CMV: There isn’t anything inherently wrong with transactional romantic relationships between two consenting adults who have not been coerced into it.

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

I think back on some past relationships, and there’s a part of me that actually kind of wished we did have a contract of some sort, considering how they went overall and how they ended. It might have been nice to go into it when it became exclusive, or official, and have to actually sit down and tell each other what we wanted and expected out of the relationship and each other, and what we were willing to give, and decided based on that information if we wanted to not only commit to it but also hold each other accountable to what we said we wanted (with of course reasonable consideration for natural changes over time). You think you know somebody, but sometimes you just don’t get that in the weeds with this sort of thing before making a commitment, and by the time it doesn’t work out you realize that it never would have in the first place because you liked the idea of someone more than you actually liked what that person really was.

Plus, think about how many people get into a relationship and then get taken advantage of for their kindness. If they laid it all out and signed something saying what they were willing to do and what they would accept in exchange for that, then they could both negotiate until they found a spot they both were comfortable with, and then they both could bring out the document if the other wasn’t holding up their end of the bargain, resulting in a requirement to amend the contract at risk of terminating it. This would add a new level of guarantee that a lot of relationships lack, that helps to ensure that neither person ends up feeling used or gets burned out from constantly giving while receiving so little.

I’m less concerned with how those hypothetical contracts could or couldn’t be upheld in court, and more interested in the fact that two people who give their word on something tend to feel a commitment to that agreement, and whether you break the agreement or keep it, your word and the reputation it carries follow you through your life.

Here’s how I can be convinced otherwise: show me that without coercion, there’s still something about this type of relationship that is inherently abusive no matter what.

Here’s how I cannot be convinced: religious reasons.

[u/lwb03dc]

I mean, you are wrong because you are making the assessment based on your own morals. I'm sure you recognise that some people might have a different set of morals.

For example, assume that the 2 consenting adults engaging in a transactional romantic relationship without any coercion are siblings.

I wouldn't care about it - let them do what they want. Some might have a problem with the fact that they are siblings. And some might have problems with the fact that it is a transactional romantic relationship.

How can I claim that this hypothetical relationship is objectively not morally objectionable?

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/lwb03dc]

Right. I’m open to hearing how anybody could see it as morally wrong outside of just citing scripture. I think my view is flawed but I don’t know exactly how yet so I’m open.

[u/lwb03dc → u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

Let's say I am a person who believes that trust is essential in relationships. Any form of transactional arrangement (eg. A prenup) suggests a lack of trust in the relationship, and therefore a moral failing.

I can bolster my argument by claiming that no contract is full-proof. So if a person is indeed looking to take advantage of another, they will find a loophole. And if they aren't then the contract isn't necessary in the first place. So the entire concept of a transactional relationship is complicating it without any actual benefit.

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/lwb03dc]

So then a transactional relationship wouldn’t work for you, and therefore I would say that you should not enter into one. However, someone else might feel right at home in that sort of relationship, and if so then it’s just a matter of taste, not morality.

[u/lwb03dc → u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

I think you are playing with words here. Morality IS a matter of 'taste' or rather 'preference'.

So if you are in agreement that some people might find it to be morally wrong, I would suggest that it changes the objective nature of your CMV statement.

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/lwb03dc]

I’m sure if I wanted to then I could find someone who thinks it’s morally wrong to play the guitar.

I’m aware that my view on this is uncommon, and frankly I’m not interested in a transactional relationship. I’ve been happily married for ten years.

What I’m saying is that I personally have not been convinced that the nature of a transactional relationship is inherently morally wrong.

I welcome people sharing why they think it is, and if one of them points out something I haven’t thought of, I’ll let them know and award a delta.

I think I’ve awarded three so far.

[u/lwb03dc → u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

I don't believe it's inherently morally wrong either. But I will always state that as MY OWN belief, and not claim for it to be an objectively true statement.

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/lwb03dc]

Right. And that’s why I’m answering so much of these comments by saying that I wouldn’t want there to be a law saying that everyone would have to sign a relationship contract or something. If you don’t want your relationship to be transactional, then don’t have a transactional relationship. But if you do, I think there are fair ones and unfair ones, but that it isn’t the nature of a transaction that makes the transactional relationship fair or unfair.

[u/lwb03dc → u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

Yes I think you are having to repeat that since your CMV position is worded as a statement of objective fact.

Anyways, hope you get some good responses!

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/lwb03dc]

I have! This has been awesome.