationship out of it. She's offering neither. While it's pure speculation on my part, I suspect that the promise of those things are equitable in value in his mind. Thus his continued investment.

 

She says that she isn't going to have sex with him nor does she want a long-term relationship, but her actions in accepting gifts from him and continuing to spend time with him seem to contradict those words. I suspect that he is ignoring what she's saying and is encouraged by her actions to continue his pursuit.

 

Nothing in life is free and one pays one's dues in one way or another. I suggest she pulls away completely before things turn sour.

He gives her an iPad and a free vacation and she gives him the valuable life lesson that buying people things can't make up for a lack of sexual attraction. Sounds equitable to me. If he doesn't learn it from her he will just learn it from someone else.

[january2011]

He gives her an iPad and a free vacation and she gives him the valuable life lesson that buying people things can't make up for a lack of sexual attraction. Sounds equitable to me. If he doesn't learn it from her he will just learn it from someone else.

 

True. Life lessons can be of considerable value. She could be his transition woman.

 

However, is she happy to play that role? And can she do it respectfully so that she leaves him better off and hopeful rather than bitter about dating after divorce?

[threebyfate]

He gives her an iPad and a free vacation and she gives him the valuable life lesson that buying people things can't make up for a lack of sexual attraction. Sounds equitable to me. If he doesn't learn it from her he will just learn it from someone else.

Just one more comment.

 

This is what makes me wonder how much of this story is synthesized. Too many Aesop's fable life lessons to the story, all with negative assumptions on the dark side of humanity.

[dasein]

It's not that complicated IMO. If someone likes you and you don't like them, and you have decided that is not going to change, move on. Don't hang around and take sex, trips, attention, money, gifts, friendship, whatever. The analysis really ends there for thoughtful people dating regardless of gender. Selfish people try to disregard other's feelings in favor of their own and try to convert and rationalize situations such as this into personal benefit. It's never going to end well for the person with unrequited feelings, Hollywood scripts notwithstanding.

[veggirl]

OP you are seriously asking if using someone is okay or acceptable behavior?

 

I think the fact that your friend is doing this says volumes about her character. Nothing positive. And that you think it's okay for her to act like this says something about yours as well.

 

A grown woman who "has" to go on a free vaca cause she "can'" say no? Pathetic and likely untrue. She just wants the trip.

[EasyHeart]

Just one more comment.

 

This is what makes me wonder how much of this story is synthesized. Too many Aesop's fable life lessons to the story, all with negative assumptions on the dark side of humanity.

Wait. What?

 

Are you saying that I made up a story?

[EasyHeart]

And that you think it's okay for her to act like this says something about yours as well.

 

True. But, then again, I freely admit that I'm a slut.

[EasyHeart]

It's not that complicated IMO. If someone likes you and you don't like them, and you have decided that is not going to change, move on. Don't hang around and take sex, trips, attention, money, gifts, friendship, whatever. The analysis really ends there for thoughtful people dating regardless of gender. Selfish people try to disregard other's feelings in favor of their own and try to convert and rationalize situations such as this into personal benefit. It's never going to end well for the person with unrequited feelings, Hollywood scripts notwithstanding.

That was my first thought as well. But do we really have any obligation to people with whom we're not in a relationship. Her real issue, as I mentioned in another post, is passivity.

 

But if she's not actively encouraging him and she's not leading him on by telling him they have a future (and by telling him that she's not going to sleep with him), isn't the blame on him for continuing to pursue?

 

What if we take the money out of it? If she were just going out with him on basic dates but had no interest in taking things farther, would that be any different?

[veggirl]

That was my first thought as well. But do we really have any obligation to people with whom we're not in a relationship. Her real issue, as I mentioned in another post, is passivity.

 

Of course she has no obligation to this guy, I don't think anyone said she does? But using him for gifts / vacas / dinners when she is not interested in him is just SCUMMY in general. If you want to get into technicalities, then no technically she isn't like, breaking the law or something, she's just being a really s.hitty person.

 

But if she's not actively encouraging him and she's not leading him on by telling him they have a future (and by telling him that she's not going to sleep with him), isn't the blame on him for continuing to pursue?

 

Uh, agreeing to do things with him, accepting his offers...that IS "actively encouraging him" and leading him on. That's not his fault. Yeah he is stupid to buy someone he barely knows all this stuff, but she's a jerk to accept. You have no idea if she has ACTUALLY said "I'm not going to sleep with you" and the stuff about 2 hotel rooms...I call BS!

 

What if we take the money out of it? If she were just going out with him on basic dates but had no interest in taking things farther, would that be any different?

 

*Would* she do that? No, because she wouldn't be getting anything out of it. The situation wouldn't exist. Your user friend wouldn't hang out with a guy she DOESN'T LIKE if he wasn't buying her stuff.

[dasein]

Will go with VG's response, pretty much what I would have said but I may have tried to work a dig on feminism into it

[threebyfate]

Wait. What?

 

Are you saying that I made up a story?

Strange vibes to this story for whatever reason(s).

 

What I sense are:

1. Resentment of money, as it relates to have or have not or belief in stereotyping that men who have are trying to buy partners whether sexual or love interests. What you're failing to realize is that many men with money, when they go to and on what you deem as expensive places/trips, are just continuing their current lifestyles.
   
2. Resentment of what's deemed as the mercenary nature of women, that women can be bought. The truth is that most people have their price, whether monetary or in other forms.
   
3. Dislike of divorced individuals, as being lesser dating material.
   

Finally, the summation of #1 and #2 resentments gets collated to the homily "you can't buy love" and how inexperienced and inept this man to even try, since he's a sad sack divorcé, where the inference is that you`re a more experienced and better man than this inept divorced and wealthy dater.

[FitChick]

He'd be better served spending the money by taking his two kids on a trip to reassure them that, while he and their mother don't like each other, he still wants to have a relationship with them.

 

So many married men think once they get divorced, the world will be their oyster and women will fall at their feet. They soon find out the grass isn't always greener.

[ascendotum]

She's obviously using him for the perks and will eventually break his heart. Poor shmuck doesn't realize he is being used, and thinks he can buy her affections. Women don't respect men who are like that. I guess he will learn the hard way, after spending a ton of money on her.

 

I've known a couple of guys who operated like the dude in this post and unlike you I have no symapthy for them if the girl was to leave after a month. Some women dont like their affection being bought or feel an uneasiness at the money being thrown at them as its somewhat a sign of desperation to make up for their inadequacies when it comes to basic attractiveness.

He's not being used, he's the one being pushy and not taking no for an answer. That assertiveness/determination has served him in his career, and he uses the same methodology to his women. He has found a pretty girl who is not assertive and is materialistic, bingo. He wants to buy her an iPad on their 2nd date and trip away after a few more dates....he's a bit of a shmuck but not a poor one and likely not stupid (maybe when it comes to romance tho) and its his desire to impress that's motivating him, not her pretending to be keen on him. I have heard from some women who have dated guys like this, that really lash out the $ to impress them when courting them, that the generosity can quickly stop after she settles into a relationship with the guy.

[TheFinalWord]

So I have this friend (no, really!) who's been seeing a guy for about six weeks. She thinks he's an okay guy, but she doesn't see any long-term romantic potential for a number of reasons, like he lives far away, he's recently divorced with two kids (she's single, never married) and most importantly she doesn't feel much physical attraction towards him. They're both in their 30s.

 

He is chasing her very aggressively. Also, when he takes her out, he always makes a point of taking her to expensive places and doing expensive things. He's also made several comments about how rich he is and keeps offering to buy her things. For instance, they were wandering around at the Mall and went the Apple Store, he tried to buy her an IPad. This was on their second date!

 

Most recently, he asked her to go away for a weekend trip with him. He is going to some sort of convention or something and asked to be his date. She felt very awkward about this, but he pressured her and she finally agreed to go with him, provided he agreed to all her conditions (incl. separate rooms and no chance of sex).

 

She feels really awkward and uncomfortable about all of this. I told her that he's a grownup and knows what he's doing. If he wants to spend money on her, that's his decision and it's fine to take advantage of him if he's stupid enough to use this tactic. I also told her to see if he would buy an iPad for ME!!!!

 

What do you think? As long as she's been clear that she's not going to sleep with him, is it okay for her to go on this trip? And what do you think of men who try to impress women with their money?

 

I wouldn't recommend she go on a trip with him after only knowing him such a short time! He will definitely see that as a sign that she's into him. If you think he's aggressive now, just wait!

[mesmerized]

Are you even serious??? Your friend must be dumb as a brick if she can say "no" to any sexual advance but not to a trip and dating.

[Feelsgoodman]

When buying a woman's affection, it's best to chose a service provider who charges by the hour and accepts payment on delivery. Paying money upfront without an explicit understanding as to what you are actually buying creates a perverse incentive for breach of contract.

[Sid6.7]

When buying a woman's affection, it's best to chose a service provider who charges by the hour and accepts payment on delivery. Paying money upfront without an explicit understanding as to what you are actually buying creates a perverse incentive for breach of contract.

 

Absolutely. If I were to spend money on a chic (which I don't) it would be from a professional. Not you babe.

[zengirl]

She's using him if what she gives him is not equitable in value to what he's giving her.

 

What's problematic is how one measures that value. Judging from most of the responses so far, we don't consider that her spending time with him is equitable in value to his gift-giving. We assume that he must want sex or a relationship out of it. She's offering neither. While it's pure speculation on my part, I suspect that the promise of those things are equitable in value in his mind. Thus his continued investment.

 

Honestly, this is what is problematic about the question.

 

It is not the way I want to conduct my personal relationships (on either side), but there are some people who would see it as equitable value, I think. There are also some people who would do it, despite not seeing the status quo as equitable value, for the hope of a payoff in the future (re: sex, a relationship, whatever). In the first case, neither party is likely to be hurt. In the second case, one party is. In neither case, however, is one person responsible for understanding what the other views as equitable.

 

Personally, I prefer a relationship where there is no exchange rate (meaning: what's equitable isn't the idea -- the idea is you want to be together)! BUT who am I to dictate that my kind of relationship is the only proper kind of human relationship?

 

And why would it be any 'more' equitable if they slept together? Or if they had a R? Why is that notion even buried in the OP or any of the replies. I suspect it's because people think the man is not happy with the situation and feeling like he's getting something out of it now, but rather waiting for a payoff in the future. In that case, I'd say that I find HIS actions as poor as hers.

 

Nothing in life is free and one pays one's dues in one way or another. I suggest she pulls away completely before things turn sour.

 

Though I also agree with this and agree that the dynamic doesn't seem healthy or likely to bring happiness to either of them. Nor is that much passivity a good quality to cultivate.

 

It's not that complicated IMO. If someone likes you and you don't like them, and you have decided that is not going to change, move on. Don't hang around and take sex, trips, attention, money, gifts, friendship, whatever. The analysis really ends there for thoughtful people dating regardless of gender.

 

I don't think you can 'take' friendship, but I basically agree with you in terms of how I manage my Rs and would want people to manage their Rs. However, what about people who don't want sincere Rs? They do exist, and they could meet each other (the problem is more when they get around people who DO want sincere Rs).

 

Why should they have to follow the same model or be labeled thoughtless or wrong? Why is it not a valid thing to want? If one can want just sex in this day and age, why can't one want just companionship (on one side) or fun, expensive dates (on the other side)? I'm not really sure what either party wants or gets in this scenario, and I don't understand why it would be fun for either of them, but I'm also not comfortable calling them thoughtless for it since there doesn't seem to be any malice and the only issue is the value system doesn't align with mine.

 

That was my first thought as well. But do we really have any obligation to people with whom we're not in a relationship.

 

Well, yes, we do. Basic human decency and compassion. From what you've written, I don't see her violating that. However, the fact that she feels dissonance about this situation and that it is uncomfortable suggests that she might want to consider it. It really depends on what he wants and why he's doing what he's doing.

 

Her real issue, as I mentioned in another post, is passivity.

 

But if she's not actively encouraging him and she's not leading him on by telling him they have a future (and by telling him that she's not going to sleep with him), isn't the blame on him for continuing to pursue?

 

Is there really a difference between passively and actively encouraging someone? I think there is only a difference if you don't know his/her intentions (i.e. if someone is parading as a friend but has a secret crush, or if someone says they don't mind a sexless arrangement for some companionship but secretly wants to jump your bones --- you're not responsible for the 'secretly' generally, but you are responsible for what's reasonably known).

 

What if we take the money out of it? If she were just going out with him on basic dates but had no interest in taking things farther, would that be any different?

 

This is a good question. I think people are very sensitive about money. It's honestly odd to me --- I've never spent money on someone to get something, and I've never considered money spent on me as being done so 'in exchange' for anything else (nor would I let a man who I suspected thought that way spend a dime on me or associate with him), so perhaps that skews my perspective on the money dynamic.

 

Honestly, I really don't see that the money makes a difference. Theoretically, he is spending what he wants to spend and should not be expecting a payoff in the future. Theoretically, she is entitled to date or not date anyone she pleases and accept anything she likes. Neither party is acting in a way that makes them someone *I* would've wanted to date when single or would set up with a friend or so forth. I disagree with the dynamic in that sense, but I don't see it as a moral issue. I don't even see marriages that are clearly arranged for financial purposes, when both parties are basically aware of that, to be a problem. Why is it people get so fussy when money is mixed in?