[dTal]

Thank you for the fascinating insight into socio-sexual dynamics in business, and highlighting some of the symmetries of the issue.

The most interesting part to me is how you forbade the investor from investing in your company (not that he cared). You were both participating in a sort of zero-sum game[1] - you tempt him with your sexuality and hope he invests, he tempts you with investment and hopes you sleep with him. In either case, the first one to break "loses" the game (as you pointed out, in your earlier headhunting career, nobody got to sleep with you and you were very successful). It's "winner-takes-all".

I would like to unpack why this "winner-takes-all" system, objectionable though it may be, is still vastly preferable to a more straightforward exchange of sex for resources. In your story, given that you had already resolved to sleep with him, what would have been the terrible consequences if he had, subsequently, decided to invest?

(Forgive me if this question comes across as callous - I can well appreciate some of the reasons why this might be. But I'm interested in your perspective and don't want to lead the witness.)

[1] Obviously not completely zero-sum - if he invests you hopefully both make money, and if you have sex you hopefully both have fun. But you get the idea.