4 ms·

These books have reinforced my belief that all relationships are transactional. Why should romantic relationships be the exception? They have reinforced my beli

These books have reinforced my belief that all relationships are transactional. Why should romantic relationships be the exception? They have reinforced my belief that romance is something made up by guys for guys, that women gladly play into the romantic ideal to their own ends, and that by focussing on finding an interesting woman to date seriously as an end in itself, you lose that woman. It’s a lost cause. I don’t mean this negatively or positively.

everdrive 8y ago
I think that's cynical and incorrect. Charles Bukowski's Women is not an example of a normal relationship. By a vague enough definition, all relationships are "transactional." Both parties can intellectualize their feelings and point to what they get out of it, and both parties can point to a theoretical breaking point, where the transaction no longer has any benefit. But, when most people say "transactional" they mean something a bit different: that the relationship is devoid of genuine emotion, and instead based on some selfish benefit, such as money or shelter. I think you're equivocating the two here. Real, genuine affection does exist. The fact that both people are "getting something out of it" doesn't mean that it's transactional.
- 0db532a0 8y ago
  This is why I said that I do not mean it positively or negatively. The foundation of a relationship is the transaction. It is not necessarily a bad thing. The emotion exists on top of the transaction. Real, genuine affection and love do not exist, as they cannot be defined objectively. Romance is the terms, such as love and affection, and framework we use to describe our subjective emotions in the context of the transaction. One party can use the other's emotion and his or her conception of romance around that emotion to sway the transaction to her or his benefit. Charle's Bukowski's relationships were normal for him. The relationships described in the other books were normal for their authors. The settings change, but the unproductive idealisations of romance and desire for motherly affection remain.

everdrive 8y ago

I think that's cynical and incorrect. Charles Bukowski's Women is not an example of a normal relationship. By a vague enough definition, all relationships are "transactional." Both parties can intellectualize their feelings and point to what they get out of it, and both parties can point to a theoretical breaking point, where the transaction no longer has any benefit. But, when most people say "transactional" they mean something a bit different: that the relationship is devoid of genuine emotion, and instead based on some selfish benefit, such as money or shelter. I think you're equivocating the two here. Real, genuine affection does exist. The fact that both people are "getting something out of it" doesn't mean that it's transactional.

0db532a0 8y ago
This is why I said that I do not mean it positively or negatively. The foundation of a relationship is the transaction. It is not necessarily a bad thing. The emotion exists on top of the transaction. Real, genuine affection and love do not exist, as they cannot be defined objectively. Romance is the terms, such as love and affection, and framework we use to describe our subjective emotions in the context of the transaction. One party can use the other's emotion and his or her conception of romance around that emotion to sway the transaction to her or his benefit. Charle's Bukowski's relationships were normal for him. The relationships described in the other books were normal for their authors. The settings change, but the unproductive idealisations of romance and desire for motherly affection remain.