Aight. I've engaged and been engaged enough on this topic. So let me offer my thoughts and a final word in the form of a thread.

I keep seeing the term "transactional relationship" being bandied about & it seems that there are persons who don't know the meaning of 'transaction'

Simple: "an occasion when someone buys or sells something, or when money is exchanged or the activity of buying or selling something". That's a transaction. So, in the context of a relationship, it would be the exchange of money for relationship benefits.

These typically include: attention, affection, access and/or sex. So we infer that the women in these relationships were expected to provide those things to the men in exchange for financial benefit. Considering how long the relationships continued for, let's say they did...

After all, THEY'RE NO LONGER ALIVE to quantify how much of each they provided, so we can, again, only infer. That therefore suggests, that the transactions were completed. The man spent money, the woman "put out". When she decides to leave, she would no longer be getting money

A transactional relationship no longer exists because neither party is either giving or taking. So no, a transactional relationship does not IN ANY WAY, make it understandable for a man to "flip out", "go mad" (or whatever the excuse du jour) and kill them woman when it ends.

What a man willingly spends on a woman throughout the course of a relationship, transactional or otherwise does not entitle him to her agency (to end the relationship), her fidelity (because a lot of these men are married anyway) or her life (it's MURDER).

Some refer to it as an "investment". So, in that vein, if a person puts money in the bank or other instrument & it fails to produce the desired or expected return, are we going to be understanding if he barges into the bank to kill his financial advisor or the manager???

Would we say "the bank should have told him all the possibilities" or "they should never have taken his money to begin with" or "didn't they realize he was unstable"?? No. He'd be labeled a crazy ass murderer & convicted accordingly & remembered as such (this has happened btw).

So no, I do not accept anybody's position about it being in ANY WAY the woman's fault that this happened. Especially if she held up her end of the bargain throughout the course of the relationship (again, SHE'S NOT HERE TO CONFIRM; SHE'S BEEN MURDERED).

So, miss me with the think pieces on what women should do in order to avoid these situations AND DEAL WITH THE MEN WHO ARE MURDERING US BECAUSE THEY FEEL ENTITLED TO OUR AGENCY AND OUR LIVES.

Be blessed.