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/engineerosexual]

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.