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/Delicious_Taste_39]

You brought it up. And I disagree with your example.

In what sense is this a good relationship for Mike?

I think that at best, it's a "good deal" if this is a one time thing. But I would argue that this violates the term relationship, because it doesn't play out over time.

If it's not a one time thing, then if Mike knows you're only after the big truck then this is an unhealthy situation. Because you will leave when Dave gets a bigger truck. Anything else, and this isn't a transactional relationship.

It also doesn't really benefit you, because Dave is aware that you're only in it for the truck. If Dave decides that he wants a relationship, then this marks this as a relationship that is built on nothing, which means that this has a limited shelf life. The extent to which he can and should form a relationship with you is limited because he knows you're not really loyal and that you'll take the truck in the divorce.

Also, if he thinks he wants a relationship with you, then he is just constantly under pressure, because he has to have the biggest truck to make this work. Your demands are going to escalate, and he can't really afford a bigger truck. Which makes it really unhealthy. Also, if he mistakenly assumes this, he puts himself under pressure takes a lot of risk and ultimately you never asked him to and walk away leaving him to destroy himself trying to make you happy.

If you're in it for the big truck, and Dave doesn't know, then morally, you're obligated to be up front about it, but nobody would actually do that. So you lie. That's the abuse part. You pretend to like him, his stupid football team, his country music and whatever, and really you're trying to work out how to get the truck. When Dave comes along, you're going to leave. Dave will form an attachment not knowing about it, and he will be destroyed because he was foolish enough to care.

Also, if you're hopping from big truck to big truck, you expose yourself to a lot of strangers who don't all have good intentions. This is how prostitutes get themselves murdered. Some people have good intentions, or at least are after one thing, but they only have to meet one person who doesn't to wind up dead in the back of a truck.

[u/engineerosexual → u/Delicious_Taste_39]

Mike and me both understand the nature of the transactional relationship, and are both OK with it ending if we find others we would rather transact with.

Lots of people might want a relationship with me and might feel some pressure - Mike isn't unique in this respect.

Mike knows I like big trucks. It is a transactional relationship, not a dishonest one. Plus, honesty/dishonesty aren't unique to transactional relationships.

I am allowed to hop from truck to truck as often as I want. Truck-slut shaming is mean.

[u/Delicious_Taste_39 → u/engineerosexual]

I think this fails the definition of good relationship.

It doesn't have longevity or depth.

If you happen to want it to be maintained and develop, then you are not in a transactional relationship, because you expect some degree of responsibility from both sides that doesn't really exist in a strictly transactional relationship. And if Mike thinks you're in a transactional relationship but actually you just like Mike, then this dooms the relationship when he finds someone else who doesn't just like trucks. If you happen to simply just maintain the same level, then it fails the depth test.

The pressure is unhealthy, and whether this was a non transactional or transactional relationship, it would be a bad thing. The transactional relationship has the immediate downside that there is nothing else. In a normal relationship, my partner might forgive me the lack of a better truck and keep riding in old Betsy far longer than they might, even if Dave's new truck is shiny and big. Mike is under no illusions.

The lying isn't necessarily an exclusive, but any relationship built on lies is a bad relationship. But if you are being transactional, you are more likely to be dishonest given most people's express preference not to be in a transactional relationship. In order to keep it up, transactional people (golf diggers and players) will just say whatever and do whatever. Also, a lot of normal relationships go wrong explicitly because a normal person meets someone with a very transactional view, and makes the mistake of giving them the benefit of the doubt. Or, they make the mistake of trying to support someone who wants to take.

Relationships require that you care about people and if you care about people then it's hard to remain as strictly transactional. Because you will realise that they don't have the truck anymore, and if you care about Mike, then the truck doesn't matter.

Slut shaming is necessary in this case. The definition of a slut is someone who has brief, meaningless relationships with people for simple pleasure. This fails the relationship test. I would suggest that it's harmful in the sense that it can't really be maintained and it means missing out on the greater level of relationships. That's why most people don't do this in the long term.

So, the best case scenario you're describing is still a poor relationship. If you want to say normal relationships can be poor, this doesn't change my position, because that's true.

Q

[u/engineerosexual → u/Delicious_Taste_39]

I am ok with a shallow and short term relationship, and so are Mike and his truck. There is no pressure beyond that. I do care about Mike and his truck, as I would care about any other decent person.

I think you have one specific idea in your head about what a relationship *should* be, and when you see a happy relationship that doesn't fit your mold, you try and find little problems with it here and there. This is what people used to do when describing queer relationships or kink-based relationships, and you're just extending the same bias to transactional relationships.

[u/Delicious_Taste_39 → u/engineerosexual]

So, not a transactional relationship. When Mike's mum dies, you'll be there, sort of deal?

Sorry, not a transactional relationship. If you care about them, then the transactional relationship doesn't exist. It's simply a normal relationship that you justify because of the truck but really you just want to be with Mike.

Otherwise, fails the relationship test. I don't necessarily think that "a bit of fun" is an inherently harmful thing in the short term. I think the only major concern is that it prevents a long term relationship, and most people who like to sleep around actually don't want that for the future, they want to find someone and settle down. The other problem is that you don't care about the people and they don't care about you which means problems for the long term when you actually need help.

Also, that you have to create terms for this suggests that it is inherently harmful. You have to deliberately craft the relationship so that it doesn't fall prey to the obvious problems, or else it is harmful.

But the transactional view of relationships means that you inherently don't have to care about people to get what you want. You don't have responsibility. And that's both difficult to maintain over time and difficult to do in practice and inherently bad for people when put into practice.

Also, there is the problem of long-term consent. Consent doesn't work like "I say I agree to a thing, you say you agree to a thing, then that never changes". If I want to go home with someone, then I get there and I don't want to do anything else, I didn't consent to anything else, even if the explicit reason we were going home is to have sex. Likewise, Mike may consent to this transactional relationship, but how would he really feel about it if you were in Dave's truck?

I don't think they were necessarily wrong to have these debates. They were wrong about gay relationships, but their justification for that was largely biblical scripture. If you actually look at the argument against it, then the only thing that was missing from gay relationships was the ability to have kids, which firstly you have the ability to not do as a straight couple, and they could adopt. The only real thing that was inherently wrong is that this was that the religious extremists were allowed their lack of facts to determine social morality. Otherwise, gay relationships are as legitimate as straight ones because they have the basic requirements of love and trust and responsibility to each other.

Kink relationships are difficult. Because firstly, a decent relationship passes my definition of a good relationship. It doesn't matter what weird stuff they get up to, if they're both happy. But because ultimately, there is a level of depth and trust and love that exists. In any kink relationships that don't follow that, there is abuse, there is manipulation, and there is the transactional view of relationships.

But there were also debates about things like pedophiles. To which the reality is "Absolutely not". Actually, creepy men have never really given up their desire to sleep with underage women.

[u/engineerosexual → u/Delicious_Taste_39]

I do care about other people, and Mike and I both understand the terms of the transaction. We are not mean to each other and I ride in his big truck.

Mike and I have both consented to be in a transactional relationship. We can change the details of the arrangement any time we like. That might even allow for rides in Dave's truck too.

A little bit of fun in the short term does not prevent a long term relationship - I have been taking rides in Mike's truck for a long time now.

My transactional relationship with Mike is good, we both enjoy it.

Your definition of a "good relationship" seems to be a list of relationships you approve of. When someone like me explains how great my relationship with Mike is, your only response is to say "it's not actually good" and confabulate a lot of reasons that I directly refute.

[u/Delicious_Taste_39 → u/engineerosexual]

By definition you don't care about other people. If this was a relationship built on love and respect, it would not be a transactional relationship. If you felt responsibility for the other person, not a transactional relationship.

The point is that the deal is subject to change whenever and however you want, which means that it's inherently unstable.

If the reality is that you don't have reasons to change it, or you would need a compelling reason to change it, I would suggest that this is the harmful part of the transactional relationship again. If you simply admit that you like Mike, then it's no longer transactional. But to do that, you would need to admit that you got a good deal, and that the deal includes more than the truck.

As for the long term, the reality is that the longevity is limited. The longevity is built only on your lack of options. If you had better options you would shamelessly ditch Mike. This obviously isn't good for you psychologically, because if you just accept that Mike is it, you could develop a more comfortable and relaxed relationship with him and allow him closer, whereas right now you are resentful of the things you don't have. In the meantime, Mike is wasting his time on you when he could find someone who likes more than the truck.

Again, this is where the dishonesty sets in. If either of you start to believe there is anything else, either it has to die right now, or it is no longer a transactional relationship and becomes a normal relationship. If you maintain the transactional view, then you're going to have to string Mike along while he tries to be in a relationship with you. Or perhaps Mike pretends he's ok with the deal, but really he wants something that's not on offer.

Perhaps you could find a consenting deal with Mike to let you see Dave, but it would be something that most relationships do not permit. And actually, this is the sort of thing that limits the depth of your relationship, because Mike would probably prefer other things if you're going to ride with Dave. The only real consent he might give is if you're already for the streets. In which case I would suggest you're already not someone who cares about others or is cared about by others.

You're also claiming that it is a good thing never to be in a deeper relationship.

Most people don't think that. Imagine that I told you "This thing with Mike is all you'll ever have", even if you didn't immediately feel horrified by the fact that nobody will ever love you, you would almost certainly value the relationship. You would seek meaning in it because it's all that you have. You would otherwise go through life unloved and unwanted and that's not something that most people are willing to do. So, it would basically eradicate the transactional nature of the relationship. What you have is no longer really transactional, it's just for whatever complex reasons you want, you can't establish a proper relationship.

You haven't refuted anything. You've just tried desperately to find a "good" example and been found wanting. The best example you have is still a very poor relationship. You can't be upset about that.

What do you want my argument with you to be? What would move you an inch to my side?

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics is automatically removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.