sex or money???

**Janster** · 03-09-2010, 06:55 AM

I have a hard time answering this one - as I'd rather prefer LOVE & friendship to be happy.

Obviously, you need money to support yourself, pay bills, put a roof over your head, yadda yadda yadda. I don't need a luxury lifestyle. I'm happy with jeans, eating pizza & burgers, and living in an ordinary neighborhood in an ordinary house.

Sex (to me) is nothing without the LOVE, Sex is wonderful but not as important as everything else a relationship has to offer.

If I had to choose...I'd pick money. Because afterall....when money is tight in any given relationship, it is hard to stay and remain happy. When people are financially 'comfortable' - is when you can relax and be overall happy with life = better/more sex.

**Ok, I'll shut up now. I'm thinking WAY too technical here.

**Disco** · 03-09-2010, 07:10 AM

I do not know about male and female preferences, but apparently poor people or people with bad education have more sex than rich and successful people.
It's the old human vs nature business.

I believe women would pick money over sex though. There's more female prostitutes and men are more sexual than women in general.

**Hopeless Dork** · 03-09-2010, 07:34 AM

I think more men would choose good sex over money because that is the reason most of them try so hard to have money -- to be able to lure in the women that prefer money to sex. If they have the good sex already, they don't need the money.

Sadly, many women would choose money over good sex and many men know this. So their dream is always to become rich so that they can have the pick of the litter and as much sex as they can stand.

Most people that are sexual, are going to choose sex over money, period. Less sexual people that don't see the value in orgasms and do feel alive and vibrant in designer clothes over being pleasured are going to choose the money.

**KMonte85** · 03-09-2010, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by lowprofile

He said woman prefer money on sex but man prefer sex on money??

It started in this way that, if one have only single choice to make:

1) a partner who is good financially but he/she would do sex only twice a week
2) a partner who is very poor(infact doing nothing) but he/she would do everyday sex.
provided others all qualities are same in both cases

I said choice no 1 because i would get sex also and little financial support is necessary for every couple.

But he said All male would select for choice no 2??

I would choose option 1 (financially good, sex occationally).. and here's why

For me, it's not so much about money as it is having a partner who wants to better himself. Option two outright says that the partner is very poor and doing nothing, and for me, that lack of ambition and drive is a turnoff. If you're not trying to better your life, I wouldn't be sexually attracted to you anyway so I wouldn't want to have sex with you period, let alone every day. Motivation and ambition are big turnons for me, I love when my guy wants to further is education, or work hard at a job he has, or works hard for that promotion he deserves. Not really into guys who don't want to work, don't want to further their education, don't want to volunteer, don't want to contribute to society in any way... even a rich trust-fund baby with this lack of ambition would have no chance with me.

**WildChild** · 03-09-2010, 09:39 AM

I don't really find this answerable as an either or question, it is a complex group of interconnecting issues. Many studies and counselors will confirm, that stress over financial problems is a big factor in relationships falling apart. When people are stressed they are more likely to argue and to experience a decline in sexual interest.
It has been confirmed in studies that more educated (and generally higher income as a result) people are more sexually active and more likely to a wider range of experience. In other words the less educated are more likely to be having the every once in a while, in the dark, missionary sex.

Men who feel inadequate in providing for their family and SO are more likely to have performance issues. So the idea that more prostitutes are women so women are more interested in money fails to understand that throughout human history selling sex has been one of the few avenues open to self support for women.

What is needed is a balance. I've been poor, really poor and while I've never been wealthy, I've had times when I was financially comfortable. In both cases I'd say it's the relationship that makes the difference. Living on a financial thread when you are mutually caring and supportive can be OK, being financially comfortable with someone who is cold and uncaring, manipulative, can be miserable.

I don't think this is so much about gender as it is personality type. For some people money and stuff represents love, for others it's just a substitute for what they really want, which is a loving connection.

**ItsASecret** · 03-09-2010, 10:04 AM

I would pick 1. Having financial security and a guy who has an education is a big priority to me. I am not exactly a horny woman, nor do I desire copious amounts of sex or sexual acts so a couple times a week would be fine by me.

The complete stress associated with lack of funds or minimal funds would prevail when it comes to a sex vs money debate....at least for me. If I am concerned about where the money for our next mortgage payment is coming from or how I am going to afford our next meal why would I want to jump to sex? There is no way I could clear my head enough to enjoy whatever sexual pleasure he decides to give me.

**StillLearnin** · 03-09-2010, 10:15 AM

I too believe: "it is a complex group of interconnecting issues."

But... As a man, since I am financially stable and am able to care for my family and pay the bills, I would go for option 1. If I happen to find a nympho that doesn't have a job and is poor, but can take care of the household and family as well, I could handle her being poor and having sex everyday, perhaps on some days several times a day.

But if my profession was one that didn't pay so well, and I needed extra income to get by, I couldn't stand to be with somebody that wasn't motivated to get out and work to help the family out.

My wife has never had to work until now. Our oldest son is going to college, and we feel it is our responsibility to help him pay for part of it. We could just have told him if he wants to go to college that's great, but you're on your own.

And, I don't think the options have realistic scenarios anyway. Either once a week and money, or everyday and no money. How about money and a couple times a month, or no money and two to three times a week. I think those would be more realistic.

**Hopeless Dork** · 03-09-2010, 10:23 AM

I just couldn't imagine rattling around a mansion, having everything I wanted materially, at my finger tips... but being strapped to a man that wouldn't touch me sexually.

I love NICE things... but they are meaningless without someone to share them with, someone you are connected to, someone that gives you pleasure...

So I'd rather struggle, I'd rather have to get walmart dress instead of the versace one if it meant being with a passionate man over a cold one. No question for me.

There is so much to this question... but if its just would you rather have a lover with money and awful sex or a lover with amazing sex but no money... I'd be happy to buy generic bread and clip coupons... truly.

**Disco** · 03-09-2010, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by WildChild

It has been confirmed in studies that more educated (and generally higher income as a result) people are more sexually active and more likely to a wider range of experience.

Hm, it's the first time I ever hear anything like it. I've read of studies confirming the people with poor education and income are more sexually active.

sex or money???

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Get The Newsletter

Latest Activity

Latest Topics