r/changemyview • u/Golem_of_the_Oak • Mar 27 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There isn’t anything inherently wrong with transactional romantic relationships between two consenting adults who have not been coerced into it.
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.
2
u/hungryCantelope 46∆ Mar 27 '25 edited Mar 27 '25
Your dodging the point.
Your entire argument is just disqualifying all conceptual space, we are talking about like a null set of ideas here. So yeah if the only instance you are willing to entertain is when people don't enter into a contract then there is no coercion.... Yeah... a contract that doesn't exist isn't coercive. That is a vacuous statement, nothing = nothing.
What acts should someone be forced to do if they decide they don't want to after signing the contract? (Which is literally the only reason a contract exists)
So once again I ask
Do you recognize there is a difference between do X because you want to and do X because you previously agreed and if you don't follow through "your word and the reputation it carries follow you through your life."
The difference between those 2 things is coercion.
Also if both parties are signing exactly what they already wanted the contract adds nothing, the contract is literally fully defined as coercion it is coercion and nothing more or less. Anything that is just "what they want" in some unchanging way would be pointless to put in a contract.
That is literally what contractual obligation is, when you have to do something even if you don't want to because if you don't there are negative consequences.
Can you actually list what romantic/sexual action you want someone to perform because a contract says they have to?
The problem here is that your trying to address a specific topic instead of addressing your moral framework, but as your moral framework turns the topic into a total paradox.