A
male
age
30-35,
anonymous
writes:I want to get to the bottom of something...If there is no love involved (or before love comes into the picture), just sexual attraction, and the man pays for dinners or whatever, he is, underneath it all, paying for sex. Love is an additional reality on top of this. Some men would say that he pays because he is a gentleman, or because he cares. But that's additional to his sex instinct.So does this imply that without love involved, underneath it all, it is instinct for women to get men to pay for sex, ie. her attraction + payment from a man leads to sex? But a dinner is hardly payment for sex, nor does it mitigate the risk of pregnancy, and nor does it make it significantly more likely that a man will stay around. If it doesn't serve to do any of these things, what is it, at the instinctual level? Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
male
reader, idoneitagain  +, writes (19 August 2011):
Most species of animals higher up the food chain have mating rituals, courtship. Often this involves displays of power, virility, physical strength or beauty, dancing, etc.
In humans this still exists, so instinctively women seek out men that have good physical strength, good genes, and qualities that demonstrate they can protect women from the threat of harm and provide for them while they are vulnerable during pregnancy and while their infant offspring are vulnerable, as would be the case when we were still living as cave men and women.
As a result, women have been programmed for thousands of years to seek out men who are strong, have status, intelligence, and can provide. When a man buys dinner, he is demonstrating that he can provide. It is part of the courtship ritual that we have inhereted over thousands of years and it still plays an important part in our mating rituals. Our relationships have obviously evolved to become more complex than just that, but the simple mating rules still apply. Emotionally and subconsciously we are not that more highly evolved, this kind of evolution is a slow process.
It is possible to reduce sex as transactional behaviour, as an exchange of sex for payment or provision of some kind, but that doesn't always do the interaction justice. You have already acknowledged that by stating the question in a way that excludes love, but even when it is the case of sex in early dating stages, there is usually more going on than just sex in exchange for dinner drinks and a movie. Sometimes there is no need for dinner and drinks and the rest, two people are just acting out of their attraction and it is an exchange of sex for sex. Usually though there is an emotional component of some kind even before love is present, and often the emotional component is a primary motivating factor in addition to the sex. Often people are seeking out closeness and intimacty more than sex, or are using it as a way to combat loneliness and feelings of alienation or anxiety. It is common for prostitutes to have clients who don't want to sleep with them but just want to talk, or lie down together to feel close to another human being.
So to answer your question, yes, instinct plays a part behind the tradition or cultural mating norm of the man buying dinner. These days though a lot of people are aware of this, and it is also not uncommon for women to offer to pay half, as a way of maintaining their autonomy, power, and self respect in the courting dynamic, rather than putting themselves in the position of the "weaker sex". Rather than them be at the mercy of the exchange, they choose to not "owe" anything in terms of the transaction, so they can choose to have sex when they feel like they want to, not because it is expected after the man has provided.
If my date wants to pay half, I like to suggest that I pay for the first date and have her pay for the second date if she wants to, no obligation. It maintains equality but allows for giving and recieving without obligation, and in a way that is unconditional.
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (19 August 2011): If the OP is wrong then a man should be just as likely to get to sleep with a woman after spending nothing on her, as if he does spend money on her.
Everyone knows spending money does help some. So there is an element of truth in what the OP says, P.C. or not.
...............................
A
female
reader, RedAthena +, writes (18 August 2011):
 I have been treated out to a meal many,many times over the last 25 years and not ONCE did I ever feel that I was being paid in advance for sex.
There is no hidden agenda.
I am sure there are a few gold diggers out there that expect spoilage in return for their affections. That would be no different than men who feel they are "renting" sexual time from women with meals, drinks, etc.
If you really believe this about women in general-try mentioning that to your next date. Wear something stainproof.
...............................
A
female
reader, bunnyblueeyes  +, writes (18 August 2011):
 Okay. Firstly, If a date pays for the meal that's very sweet, it does not mean I'm going home with him. Also, nowadays ladies tend to pay their way!
I took my partner for lunch on one of our first dates and paid, I assure you it wasn't to get sexual favours!
Please, if you go on a date, do not mention this view to your lady friend as she may tip your dinner into your lap.
In short. No. It is not payment for sex.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (18 August 2011): I don't think it's anything at an instinctual level - it's entirely cultural, and our culture makes us different from animals. How many apes do you see sitting down to silver service at a Michelin starred restaurant?
Also, where the hell are you living - 1952?! These days, women should pay their half! It avoids these unpleasant connotations of sex being paid for, and allows both parties to back out with honour if the date just doesn't go well. Seriously, any classy woman worth her salt these days pays her way.
...............................
|
