Comments are frequently made on here along the lines that there is nothing selfish or manipulative about not wanting sex without a relationship or commitment. There is certainly nothing unusual about it, but it can be ethically dubious and/or create problematic relationships.

The fair exchange for sex is sex.

The fair exchange for a relationship is a relationship.

And the fair exchange for commitment is commitment.

Throughout most of history, refusing sex without commitment was the default strategy for women, imposed by their own families so they would not have to pick up the pieces when she got pregnant.

However, today, in a world with dozens of forms of contraception, DNA tests, and the ability of women to earn just as much as men, it is now something of an ethical grey area. It can be highly manipulative: leveraging sex to get a man to financially commit is a form of soft prostitution. It is using sex as a relationship weapon or at least as a negotiating tactic to secure a better deal. It is totally understandable, extremely common, but not particularly virtuous.

You can have sex without a relationship; and you can have a relationship, even a life-long relationship, without commitment. You can have a monogamous relationship without commitment. The current default in the West is meet, develop a sexual relationship (almost always monogamous), without financial commitment, and then, after a time, sometimes but not always, mutual commitment.

When two people want to have sex with one another, but one wants it more than the other, the partner who is willing to say no has power. Sometimes they use that power to extract commitment: promises or even legal obligations of a transfer of time, energy and resources. It makes sense, selfishly, for us all to seek the best deal we can get. But let’s not kid ourselves that such selfishness is anything other than amoral at best.

Exchanging sex for sex is the purest form of erotic love. It is not transactional and is totally balanced.

Exchanging a relationship for a relationship is something we are all accustomed to. It is what lovers, friends and partners naturally do. Again, it is not transactional and is totally balanced.

And mutual commitment can be of great benefit to both parties and need not involve sex at all. I have such a relationship with my ex-wife: we are there for one another and our children, if we ever need each other. This too is not transactional and is totally balanced.

In all these cases, what each party does for the other is naturally reciprocally matched and enhances the lives of both people: a win-win.

From my observations, people often get themselves into unhappy relationships by exchanging non-equivalent things:

- If a woman holds off on sex to secure commitment, she should not be surprised later on when the man withdraws that commitment because she falls ill or ages.

- And if a man exchanges commitment for sex, he should not be surprised when sex dries up when he loses his job.