PDA

View Full Version : Are all relationships legalised prostitution?


Hazzle
15-08-2006, 10:31 AM
On average the British single man spends £1,650 per year on getting into a relationship.

During the first six months of a relationship, they spend, on average, £1,426 lavishing presents on their lady.

So basically for six months of a relationship British men are paying over £3,000 pounds. That's over £500 a month!

In return for this the man obviously gets sex. And hopefully lots of it.

So are all relationships really legalised prostitution? We pay you money, you fuck us?

Leonie
15-08-2006, 10:36 AM
Is this a research of your personal life? :icon_lol:

Hazzle
15-08-2006, 10:43 AM
Yes :p.

No, someone posted it on another site I go to and it seemed interesting.

acliff
15-08-2006, 10:56 AM
Looked at a different way, does this suggest that British women are on average money grabbing whores who will only sleep with men for their money? Or does the average male think that throwing money at something will ensure its continuation? And continued from this, how does this compare with the spending patterns of relationships in other countries?

Haz, does this spending include things like holidays, because as a major expense that may well be what the average joe would spend yearly on holidays anyway.

Hazzle
15-08-2006, 11:14 AM
I believe the getting into the relationship stuff is just dates, drinks, etc.

The gifts may include holidays but I'd doubt it.

I wouldn't go on holiday with a girlfriend within 6 months. It's far too soon.

barrington
15-08-2006, 03:35 PM
You imply that during the first six months of a relationship a man accounts for 100% of all financial transactions concerning the courtship; the woman paying for nothing. If this was true I'd kick that whore out of my bed within a week. In my experience I'd say things have worked out about 60/40 in terms of outlay.

You sir, are an ass.

Hazzle
16-08-2006, 09:16 AM
I didn't imply anything. The statistics are there. The person who posted it on the other forum was a woman and the legalised prositution theory was entirely hers, in fact, I just thought it was interesting.

And actually my experience tells me it's about 70-30, maybe even 80-20. Certainly not 100% but definitely skewed.

Oh, and I also found this:

"Getting out and meeting people is certainly an expensive business, with the average date now costing £120, according to research from American Express. The study found men tend to spend on picking up the tab for drinks and meals, while women spend money on looking their best."

Which adds to the theory. And this (which, now that I've found it, seems to be where her research came from as the male spend statistic is identical):

http://www.parship.co.uk/common/main/public/misc/research/August2005_1.pdf

Look particularly at the passage that says:

Men in particular are prone to reacting on impulse: in the first six months of a relationship a man will spend freely on impressing his love interest, clocking up twice the spend of the average woman.

On average, men splash out £1,426 compared to just £740 by women.

The interesting statistic is that after 12 months the 6-monthly spend of men decreases and that of women increases. It's also interesting that if you look at most relationships, the amount of times you have sex per week is less after the 12 month period, and greater during the first 6 months.

Again, it's just a theory, not mine, and I don't think it's ENTIRELY true, but it does hold weight and is worthy of discussion. With the American Express study that women generally spent money on "looking good" that would fit in with the legalised prositution theory. Why else is looking good more important to the woman, and looking wealthy more important to the man?

Men, let's be honest, are shallow and drawn to looks. Women are drawn to money.

Katielondon
16-08-2006, 09:45 AM
iguess you theorys kind of right, i wish my girlfriend would let me pay more but for some reason she thinks its wrong for me to, im sure many straight girls get this with guys too?

Hazzle
16-08-2006, 10:09 AM
Yeah, that's actually a good point. I think men often LIKE to pay for things for their girlfriends, partly out of an attempt to impress, and partly because that's how they feel it should be? I dunno, I know I actually get pleasure out of spending money on my girlfriend. It's fun and enjoyable and I think that part of it makes it hard for straight women to redress the balance, perhaps, because the sexual stereotypes are in place.

So instead they replace this with trying extra hard to look good to make up for the fact he's always paying for stuff, which then in turn promulgates the theory that women use sex to get men to buy them stuff. There's little doubt women use sex to get what they want (and I think most women would agree with this) and know it's a very useful tool to manipulate a man. Men can't do this as sex IS what we want. So perhaps we pay for lavish gifts because we think if she thinks she's going to get more, she'll put out more often. I wouldn't go so far as to say women DO put out more often for gifts, however.

I definitely think it's interesting and I wasn't being shallow or critical of women.

Katielondon
16-08-2006, 10:16 AM
my girlfriend just sees it as looking after me, i want to buy my own stuff a lot of the time but shes very insistant, and from my personal point of view i dont use sex to manipulate at all, i sleep with soomeone because i find i enjoyable but i agree some women do use it to get what they want from men, i guess its just different for me.

Hazzle
16-08-2006, 10:20 AM
Because you're not sleeping with men ;).

Women aren't easily manipulated by sex. Men are. It's our Kryptonite.

And yeah, I think the "taking care of" aspect is interesting, but when you look at the stats for heterosexual couples, it's mainly men doing the "taking care of" which I think definitely admits that there is a gender stereotype still. In theory I always say I like women who pay their own way but in practice I never let them so I don't see the point. Every so often they'll pay but I always feel bad about it, and yet, should I really?

Katielondon
16-08-2006, 10:25 AM
she definatly wants to be the dominant force in our relationship which im cool with, it feels a bit wierd sometimes though because shes as girlie as i am and is crap at bossing me around but i prefer it that way, men are slightly sex obsessed from my view but to say we dont enjoy it a lot too is just wrong.

Hazzle
16-08-2006, 10:30 AM
Oh no, I didn't imply women don't enjoy it. Just implied that men are far more obsessed by it. I know very well how much women enjoy it, but I definitely think they're less susceptible to it being used to manipulate them. I think a woman can outlast a man in terms of going without. Presumably the proliferation of sex toys for women does assist in this as does the comparitive merits of masturbation for each gender.

Katielondon
16-08-2006, 10:59 AM
i agree men are more sex obsessed but i think we actully enjoy sex more when we do have it

barrington
16-08-2006, 12:21 PM
Men are evolutionarily tasked with seeking the orgasm. Women are not. That is a statement of fact and, all things considered, your answer to this thread.

Hazzle
17-08-2006, 07:19 AM
Men are evolutionarily tasked with seeking the orgasm. Agreed. But are women evolutionarily tasked with finding a provider? Again, not meaning to be chauvanistic. I know many women like to provide for themselves, have their own jobs and careers and take a great deal of pride in their ability to support themselves regardless of any male in their life. But deep down does the female attraction to wealthier men come from the evolutionary desire for a provider?

Are relationships merely those two evolutionary desires colliding?

Leonie
17-08-2006, 07:44 AM
But deep down does the female attraction to wealthier men come from the evolutionary desire for a provider?

No, that's just because we like shopping more than we like working :icon_bigg

acliff
17-08-2006, 09:07 AM
Men are evolutionarily tasked with seeking the orgasm. Agreed. But are women evolutionarily tasked with finding a provider? Again, not meaning to be chauvanistic. I know many women like to provide for themselves, have their own jobs and careers and take a great deal of pride in their ability to support themselves regardless of any male in their life. But deep down does the female attraction to wealthier men come from the evolutionary desire for a provider?

Are relationships merely those two evolutionary desires colliding?

From my reading and understanding, females are evolutionarily and genetically tasked to find 2 types of man, an alpha male and a beta male. A beta male is the provider. The alpha male is the male with desirable genes, genes that ensure the best chance of survival. In the Animal Kingdom, these two types are pretty distinct, with the female fertilising herself with the alpha male, and pretending the offspring is the beta males, so that the beta male will provide.

Moving away from lions and monkeys (but not too much), I suppose in human society, the ability to generate wealth is a survival skill and although pretty far removed from genetics, is very desireable. As physical strength and vitality are less important (unlike the animal kingdom, our existence is not just a matter of life and death, no matter how overdramatic we are feeling) wealth serves the dual purpose of ensuring the best chance of survival and success for children (this is a pretty basic view, of course things like upbringing, external influence are hugely important) and providing for the woman and child. Alpha and beta traits combined.
If a provider is lacking in the genetic qualities that a woman desires they may seek them in another man. This seems unfair, sadly it is a rather shocking real statistic where anything up to 30% (i can't be arsed to confirm this atm) of men may not be the father of their children, confirmed with DNA samples, and differing blood types between father and child.
Imagine the burn if your son is very ill and needs a kidney transplant, and on offering you find out that your son isn't even yours.

In reality, as human society is an hugely complex and highly fickle beast, there is much deviation from this, with things like social acceptance, love, necessity, differing psychological patterns.

If I sound like I'm rambling and don't make sense, its because I've only had 2 hours sleep.

Keira lover
29-04-2007, 10:44 PM
Technically, relations are legalized prostitutions. Men spend hundreds of $ to get in women's pants.

Hazzle
30-04-2007, 09:06 AM
Despite the rambling mess of its presentation, Cliff, that was a great post. Good insight and I think you make excellent points.

stranger
15-07-2007, 05:45 PM
this is absolutelly sick thinking . "relationship is never started for sex in normall person's . starting from sex can never lead to relationship ".

Ranman
15-07-2007, 10:21 PM
this is absolutelly sick thinking . "relationship is never started for sex in normall person's . starting from sex can never lead to relationship ".

Thats a virgin way of thinking. They should legalize prostitution so geeks can get laid too. Just think of how much the U.S.A. can make in taxes.

DragonRat
25-07-2007, 09:31 AM
Since money (as a concrete abstraction) has become a symbol of survival and power, as a sign of the "alpha male"--and also considering the unusual aspect of femininity in human society as a method of structuring and organizing the female gender toward a certain manner, and toward a certain man--then one can expect women to be attracted to money: it's a sign of security; the big green (or multi-colored nowadays) faces are an icon of stability. Those guys are dead, but they feel so alive when they're folded neatly in my wallet; and how I pine bittersweet when they leave my possession in exchange for another prize of equal or lesser quality.

Yet one must never forget that money (though it is a measure of success and would lead to better things in life) cannot be the most satisfying thing in one's life. The alpha male has the inheritance; the beta male has the providence. One supposes that no man can be both, at least not to any particular woman. Even if the man has the right genes, that still does not mean that he is able to provide capably for his wife/lover/paramour/concubine. And even if the man can provide (with all the bloody money that money can invest), does that mean that the man is the proverbial "knight-in-shining-armor" with the perfect set of genes behind that clanky chain mail? Maybe one can be both. But who's to answer that question? The man?

As for the original question about legal prostitution, one would then have to consider the reason why marriage and other long-term relationships might be seen as ritual exercises for the sake of financial security and human survival. The idea of prostitution is accepted in almost every "highly developed" culture in the world, though it is hardly condoned. The idea of sex is seen as both a sacred and profane act. (Just as it is easy to say that the restroom is both the cleanest and dirtiest room in a building.) Sex--at least back in the "good ol' days"--was seen as either completely sacred (in the ritual of marriage) or as completely profane (in the underhand dealings of brothels). Nowadays, fewer and fewer things are seen as absolutely taboo.

In my honest opinion, people (not just men, I should hope) require release from stress and daily life (Marvin Gaye's titular "sexual healing"), but to make a big fuss about it--as many people would about the issue of legal prostitution--would take away much of the pleasure of doing something that is hidden or secretive. That's the reason why man and mistress meet in a random hotel room during the day; or the reason why man and prostitute meet in a random back alley during the night. The legal brothels in Nevada, by the way, are distant enough from any major city that such practices (usually considered taboo) have some level of "aesthetic" distance from those who find it abhorrent (or at least find sexuality sacred).

Now, for those who find sexuality in some level a sacred thing, then the whole idea of money--filthy, dirty, skunky-rich-green money--involved is just bad. Terribly bad. Now, for those who find sexuality as neither sacred nor profane, but as the only way to procreate, and usually as the ends for survival of the species, then by all means money is important--perhaps not completely integral, but it's going to be a factor (no bones, figuratively, about it). That's what the barter system and capitalism will do for you. But let's celebrate with a round; drinks are on somebody. And my eye is on the lonely brunette with pouty lips and a Guinness. Now if only I can buy her another...

Mandy
25-07-2007, 09:51 AM
Wibbles, DR.

barrington
25-07-2007, 03:52 PM
That's the kind of posting that makes this place a joy, DR.