We talk a lot of unspoken or biological urged deals here. It's hard to give a correct defenition, because while we do talk a lot about these supposed 'gender roles' and exchanges that come from those, they aren't actual rules.

I'm talking about things like: a woman is chaste in exchange for getting commitment from a guy. The guy would rather go around and not commit, but he knows that he has to commit if he wants to get a chaste woman.

That's what I wanna discuss here.

And to me, those 'deals' always seems to have a heavy male influence. Yes, they are fair deals, but they're always made from the males point of view.

Or to clarify with an example: A male has a house and wants money. A female has money and want a house. Ok. So the female buys the males house and they both get what they want! That's fair!

And it's absolutely fair if you look at it from the male point of view, because money is money. Can't go wrong with money. Doesn't matter where the money comes from. Etc.

But the female might have some more terms for buying a house. Like where's the location? Does it have a modern kitchen? In what tax area is it located?

And if the female rejects the deal, "nah I rather keep the money", then on this sub we call her unfair for rejecting a fair deal or we start saying that she never wanted a house anyway or she would have bought this house...or we state that she just wants a house double the value for her money and she should stick to what she can afford. But you don't actually know.

And on top of that, I'd say that most of the deals are even a bit worse then that, because the 'unspoken' deals, seem to have been made without the input of one of the parties. What they want, is decided for them.

So to go back to my example. A male has a house and wants money. A female has money.

The male sees that the female has money. The male knows that the female's mother and his mother always wanted a house, that the female's grandmother and his mother always wanted a house, that the female's aunt always wanted a house and regretted not buying a house when she was younger before she wasted her money.

So the male is convinced that the female wants a house, he goes to the female and offers his house for her money. Female says "No, I don't want a house right now. I want to travel first with my money.".

Male respods with "Ok, but houses go up in value. If you now spend your money on travelling, you will gonna have to more money or you might never own a house.". Female says "ok".

Male is upset, because he wanted money, not a house and now he still has his house. And she might show up to buy the house in 10 years, but then he probably will have found another way to get money then.

Why is she rejecting a good deal now? We both could have been happy now! Now she's the only one happy. That's not fair. But at least, he'll eventually have everything, money and a house and she'll have no money and no house.

But that 'good deal' was solely in the males head. It's not real.

And I'm here to suggest that you need to step away from these assumptions. Maybe these deals were good in the past, they're obviously not working anymore.

Whether or not you agree, options for women have changed or desires have changed. I know that for me personally, offering commitment for chastidy is like offering to give me a twix bar for my steak dinner.

It doesn't matter that it's really hard for you to give up, that to you it feels like handing over gold bars for coal. If I don't value it at the same level as you, then it's not a good deal.

But maybe, if you step off your gender expectations, you might find out that you have something that's twix-value to you, but gold bars to me.