Relationships in the modern world

[mikemex]

I'm just re-reading Engel's "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" and can't be but delighted on how accurate it is on so many aspects.

One of those is the role of love in relationships. Perhaps you already know it but love didn't play a major role in the ancient times. Relationships were more out of convenience than anything else. They were mostly for breeding children and having a semi-stable environment where companionship and practical support were the top values. People wasn't necessarily attracted to one another at the beginning; they developed feelings over time not very different from the kind of friendship developed by solders during armed conflicts. Just sexual.

I say this because it seems to me like like nothing has changed significantly even today. I was reading some forums and I'm impressed to read how many people stick to shitty relationships just because they feel like they can't go anywhere else. There are women who even go as far as posting ads offering to become a stable lover in exchange for financial support.

My hypothesis is that liberty in out world is just an illusion. We're still slaves to the system, it's just that we're locked using a different kind of chain: money. And I've come to the conclusion that any relationship where money plays any significant role is probably not a healthy one.

Discuss...

[chriscorey]

I'm just re-reading Engel's "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" and can't be but delighted on how accurate it is on so many aspects.

One of those is the role of love in relationships. Perhaps you already know it but love didn't play a major role in the ancient times. Relationships were more out of convenience than anything else. They were mostly for breeding children and having a semi-stable environment where companionship and practical support were the top values. People wasn't necessarily attracted to one another at the beginning; they developed feelings over time not very different from the kind of friendship developed by solders during armed conflicts. Just sexual.

I say this because it seems to me like like nothing has changed significantly even today. I was reading some forums and I'm impressed to read how many people stick to shitty relationships just because they feel like they can't go anywhere else. There are women who even go as far as posting ads offering to become a stable lover in exchange for financial support.

My hypothesis is that liberty in out world is just an illusion. We're still slaves to the system, it's just that we're locked using a different kind of chain: money. And I've come to the conclusion that any relationship where money plays any significant role is probably not a healthy one.

Discuss...

I agree with the bold. Hence, don't want keys...

[Aquagraph]

One of those is the role of love in relationships. Perhaps you already know it but love didn't play a major role in the ancient times. Relationships were more out of convenience than anything else. They were mostly for breeding children and having a semi-stable environment where companionship and practical support were the top values. People wasn't necessarily attracted to one another at the beginning; they developed feelings over time not very different from the kind of friendship developed by solders during armed conflicts. Just sexual.

Mostly true but this sounds like soldiers develop sex only friendships?

I say this because it seems to me like like nothing has changed significantly even today. I was reading some forums and I'm impressed to read how many people stick to shitty relationships just because they feel like they can't go anywhere else. There are women who even go as far as posting ads offering to become a stable lover in exchange for financial support.

You don't want to accept that sometimes people (women and men) want to choose these expedient relationships. Sex and intimacy in exchange for economical stability and security can be a really good trade-off. Not saying that there aren't people trapped in these too.

My hypothesis is that liberty in out world is just an illusion.

Liberty to choose the relationship you want, even an expedient one, is alive and strong.

We're still slaves to the system, it's just that we're locked using a different kind of chain: money.

Wealth has always been an important factor in relationships. Money merely upgraded our currency from the barter system.

And I've come to the conclusion that any relationship where money plays any significant role is probably not a healthy one.

That's why it might be good to marry rich so that money isn't an issue.

[xerx]

There are women who even go as far as posting ads offering to become a stable lover in exchange for financial support.

Giving someone else control over your life? These women are basically bums and/or losers.

[mikemex]

Mostly true but this sounds like soldiers develop sex only friendships?

Comradery...

You don't want to accept that sometimes people (women and men) want to choose these expedient relationships. Sex and intimacy in exchange for economical stability and security can be a really good trade-off. Not saying that there aren't people trapped in these too.

Perhaps the kind of analysis is what gives different results here. Yours is more pragmatic of course and you simply say that given a set of options a person chooses the one who fits best. And that's freedom according to your criteria.

Thing is, my analysis is a bit more idealistic. To me, if you're forced to choose out of necessity that's not freedom. Besides, in my view, a relationship is an end on its own. As soon as you're with someone for reasons other than obtaining affection, then you're no longer in a relationship but in a kind of job.

I admit, such idealizations do not exist in the real world because we're always limited by our circumstances. However, in my view, your posture that there is people who aren't looking for relationships and merely associate with others to solve their practical problems, such as financial support, also sounds like an idealization on your part. In practice, I see everyone wanting sincere affection regardless of type.

Perhaps that people don't know themselves well?

[Beautiful sky]

Money doesn't play any role in the relationships I choose. I just try to find a way where someone I care about and I can be together, even if that person is far from me as in overseas. Wishes of wealth is not in my book. My money values come from my grandparents and from my parents; that is that when you have it you should be wise about it and when you don't there's a lot of it to be had, just find the profession that you're a good fit for and try to get it, don't judge the value of your relationships by how much money the person has but of the character of the them and your relationship.


My SLI ex of long term was very money driven and our relationship suffered a lot because we had a lot of nice things and because these nice things all had values, like this car is so expensive, the only thing that could be had of the relationship or the value of it was that "I have this and therefore I should take care of it as though it's so important." It was nice to have stuff but I don't want it to be the heart, the beat, the thing that is the focus, center, and talk of our relationship.

[Aquagraph]

Comradery...

Then it isn't just..

Just sexual.

Perhaps the kind of analysis is what gives different results here. Yours is more pragmatic of course and you simply say that given a set of options a person chooses the one who fits best. And that's freedom according to your criteria.

Thing is, my analysis is a bit more idealistic. To me, if you're forced to choose out of necessity that's not freedom.

Of course, with more wealth, people are more free to do what they want. Most of the women putting ads about looking for sugar daddies probably wouldn't feel the need to do that if they were more wealthier, but I'm happy that when there is poverty, there are also lonely rich people looking for an exotic lover. For some women, it's a good way to build a future.

Besides, in my view, a relationship is an end on its own. As soon as you're with someone for reasons other than obtaining affection, then you're no longer in a relationship but in a kind of job.

It's easy to give affection for the hand that feeds and the hand that feeds will probably also expect that. If you look at most of the couples in mail order bride video testimonies the women don't look like they are in love and it's even hard to say whether they are as happy as they look, but affection is expected in those arrangements.

In practice, I see everyone wanting sincere affection regardless of type.

In practice, I fully agree.

According to a study arranged marriages are just as successful in "love, satisfaction and commitment" as the "modern" ones.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't believe people ever fell in love quickly, and if they did- that's usually some sign of mental illness. Or they were simply spoiled financially, and they could afford to live a luxurious life thinking "Love" was anything they wanted it to be... It's easy to be in love wearing narcissistic silk gowns and being waited on by servants while you dream of the next exciting piece of artwork that will make lots of money.

I think conflict between two individuals is waaaaay more natural than friendship, and romantic love even rarer than that. We have been killing, molesting, abusing, and one-upping each other for centuries a lot more than we have been holding hands and making friends. Sadly...

It's the Never Has Been/Never Will be paradox. Conservatives: The world used to be a good place darnit, before those libtards changed it up! (the world has always been shit)

Liberals: *naive puppy dog face* The world will be a good place if we just do X, Y & Z! (world is never perfect, world always has conflict, world *thrives* on conflict and power... )

But the bright side is, that's what makes faggy big-hearted moments so special , because they are so rare and tender. <3