This is neither a CMV nor a debate. I obviously come with a predisposed opinion on this issue, but I am asking the question out of interest in expanding my perspective. At least, seeing if it can be. All I have are data and my personal experience including the experiences of people I know. However, I don't only want to hear from people who want to expand my perspective, but would also be interested in views that would reinforce my perspective but which present ideas I haven't thought of. So, instead of arguing for one side or the other, I just want to gather evidence from both sides.

I have been stuck on this issue for weeks, reading similar questions which don't quite put it the way I would.

Do men get anything from relationships with women other than sex - and that includes sexual validation (not just the act, but the energy and vibe of a partner that gives off a longing for the act with you)?

I would argue that men do not. There is of course a list of things which relationships offer:

  • Emotional support
  • Company
  • Different perspectives and tastes
  • Unconditional love
  • A champion to fight for you and take your side
  • Someone to always rely on

This list can be expanded or even criticized (that's the intent of this discussion).

I would argue the following about this list:

  1. Most of these things you can get from a friend, and don't need a romantic partner to have.
  2. What makes someone more than a friend: deep commitment and sex, is not on the table for most men.
  3. What is on the table is certainly highly conditional, which detracts from its value.
  4. Women are not interested in reciprocity.

I hope everyone understands my point about the difference between a friend and a partner. I would say a partner offers something sexual and also a level of commitment a mere friend cannot offer.

Since this sub has largely conclude, both through statistics, anecdotes and the agreement of many different categories of opinion that most women do indeed "settle" for husbands which aren't their first pick sexually, I'll uphold it as valid. The most meaningful part of this, which is up for debate, is that when a woman settles for a husband, the sex dries up fairly precipitously. It might happen, but I think even many women have agreed that sex is not and should not be the sole function of a marriage and really it's a minor function of marriage.

Sex is very important for men, and it distinguishes friendship from partnership, so this is a problem.

If women are marrying men for reasons other than sex, then that leaves deep commitment. In theory, if men and women both offer deep commitment, then a marriage would not need to involve sex at the forefront.

But is this commitment actually reciprocal?

There is data which shows that the average women would prefer to marry or date men who make about 153% more than them. We've all seen this. Based on all of my life's experience without one exception (I know this will be hard to debate, and feel free to express if your experience is different), this proportion does seem to apply, more or less, to what a man and woman need to put into a relationship for it to work.

For example, the man is substantially more socially popular than a woman. Or, he is substantially taller and stronger. Or, even given a shared, geeky interest, he knows about 150% more about it (this is more of a social thing and being more involved in that community).

Of course, I do know marriages where the woman makes probably 500% more money than the man. Where a woman is substantially more involved in a social community than the man. But I never ever see a situation like this - seriously I never have - where the man is not in some way substantially superior to the woman.

I have seen plenty of situation where men are deeply interested in women who are almost completely inferior to them, even socially, looks-wise, intelligence, kindness. But the woman wasn't interested.

My impression then, is that women just don't feel attracted to men who are equal or below them in a general sense. Again, feel free to share a different experience (but be careful not to overlook if a man has some other area where he's way above her).

Therefore, I don't think male female relationships are ever really reciprocal, because then the woman might not be interested in having one. If it's not reciprocal, then "deep commitment" is just the man giving more than he's taking.

If a relationship has limited sex, and is not reciprocal in commitment, then isn't the man just being exploited? Isn't he giving more in exchange for a false promise of sex which has now tapered off? How would his partner be better than a friend.

It's totally fine if they're friends, but then the man would not owe any form of commitment, which seems to be what women look for from relationships.

What about complementarity?

One possible answer to this dilemma is to say that while male/female relationships are not reciprocal, they can be complementary. That women have just certain things that men don't. Maybe men give a little bit more - from their point of view - but they have no way of getting what women offer any other way.

Obviously this could apply to sex, but that doesn't solve my original question. What else do women offer?

I could make a list, and it will sound traditional. Things women offer men that they don't have easy access to (besides sex):

  • A nurturing disposition
  • Someone especially skilled at raising infants
  • A nester who emphasizes a tidy and orderly home, something a working professional has less time to deal with
  • Access to the social community of other women (whose value seems dubious if men aren't already friends with them, makes more sense as wives-network or for sexual access - that is, if men want to be just friends with women, they don't need a girlfriend to do that)

As far as I can tell, the attitude of the modern woman is that fulfilling these roles in a relationship represents a failure of dating strategy.

If women are equal to men professional, and even in competition with them, and if women aim 150% higher, then really what could women even offer to men?

Other than sex?

Now you know where I'm coming from. I do think I might be missing some things. Maybe complementarities I've overlooked. Maybe I'm overemphasizing the female need for non-reciprocity (for example, maybe attraction can derive from one single important area of superiority but otherwise equality is just fine).

My experience has been that if a woman gets a sniff that a relationship is asking from her just as much as it's giving, that alone is a sign to bail.

As if dating is some kind of favor being offered to a man.

And naturally, that the men who get attention (usually, gasp, sexual) for free or where the woman gives far more, are a very rare breed and there aren't a lot of them going around.