Clean Books

Someone asked what women really want. They already know. Money. They wanted confirmation. Here it is, but not framed the way they expected.

Women want money immediately, transactional payment for specific services. This happens in Pattaya. Clear exchange. You purchase girlfriend experience, massage, companionship, whatever. Honest transaction. Both parties agree on price, service gets delivered, payment occurs, interaction ends. No accumulated debt. No future claims.

In the West it's diffused. Obscured. Presented as romance while functioning as deferred compensation. Women provide time, presence, sexual access, not for payment now but for payment later. They're purchasing future income streams. Dating becomes speculation on earning potential. She evaluates a student with career prospects. Calculates he'll work productively. Invests early by providing companionship and sex now, expecting to extract value at relationship termination through divorce settlement, alimony, asset division.

Dividend investing. She provides services on credit, accumulates claims, cashes out when the relationship ends. Plus management fees during the relationship, dinners, gifts, housing upgrades, lifestyle maintenance she couldn't afford alone.

After three years with the same woman, maybe one year, desire evaporates for most men. For some it's one hour. Aromantic wiring, lose interest after first encounter. Interest returns eventually, three weeks or a month later, but not for the same person. Different person. This configuration saves enormous money. Explains part of wealth accumulation. No errors in trajectory. Never accumulated relationship debt because never stayed long enough for debt to form.

Combined with aggressive saving, minimal spending, intelligence that enabled employment at financial institutions, freelance income, online businesses, and never paying women more than agreed transaction price, this explains certain wealth positions. Not because of exceptionalism. Because of avoided debt accumulation structures.

Women wanting money isn't something to resent when stated clearly. A woman who says "payment required for specific services" is someone you can negotiate with. Clear terms. Explicit exchange. The alternative, unstated expectations that crystallize into claims at separation, that's where resentment accumulates.

Transaction model, payment per encounter. Women want money per encounter. You agree on terms. Service provided. Payment delivered. Interaction terminates with zero residual obligations. This structure prevents future disputes because nothing remains undefined.

Western model accumulates hidden debt. She provides sexual access without explicit payment. Therefore you have implicit duty she'll define later at checkout. You thought it was free. It wasn't free. It was credit. The bill arrives at separation and you discover you owe half your assets, ongoing payments, years of your income.

Men claim they want relationships, commitment, partnership. Then once coupled they complain, seek exit, wish they were elsewhere. Stated preference doesn't match revealed preference. Revealed preference shows most men want sexual access without relationship obligations. They just won't state this clearly because stating it clearly makes negotiation harder with women who won't accept those terms.

So instead, elaborate performance. Dating, courtship, declarations of serious intent. All designed to obscure the transaction. You seduce her. Pay for restaurants. Claim you want long-term commitment. She performs too. Applies makeup, claims she wants serious relationship. Both parties lying about actual objectives, she wants financial security, you want sexual access. Neither states terms clearly.

This creates maximum inefficiency. Both parties investing resources in performance, neither getting exactly what they want, relationship eventually terminating with disputed accounting about who owes whom what.

Transaction model eliminates this. Want companionship for dinner? Purchase it. Want sexual service? Purchase it. Both parties agree on price beforehand. Service delivered, payment made, interaction complete. No accumulated obligations. No disputed claims. No hidden accounting.

Some arrangements persist this way for years, repeated transactions without debt accumulation. Each payment liberates both parties from future claims. You paid for what you received. She received payment for what she provided. Balance zero. Freedom maintained.

The Western relationship model forbids this clarity. Forbids stating "purchasing sexual access" or "providing sexual access for future financial security." Forces both parties to pretend the transaction isn't happening while the transaction happens anyway. Then acts surprised when checkout reveals the hidden accounting and both parties feel cheated.

Making the transaction explicit feels harder. Discussing payment with potential partners feels uncomfortable. Most people prefer the performance. But the performance produces worse outcomes, disputed terms, accumulated resentment, expensive separation.

Payment per transaction. Stated price, agreed terms, service delivered, payment made. Clean. This prevents the outcome where you're writing bitter messages about parasites or she's calling lawyers to extract settlement.

The truth was always visible to anyone willing to examine actual incentives rather than stated preferences. Most men prefer not to examine it because examination would require admitting their stated preference for partnership doesn't match their revealed preference for sexual access without obligation.

Women are often clearer about their incentives than men are. She wants financial security. She'll trade sexual access and companionship for it. She just can't state this explicitly in cultures where explicit exchange is stigmatized. So she performs desire, performs commitment, accumulates unstated claims, cashes out later.

Transaction eliminates the performance requirement. Both parties state terms clearly. Agreement reached or not reached. If reached, exchange occurs. If not reached, both parties find different counterparties. No hidden accounting. No disputed claims. No surprise bills at separation.

This works for certain people. Might not work for others who have different preferences, different wiring, different incentives. Just describing one solution to a encountered problem. Not prescribing universal behavior. Just noting that payment-per-transaction prevents debt accumulation that deferred-payment models create.

The deferred-payment model works for some people. Creates the outcomes they want. For others it creates outcomes they didn't want and debts they didn't know they were accumulating. Those people might benefit from examining transaction models.

Or not. Their choice. Just describing the accounting difference between paying now versus paying later, between stated terms versus discovered terms, between zero accumulated obligation versus maximum accumulated obligation.

One model terminates each interaction with clean books. Other model accumulates liability across interactions then forces accounting at separation when both parties have different ledgers and no agreement about what was owed.

Clean books. Knowing exactly what you paid for exactly what you received. Zero residual claims. This is one preference. Others can prefer different structures.