Average Jane



Economy of Relationships

How the topic came up may be less significant than what I gleaned from the conversation:

Sole-sourcing does not mean ‘exclusive’. It just means that I have a long-term contract of prenegotiated terms and conditions for when I have an immediate need and want to use them (nonexclusively) at will. Trust me, it works out for everyone” -Mr. Pretty

This lesson in economics was more reflective of his relationship policy than his business policy. I had unintentionally stumbled upon a nugget of his personality that could otherwise have eluded me… until it was too late.

Back to the matter at hand. This sole sourcing sounds pretty darn good to me.  From a business perspective, it’s supposed to reinforce a trusting relationship, which is actually the opposite of what it would do in a romantic relationship. But surely if this is such a standard business practice, especially within our government, then there has to be something to it.

I said… “So what you’re saying is it’s a non-exclusive, long-term arrangements that hopefully benefit both parties and can be called upon when you have an immediate need? Huh.”

Let’s use an example to explore this business model. We’ll go with my old job at the arena. We had contracts and agreements with certain beverage companies. Let us begin our analysis.

We had an exclusive contract with Pepsi so that we could not serve Coke in our building at any time. No exceptions. They gave us plenty of money to reserve this right. So I guess that would be Mr. Pretty’s girlfriend. Their exclusive contract is “love”.

But then there’s the secondary contracts. For instance, soda wasn’t the only beverage served at the arena. We had beer vendors. Now, we had an agreement with Budweiser that wasn’t exclusive, as we also carried beer from any other number of vendors, as well as served wine and hard liquor. But they were the first person we called for major events involving alcohol. They cut us good deals and delivered it promptly, even last minute if we needed it. So, in my situation, I guess I would be Budweiser. This contract would be “affection”. More immediate. Available from multiple sources.

So, both Pepsi and Budweiser benefit from their relationship with the arena. Pepsi has obviously made a better deal with the arena and will benefit more. Right? But Budweiser is still in there, but with a more relaxed contract and perhaps more leverage in making additional lucrative side deals.

Maybe this analogy has gotten off track.  But I feel like i’m onto something. It just needs more thought.

Basically, as far as Mr. Pretty goes, I’ve resigned to have him around as a friend. I saw a picture of his girlfriend and she is stunning. Striking. Not saying that’s why I’ve resigned. More of an aside. But I think we can all agree that he’s not datable. Not now. Maybe not ever.

Especially if he’s in the habit of sole-sourcing his relationships.

Any businesspeoples/sex gurus out there who can maybe shed some more light on this construct?

Advertisements

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Comments

  1. * TSG says:

    Secondary contracting is fine, so long as you’re okay with not being the exclusive. It might be fine for a while, but most people can’t go too long without wanting to be the sole-source.

    | Reply Posted 9 years, 8 months ago
  2. “So I guess that would be Mr. Pretty’s girlfriend. Their exclusive contract is “love”.”

    Somehow I don’t think that both sides of this deal are reading from the same contract. It sounds to me like for him the “exclusive contract” is “sex”…and is only “exclusive” until the terms of the agreement change in any way.

    | Reply Posted 9 years, 8 months ago
  3. * PRSlaveDC says:

    Jane,

    I don’t comment much here, but I read you pretty regularly. A couple points:

    Do you realize that you’ve now written 5 posts about a guy that you’ve met twice and and gone on maybe half a date with? You seem to be a pretty outgoing girl who meets a lot of new people, that’s a lot of literary investment for someone your mind is clearly telling you isn’t a suitable match.

    Also, two of the prior posts referenced the word “breezy” on more than one occasion. If you’re so worried about being breezy, you’re overthinking the whole thing a ton, and not acting like your actual self around him or in your conversations to him. If the “breezy” thing is just sarcasm, you’re probably still too over-conscious of it since you seem to harp on it to protect yourself.

    You are absolutely right. I have been thinking a lot about this. Maybe blogging about my dating life is just… over done. Maybe this whole blog has veered into a realm I had never intended it to go. Someone called me a “dating blog” and it was jarring. That’s not how this started and perhaps it’s not where it should go. Thanks for confirmation.

    This may be the pot calling the kettle black, but just relax… clearly boys are interested or else you wouldn’t have such good stories to share with us on the blogosphere. The right one is coming…

    | Reply Posted 9 years, 8 months ago
  4. * Peter says:

    Pepsi had the sole right to sell soft drinks at the arena but had to pay a significant amount of money to secure that right. Budweiser got fewer benefits from its relationship with the arena – other beers could be sold – but presumably it paid less than Pepsi. One could argue that Budweiser actually has the better deal, with the lower cost outweighing the nonexclusivity.

    And so it may be with Mr. Pretty and his girlfriend. He has sole claim on her attention, just like Pepsi has the sole right to sell soft drinks, but has to pay a Pepsi-style high price for that claim: he cannot pursue other women. There’s a quid pro quo in other words. Just as there is room for doubt over whether Pepsi or Budweiser has the better deal with the arena, there is room for doubt as to whether Mr. Pretty is better off than a man in a nonexclusive relationship.

    | Reply Posted 9 years, 8 months ago
  5. * carrie m says:

    sounds like a long winded in esoteric business jargon that translates down to one thing: fuck buddies. he’s telling you he has a ‘contract’ for a long term booty call?

    stop talking to him immediately. i know you won’t, but really. this guy is pissing me off more and more by the minute. i don’t think he’s worth even as a peripheral acquaintance. this is a fascinating post b/c you can’t make this shit up.

    but he’s a douchebag. what’s the business term for that?

    | Reply Posted 9 years, 8 months ago
  6. * christina says:

    i’m going to have to agree that this guy is using some big words to call a spade a spade…. booty call. I highly doubt he would have told you he was in a realtionship until too late if you had not approached the subject.

    You obviously have a quality that attracts guys to you so my suggestion is to stop being that girl and start being the girl. You are too good for this guy.

    | Reply Posted 9 years, 8 months ago
  7. * Max says:

    Take it from someone who has been right where you are, get out while you can. I was a total idiot and tried this kind of relationship and it totally backfired on me in the end. AND I was really annoying to my friends for the 6 months that it took place… so now they always rub it in my face what an idiot I was. (I know, I should totally get new friends, right?)

    But save yourself the heartache– from the way you seem excited when you talk to him/see him I think you’re already too into him for something to not end up badly.

    Good luck 🙂

    | Reply Posted 9 years, 8 months ago
  8. * Shannon says:

    A perspective from someone who doesn’t know you…

    Why would you even want to get involved with a guy who already has a girlfriend? I know I sound like my mom, but if he’ll cheat WITH you, he’ll cheat ON you. Don’t get taken for a ride, no matter if he makes puppy-dog eyes at you. He’s a would-be cheater and a creep. Delete his number. Ignore him. Get out while your karma is still intact.

    Learn your value and don’t ever forget it. If you settle for second-best, that’s what you’ll keep getting. You can’t make a meal out of another woman’s leftovers.

    | Reply Posted 9 years, 8 months ago


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: