4 ms·
Please discount the fact that I am a bit of a misanthrope, but... who the hell enters in a relationship not expecting to get something in return?
by epx 8y ago
Please discount the fact that I am a bit of a misanthrope, but... who the hell enters in a relationship not expecting to get something in return?
- saagarjha 8y agoAlmost nobody. But the benefits don't have to be some sort of personal gain: I'm sure most relationships are just for the "benefit" of someone who supports you emotionally rather than with money/fame/power.
- hackits 8y agoGuy talking here. As a man it's best to self actualize and see you-self as a person with feelings, emotions and boundaries. Take a serious look at your health, sexual ,emotional needs and address them individually distinct from each other. After that then branch off to getting sexual relationships with other people as you yourself can identify people with mental disorders and vet people who don't align with your goals and aspiration in life. If anyone wants a great starting point to help out I would recommend the talks by: https://youtu.be/lMBqFFnSS5U?list=PLe7tfp6fIaMwdMTW2O3-kkBiJcoFEOwFl https://youtu.be/lMBqFFnSS5U?list=PLe7tfp6fIaMwdMTW2O3-kkBiJ... For Veting individual you can simply use `Transactional analysis` to quickly filter from people who're high value vs high drama.
- savvu 8y agoHave you heard of ants?
- epx 8y agoYeah, very good :)
- CamTin 8y agoOutside marketized relationships like boss-underling, employer-employee, and salesman-customer? Pretty much no one who isn't an Adam Sandler villain.
- joe_the_user 8y agoIt's a tough thing to express. Certainly, we feel like good people are ones who aren't simply calculating a benefit. But that doesn't mean people don't expect a benefit, it's just that the people we admire expect it without crudely calculating it. I'd say in a lot of ways, a person entering into a relationship expects benefit and expects to form an "us", a commonality, a partnership, with their other, so that what benefits is "us", the common group, and not simply the individual as a completely separated entity unconcerned with the other.
- tmh88j 8y agoDo you not see the difference between a relationship providing a "career" vs a companion?
- onetimemanytime 8y agoThis is probably the most honest one. Pay, do the thing and leave.
- noobermin 8y agoWhat you said is close to a tautology, and like most tautologies, they are merely a play on words and don't leave any substantial insight.
- scotty79 8y agoTautologies are things that are known to be true thanks to sheer logic of them. They are very useful becaus they can be solid foundation of any derivation.
- throwaw-zxcvbn 8y agoNot true. There are relationships (for example between mother and child) that are not based on reciprocation. Nothing in the definition of the word "relationship" implies expectations or getting something in return. It's a synthetic proposition, not an analytic (tautological) one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction
- sb8244 8y agoIs the mother child relationship really not based on reciprocation? The child doesn't enter the relationship willingly which makes it more interesting, but most people that I talk to who want kids do have an expectation of why they want kids. I specifically don't want kids, so this is always of interest to me. BTW, not trying to debate necessarily as I don't have a strong feeling on either side. I just found this article and your comment to be interesting.
- reversecs 8y agoLike giving money to charity, there is no personal gain from giving to organisation that will provide some unknown form of aid to children across the world. Yet it is worth it for some people to make the donation. As selfless as giving to charity is, having a child is magnitudes more selfless (unless you fully expect your child to care for you later in life). Cost, time, stress, etc. At the benefit of seeing a part of you live on and be happy.
- lgessler 8y agoThe way I see it is that although in most relationships people expect reciprocation, they differ in how strictly the people involved are keeping tabs on the difference between how much each is contributing. In relationships like the ones described in this article, both parties are paying more attention to whether they're getting what they perceive to be a fair reward for what they are providing to the other, and should the balance ever shift too far out of their favor, they will presumably end the relationship. On the other extreme, in a relationship between two very close childhood friends or between two deeply romantically involved people, one will often do nice things for the other without (I claim) necessarily checking the books to see all the nice things they've done vs. all the nice things the other's done in the past week before deciding whether to do the nice thing. They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.
- scotty79 8y ago> ... should the balance ever shift too far out of their favor, they will presumably end the relationship. This pretty much describes all relationships except those where one falls horribly ill or the ones where one sticks around despite abuse. > They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider. I think this might be the case in many sugar relationships. That's why it's sometimes hard to describe them as just sex work.