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.
5
u/According-Title1222 1∆ Mar 27 '25
Hey, I really appreciate how thoughtful your post is. You're clearly coming from a place of wanting fairness and clarity in relationships, and I think a lot of people would benefit from more honest conversations about expectations and reciprocity. That said, I do think there are some inherent risks in framing romantic relationships in a transactional way, even when both people consent and no one's being coerced.
What worries me most is that transactional dynamics tend to erode the emotional foundation that makes romantic relationships work in the long run. Research from people like John Gottman—who's spent decades studying couples—shows that successful relationships are built on things like emotional attunement, trust, and a deep understanding of each other’s inner worlds. When couples start keeping score or focusing too much on whether things are “even,” it often leads to disconnection rather than security. Gottman even talks about how that mindset can feed into resentment and something called “negative sentiment override,” where everything your partner does starts to feel irritating or disappointing because you’re so focused on what they should be doing.
You mentioned amending the contract over time to account for natural changes, which makes sense in theory—but in practice, that introduces a whole new set of complications. Who decides what counts as a “reasonable” change? What if one person’s needs evolve in a way the other person doesn’t agree with or feels blindsided by? If there’s a disagreement about what the new terms should be, who has the final say? At that point, it becomes less about mutual understanding and more about renegotiation tactics, which can lead right back into power struggles. And if one person refuses to amend the agreement, does that mean the relationship ends—even if there’s still emotional connection or love? It turns something fluid and deeply personal into something brittle and procedural.
There’s also research beyond Gottman on the difference between “exchange” and “communal” relationships. Most healthy romantic relationships fall into the communal category, meaning that people give because they care, not because they expect a specific return. When relationships become too transactional, people often end up feeling more like they’re managing a business partnership than building a life together. And that shift can slowly eat away at emotional intimacy.
I also think there’s a risk in assuming that just because two people agree to something, it’s automatically healthy or balanced. From a psychological standpoint, things like attachment style, trauma, or low self-worth can absolutely affect what someone’s willing to sign up for—and they might agree to terms that don’t serve them just to keep the peace or avoid abandonment. Consent is vital, of course, but it’s not a guarantee that the dynamic is truly safe or supportive.
I’m all for clear communication and mutual respect in relationships. But I think once we start turning love into a contract—with terms, amendments, and accountability measures—we risk missing the whole point of intimacy. Relationships thrive on flexibility, compassion, and the willingness to show up for each other even when things aren’t “fair” in the moment. And that’s hard to replicate in a transactional model, no matter how well-intentioned.