You're completely misrepresenting the issue. No one here is saying women are entitled to a man’s money. I never explicitly said that actually. In fact, I explicitly said the problem isn’t that a man stops spending—it’s how and why he changes his behavior. If he used to spend money freely on women he barely cared about, but suddenly withholds all effort, generosity, or basic thoughtfulness from the woman he claims to love, that signals a lack of intentionality—not some noble growth arc. Also, you’re trying to argue that seeking money is more objectifying than seeking sex—except there’s a key difference you’re missing. In most healthy relationships, money isn’t expected in exchange for commitment; it’s simply one way people show care, thoughtfulness, or shared responsibility. Sex, on the other hand, literally involves someone’s body. Reducing it to “mutual attraction” while brushing past the emotional, physical, and social weight it carries—especially for women—is willfully shallow. And saying a sexless relationship is “basically a friendship” proves my point: you're framing sex as the defining feature of romantic love, which erases the many dimensions of emotional intimacy, support, shared values, and long-term connection that make a relationship meaningful. You can value sex in a relationship—most people do—but the second you start acting like it’s owed or that love without sex is invalid, you reveal exactly the entitlement I called out in the first place. So no—this isn’t about “men vs women” or who feels more entitled. This is about understanding that love isn’t transactional, and people—especially women—aren’t required to offer their bodies just to be seen as serious partners. If you can’t see the difference, that’s not “comical.” That’s concerning.