A lady recently asked why some women reportedly lose interest in men when they no longer have money, sparking debate about love, commitment, and transactional expectations in relationships. While many saw her question as a critique of materialism, one comment reframed the entire conversation in a shocking and transactional way.
The comment read: “If he waited for you to give him sex first in order to show you love from the start, why should the love not expire when he’s no longer meeting up with the terms of the contract.”
By calling the relationship a “contract,” the commenter reduces love and emotional connection to a mere exchange of services, implying that affection is conditional and transactional. Critics argue this perspective undermines trust, intimacy, and genuine partnership, turning human relationships into calculated bargains rather than mutual care. The exchange highlights how discussions about love and material expectations can quickly be derailed by extreme, morally rigid interpretations.
LINKS
