Equal Value In Relationships

Post Reply New Topic

I wonder what would happen if we throw both AngelRho and rdos into a fight pit.

So you hang out with girls for absolutely no reason?

No...nothing creepy about that at all! [/sarc]


I'm just not a fan of sex outside marriage. It's just giving way more to someone than they deserve. Hopefully two people in marriage know and understand what they're signing up for. The divorce rate suggests otherwise. But if that's all you have to bring to the institution, just don't get married.

The pleasure of sex is typically the reward for having sex. For me, it's the sport of bringing a woman to climax. If that's a problem at any time, I prefer not to even finish. I know it won't take me long, I know it's worth the wait. That's not a challenge for me. Satisfying a woman is fun. And if she climaxes, she's gotten what she wants from the exchange. We both win. Sex is hot like that.

Placing monetary or material value on someone's mind and body undervalues the person and cheapens the act of lovemaking. I consider that immoral. There's a more appropriate means of exchange for that: Infinite value


Ok, but the problem is you're arguing a point in a sub-forum dedicated precisely to love and dating. That's not helping. At all.







I'm not above bribery. But I do think chronic bribery is like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. You find bribery in crony capitalism, a trade in money and power that marginalizes honest people. Once you engage in that, it becomes difficult to get away from it. If you have to bribe someone to achieve a goal, you run the risk that a person in a position of power will squeeze you for extortion. You can break the cycle any time by calling out the extortionist, but you bring about your own ruin in the process. I wouldn't bribe someone beyond how far I could control them.

That's beyond selfish, though. You can get away with playing to someone's selfishness all day long. Once you fall under someone's greed, though, it's difficult to get away from them.


The act of giving something without hope of return breeds bitterness and resentfulness. State-mandated altruism is a thing. Ask Soviet leaders how that worked out for them, assuming they're not delusional. Oh, wait...


Then you're not altruistic.

Either you're altruistic or you're not. Either you give and give completely to all or you don't. If you hold back, or you only do favors for a select few, you're being selfish. You're picking and choosing based on some preference.


Try altruism on a national scale. How's the USSR doing these days?

How happy are the North Koreans? Are those reeducation camps working out ok for them?

Are the rural poor in Cuba getting everything they were promised?

How's life in Venezuela?

Altruism LITERALLY doesn't work. It doesn't do anything. There's no reason to do anything in altruism. It expends no effort. Yet it demands EVERYTHING. If you know you get the same benefit whether you work hard or work little, why work hard? Why do anything for your partner if you know she has to stay with you? You can get whatever you want from her at any time and all you have to do is say the word and snap your fingers. And she HAS to do what you want her to do because it's wrong to expect anything in return. What a mean, horrible woman refusing you something she doesn't want to give. How dare she have a mind of her own! How selfish...

Seriously, is that the kind of relationship you're advocating?

Wouldn't work. I don't believe in violence except for self-defense. The worst I have to fear from rods is some bizarre form of mind-rape.

That doesn't follow. I hang out because I like to, and I don't need or want any reward for that. Just hanging out is quite enough.



There are other ways to form romantic relationships than dating. The sub-forum deals with both love and dating. I don't think dating has any relevance for NDs, but that's my opinion.



Wrong. Altruism in nature is never general. It is typically based on genetic relatedness. This can be relatives or parent-child. The one between related people is typically called the culture of honor and is very common among NTs, but I think NDs don't like this so much. The one between parent and child is universal and enforced with bonding. The one I talk about between partners in a relationship is also based on bonding and probably is more common among NDs.



Altruism on the national scale can be extremely maladaptive and bad. The worse example is Europe and the mass-immigration from Africa and Middle East which is based on misplaced altruism.



That's not altruism. I gave you an excellent example related to travel before.

Non-transactional doesn't mean you get all your wishes fulfilled. The altruism part (which is central) only says you do things without any expectation of a return. It doesn't say that you expect somebody to do things for you. Expectations are transactional. An expectation that a woman would want to do anything when somebody snaps their finger is not altruism and not non-transactional. It's a wet dream, nothing else.

It seems like altruism is more common among NDs. One way it can be observed is that many NDs are left-wing (socialist) and altruism is more common there. Much of the left-wing (socialist) altruism at the national scale is pretty maladaptive. However, it is not given why altruism is more valued by NDs. There should be an adaptive reason for this.

I think a possible hypothesis is that mind-to-mind connections are the natural way NDs relate in relationships. The thing is when a mind-to-mind connection is present, playing tit for tat or value-for-value games simply doesn't work. The other person will know how their partner's reasoning during these games, and their motivations, and so deceiving each other and gaining advantages that way simply doesn't work. That takes away the motivation for the transactions themselves. Under these conditions, altruism is favored. If somebody isn't sincere, and only tries to gain free favors, the other would know and can terminate the exchange. It actually takes quite a bit of time to get used to being open about everything and being unable to hide things, but in the end, it's worth it all. It is a dream come true for any ND to never lie, and even being unable to lie to your partner. It also makes a commitment unnecessary since both people know the other is serious about it, and both know each other's long-term intentions. You even know what the other (truthfully) think about other people, being it friends, relatives or strangers they encounter.

So you DO have a reason. It's something you value. That IS the reward.

Another suicidal argument bites the dust.


What IS dating? I see a date as an agreement on a time/place to meet for the purpose of getting to to know each other better. Romantic involvement may potentially be a goal, but not necessarily always THE goal. Dating (in the infinitive) is an ongoing informal relationship in which romantic involvement is very likely. An engaged couple may not be "dating" in that sense, nor are married couples "dating." But either case may involve continued "dates" that serve to strengthen the relationship, among other things.


Then it's not altruism. Altruism doesn't pick and choose. Either it's altruism or not. Make up your mind. If you're altruistic, you will go the distance with your life for a perfect stranger for no reason. If you reserve your sacrifices for people and things you value, it's not really a sacrifice. Willingness to lay down your life for family and not others is selfish.

Body count: 2 in this post.


OK, there you go. You get my meaning. You agree altruism is bad. "Misplaced" altruism? I don't think there ever is a good place for altruism.

I don't have a problem with what often PASSES as altruism. But what people mistake for altruism is usually a result of another person's self-interest. I've already explained this and don't feel like rehashing it any more if I can help it. The main point is that's not altruism, even if it's mistaken as altruism. If there's any selfish motive behind it, it's not altruistic.

Few people actually ARE genuinely altruistic. More people than that do TRY to be consistent altruists. Neither of them live consistently with their supposed values, or what they value isn't objectively very valuable to begin with. They are miserable people to be avoided.


It was a terrible example. So...you make a claim to favor altruism and proceeded to back that up with a selfish justification. Suicidal argument #2. Then you actually AGREE with me that altruism is bad. Then you use probably the sickest example I've ever read to illustrate the worst of TR--and it's a terrible example because it completely misses the point of human value. I take no issue with using sex as a reward. I DO take issue with sex being used as a weapon, and that's exactly what you were talking about. TR is about TRADE. It's not about intimacy as a weapon, as a means of punishment. Your example was not an example of transaction in marriage. It was an example of blackmail.

NTR, much like altruistic societies, indulge corruption. You are a giver, he's a taker. So if you have need of a transaction, you are forced to cheat the system. You bribe your partner with sex. Then when he refuses to give you what you want, you commit emotional extortion. The problem for you is the extortionist is corrupt enough to see through what you're doing. He's probably pulled that on you before, which is why you think the trick works. It's an attempt at gaining power over your husband by cheating the NTR system. If you're lucky, he'll just cheat on you when he doesn't get his way. If you're unlucky, he'll start demanding sex whether you want to give it or not.


YES. IT. DOES!! ! You're just lying to yourself now. If you practice consistent altruism, THAT MEANS you drop what you're doing (assuming you're doing anything, which you're likely not) and do whatever somebody else wants you to do. You don't question it. You don't count the cost. You're good little boy or girl and trust that somebody else's decisions are for the greater good and you FOLLOW them like sheep to the slaughter. Altruism is non-transactional. You LOSE. You GET NOTHING. Here's the problem:


Altruism is NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT. It's about what another person wants, or what society wants, or what "the greater good" demands WITHOUT any consideration for what's really best for the individual who bears the brunt of said demands. It's not up for question. It's not transactional. No, there's no expectation for something in return. That's exactly my point. There's nothing that's ever GOING to be given in return. The woman (or man, it doesn't matter) WILL do whatever she is told because the "greater good" demands it. And if she withholds her good deeds, she's shamed for it because she's selfish.

Screw that. Let her be selfish. Why shouldn't she expect her husband to take care of her? Why shouldn't she expect her husband satisfy her in bed? Why shouldn't she expect to have children if that's what she wants? Why shouldn't she expect to get big promotions and become a CEO? Why shouldn't she expect her husband will never hit her or yell at her in anger? Why shouldn't she expect her husband to be true to her and not cheat? If her husband doesn't meet her expectations, she can communicate those expectations until she gets what she wants or she can leave. If her employer won't meet her expectations, she can quit her job for another or just start her own company. TR is based on value, on objective reality. Altruism is based on woo and death.

Oh, I know EXACTLY why. I don't think this is the place to discuss it, though. I'm just going to say that there's no shortage of greedy people out there ready to take advantage of the gullible. Respond how you will to that, but that's all I care to say.


This isn't objective reality.

Sure, the "reward" for being out is her company, but that's not a transaction. There is no implication that any of us has to give additional rewards and no implication that every time must be super-interesting and novel. We simply enjoy each others company. Lately, I stop by for about half-an-hour to read a book at the library and have her sitting close by. That's also enjoyable.



NT dating is a planned meeting that is supposed to be highly memorable with a lot of talking, often with the intention to impress the other person. Dating is much like a competition and a game, and people seldom are natural or even
behave in a normal way on a date. There are many reasons why this is a horrible way to meet a partner if you are ND.



I disagree with your definition of altruism. You don't need to be altruistic with the entire humanity to be altruistic. It's enough if you are altruistic to select people, which is also how it works in nature. General altruism is severely maladaptive and thus doesn't exist in nature, while altruism connected with individuals does exist and is not maladaptive.



It was a bit exaggerated to prove the point, but other than that, it serves as a good example of how transactional exchange can develop. You will not see it done in such a literal sense (unless it's NDs involved), but the general working is like this. People get grumpy because they feel the scores are unbalanced, maybe gives you some hints, or avoids you. If you haven't noticed that, then you really haven't observed the real dynamics of it.

Another thing is that NTs have innate cheater detection that NDs lack. This means NDs needs to learn how it works, needs to learn to detect cheating and ABSOLUTELY must keep scores not to be tricked and cheated on. Which is tricky in itself because you cannot just count the number of things people do, you must rate their value as well.



That's not NTR. It's cheating gullible NDs within the TR system.



This is not the way natural ND relationships work. If this is part of the definition of NTRs, then we need to invent another term for it. I still think you are abusing the NTR concept, and so I think I will stick with it and claim that you have completely misunderstood what NTR is about.

First, while a few NDs seem to be altruistic to everybody, I think that is just a "quirk" based on NDs being adapted to small groups and not today's big cities and global communities. Thus, we can simply leave this as an adaptive trait gone wrong in a new environment.

Second, the exchange in an ND relationship is not based on demands. Such a thing is highly offensive to many NDs, and so demanding things is not part of it. There might be requests or wishes, but never demands.

Third, there is still a mechanism to ensure a fair exchange, but it is not based on evaluating give & take and calculating scores as in NTs tit for tat. It's more like if I feel my love isn't responsive enough, I'll send sad emotions, which probably triggers her to increase her exchange. This system is a lot cruder than what NTs use. Most importantly, it's about what I get only and is not related to what I give. We can decide that the exchange doesn't need to be fair, and I will mostly react to if she suddenly puts less effort into it, not the balance.



I don't count wanting a family, being taken care of (protected) and treated well as expectations. That's more of a requirement unless something else is negotiated. Expectations are things like getting gifts & material things, going to events & parties, shopping, traveling and so on.

If there is a reward, there is an exchange. That’s what a transaction is. That is TR. You are contradicting yourself.

The body count continues to rise.


What competition? What game? And what’s so wrong about wanting others to see the best in yourself in order to exchange value-for-value? If you are valuable, and if you want to be with someone of value, you’d want them to see that, wouldn’t you? Personally, I couldn’t care less what people think of me. But if I think someone has something of value to offer, somethjng I want or need, it’s up to me to demonstrate that I’ve earned or deserve what they have. It’s theft otherwise.

Horrible way? I’m not going to argue the merits of it. At issue is the fact that this is what many ND folks want.


Disagree all you want, but either you are altruistic or you’re not. You can’t be just a little bit altruistic. If you pick and choose, that’s selfish. Yes, it DOES work that way in nature. That’s objective. Basically you’re just admitting that you’re selfish and rationalizing it.


Who’s keeping score?

Yes, people get grumpy. “Beware the free lunch.” Give someone something they know they haven’t earned, you make them feel indebted to you. Handouts are immoral because they rob the recipient of his agency to independently trade for value. Yes, it’s an imbalance because it’s NTR. People tend to feel resentful when forced into that position.

I don’t normally feel guilty when this happens to me. The way I see it, the institutions who require my services can’t afford me. So individuals of means step up to correct the value imbalance.

Nothing wrong at all with rating value.


It removes the transaction from the relationship. The flow of value is only one-way. I can’t make it more clear than that.


The NTR concept deserves the abuse, first of all. Second, you admit that transactions occur. That suggests you don’t actually believe in NTR. Third, you don’t speak for all or most ND’s. Fourth, and finally, you’re talking about things that don’t exist in objective reality.


You can expect whatever you want. Things that work to your benefit SHOULD be expected. Things that work against your well-being are not normal, not to be expected. When things go wrong, we usually work to correct the problem. If you expect kids when you get married and your spouse pulls a bait-and-switch on you, you get a divorce and find someone who shares that value. That person does not love you, and you don’t love that person. It’s immoral to sleep with someone you don’t love. End it.

I’m not a believer in divorce. It’s way too easy. But people don’t value marriage, either. If you don’t share values and expectations (expectations stem from values), you shouldn’t get married. I could point to some nitpicky aspects of my marriage and claim promises were broken...but at the same time I must acknowledge that she and everything that goes with her was what I signed up for. If I have a problem with that, that’s on me to fix. People in unhappy marriages were really unhappy people from the start. It just took time and circumstance to show it. If you expect much from your relationship, you will work to get it. If you expect little, you won’t make the effort, and you risk making your partner unhappy or killing the relarionship

Competition: You are supposed to look more attractive than your rivals so your date wants another date.
Game: Since there is a lot of competition, people play games and pretend they are somebody they are not (to make a good impression).



Nope. I really hate that kind of thing. By putting a value on people you basically say we are only walking dollar bills, and that everybody can be bought.



Nope. It would feel like I bought somebody or was bought by somebody. It's similar to prostitution. I'd never respect anybody that has put a (monetary) value on me.



You must keep scores (consciously or subconsciously) if you engage in activities that are supposed to be fair. If you don't, you will either be cheated on or accused of cheating.



Not only. Things are never ideally balanced, and things change. I presented an example of a couple where the woman got Parkinson, and the relationship got more and more unbalanced. There are many other reasons this can happen. People can get higher positions, lose their job, get sick and many other things.



Everything is wrong with rating "performance" (value) in a relationship.



Maybe you want things that way, but I don't. I don't want to calculate scores on "values" and complain if there isn't a balance. I don't want to be thought of as an asset that can be bought. I want to have a mutual agreement on how much we would see each other, what we do together and what other exchange we have. I don't want to be grumpy because of value-by-value games. Above all, I want us to be together forever, and so we should be nice and supportive and not competitive.

I value my partner more than anything, more than myself.
Reading this thread has been a sickening experience, ta.

I'm not competing with anybody. I don't have to play games. I think you're imagining things.


Who said anything about money? Why assume that money is the only medium of exchange? There are other objective means of that.

You can't objectively place value on people. But you can place value on their own values and on their time. You can place value on how they treat you, among others. You cannot possibly physically measure the infinite because you are not an infinite being. Time and shared interests, on the other hand, are not infinite. Those things can be shared or exchanged.

Can you honestly tell me you'd be perfectly ok with a woman who was abusive towards you? If you value nothing, exchange nothing, then you're perfectly fine with being mistreated. To expect otherwise would be selfish. It would be transactional. You see nothing at all wrong with abusive relationships?


Nonsense. Nobody is talking about prostitution or anything like it.

Are you saying it's right to steal?


You're talking about a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers. I'm talking about relationships in which both partners win. I still don't understand who's keeping score...


I already covered this. If we're talking about a lifelong LTR (marriage), the exchange has already been made, or at least it should have been. Dealbreakers have to be dealt with beforehand and everyone agree on what they can live with and what they can't. My wife IS my reward. I don't care what happens to her so long as she's MINE.

If she'd had a debilitating illness early on that would have threatened my plans and goals for marriage and didn't disclose that to me, there might have been a problem. She's been nothing less than honest with me and breaking up isn't anything we have to worry about. If something happens to her, I'm ok with taking care of her. And yes, that's perfectly transactional. She DESERVES it.


What the heck are you talking about, "performance"? There's no "performance." Values are based on objective reality. I don't want my wife to tell me she loves me. I want her to LOVE me. I don't just say the "three magic words" to my wife. I LOVE her. I do stuff, buy things, work hard. I help make sure she and our children are safe and well-fed. Sometimes I'm able to go above and beyond that. But there's no fake sort of "performance" going on. If you can't see, hear, touch, taste, smell love, it doesn't exist. Value is tied up in REAL things we enjoy. When I go to a symphony concert or a ballet, I FEEL differently coming out than I did going in because of what happened on the stage--REAL performers engaged in TANGIBLE expression. I experienced pleasure from something measurable. If nothing more than being in the same room with your mate gives you pleasure, or peace of mind, of comfort, or whatever, that's enough to experience the value of the other person, what that other person means to you. There's no "performance." Either someone is important, or valuable to you, or not. For those who are valuable to you, they may be more/less valuable than someone else for different reasons. Do you value someone who threatens or abuses you? If so, WHY? If you really live absent values, then that means you don't even value your own wife or romantic partner(s). You don't even value yourself. How could you? You don't live with values, amiright?

And that leads me to a few questions:

So you would be happy living with an abusive partner?

Maybe you're the abusive one? Do you abuse your wife? How many times have you insulted your wife this week? Or maybe you beat her. How many times did you beat your wife this week? Or this year, even?


That's because you're detached from objective reality.


Who's complaining?


Nobody is trying to buy you. But this does suggest possibly that you don't value yourself much. How's your self-esteem these days?


Aaaaaand there's another suicide casualty. It's really starting to smell in here. "Mutual agreement" is transactional. You're negotiating value-for-value with someone.



Why would you be grumpy? And WHAT GAMES???


You're arguing against values and yet you keep listing yours. Someone needs to start digging a mass grave for all the suicidal arguments in this thread.

Last edited by AngelRho on 20 Dec 2018, 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm so sorry I have put you through this. I feel exactly the same way towards my partner. I'm perplexed that someone can be so persistent in saying that nobody has value, or at best disregarding it.

There are so many inconsistencies in the argument that I hardly know where to start.

But, let's start with dating. You and several other people have claimed we should work on ourselves to improve our value on the dating market. We should work-out, learn to socialize with NTs, study, get a well-paying work, get lots of friends, involve in sub-cultures to build our identity and so on. From this, I have to conclude that what you call values must be these things. We should go to the gym to have a nice body to show-off, we should learn to become like NTs because that is supposed to lead to more dating success, we should be highly competitive to get well-paying job. In short, values seem to be looks, faking who we are and social status. Then you describe dating as offering things (I suppose it is those values) and requesting values from those we date. You call this process "transactions". You claim we should select a partner that share our values, and that has a similar "score" on how valuable (attractive) they are as ourselves.

When we are in relationships we are supposed to be transactional. We should trade values and make sure things are balanced. We should reward each other for spending time with each other. If the flow of "values" become too one-sided, we should break up.

Yet, when you talk about your own marriage you claim things can become unbalanced and you still will stay with your wife. You describe her values as "infinite", which I suspect you do to get out of your own dilemma that you really won't do the things you claim people should do when their "needs" are no longer met and the value-for-value exchange process deteriorates.

I think I will simply leave it like this as I don't see this leading anywhere. You "transaction" concept is completely incomprehensible and the way you behave yourself is inconsistent with what you claim others should do.

I think my biggest issue with all of this is that I refuse to call time, love, attachment, hanging-out, trust, respect and a number of other stuff for "values". I also refuse to score both myself and others on some attractivity / value scale that is supposed to be used when I evaluate potential partners. In fact, I don't care one bit about value or attractivity in a potential partner, and I certainly will not limit myself to potential partners with a similar "score". In a relationship, I don't want competition, I don't want entitlement (or expectations), I don't want drama or fighting over "values". I want a strong bond, respectful discussion (verbal or non-verbal) about relevant issues like how often we meet, what we do and share. I don't want nit-picking about our exchange, and it doesn't need to be "value-for-value".

Abuse is completely unacceptable, and I've never been abusive to anybody. Violence is also completely unacceptable, and I've never hit a woman. However, abuse and violence have nothing to do with "transactional" or "non-transactional", and neither do narcissism or psychopathy.

I think to avoid this transaction junk altogether, value even the little things your partner do for you as of infinite value and value her time and love as infinitely valuable. Then you will always prioritize her and you can give as much as you want and use as much effort as you want on her without caring about the transaction junk.

It is for some.

When did I ever say that?

“Value on the dating market” is living for someone else, relying on the opinions of others in order to define yourself. I don’t care what other people think of me. I don’t need value in some mystical market in order to exist.

Working on yourself helps you stay healthy and mentally sharp. You work on yourself because you love yourself, or because you get enjoyment out of it.

The benefits might spill over into dating when you become more attractive and confident. But that’s entirely collateral. That’s not why you do it.

The rest of that paragraph is wrong and you know it. You’re building a dishonest strawman. What I’ve said is nothing like that.



Probably most relationships are TR to an extent. Plus TR is objective. It’s real. NTR is either master-slave, victim-parasite, or it’s mystical woo.


Has your wife had her daily beating yet?


What dilemma? You’re making stuff up. I’m really not concerned with balance.

I got what I wanted from my wife when I married her. There’s never going to be an imbalance.

All I have to give in life I can only give IN life. Life is not infinite. I’m choosing to give her everything I possibly can WHILE I can. She has promised me the same. Life-for-life is value-for-value, infinite-for-infinite, or at least as close as we can come to it.

If my wife didn’t share my values, my goals, didn’t love me for me, or if I didn’t love her, yes, I absolutely would have dumped her. The first major disagreement we had was about having children—we didn’t agree on timing. We corrected that by finally agreeing on when we would start trying, and I delivered on my end of the deal. Value-for-value. We both wanted children. She was becoming understandably impatient. If she’d dumped me over a bait-and-switch, there’d have been nothing I could do.

I don’t worry about imbalance because the structure of our relationship works this out. We don’t have to expend all that much effort. Basically, it’s I have her and she has me. We are good for each other. Balance isn’t really part of that conversation. We already have that and nothing can upset it. All that’s left to do is enjoy each other.

You can tell while dating that things aren’t right. You should never change for someone if you don’t want to. You should never expect the other person to change for you. If you are unhappy with someone, the reason doesn’t really matter. What matters is that there IS a reason. If you constantly feel guilty for not measuring up to her demands, ask WHY you feel guilty. It’s probably because the relationship has become one-sided and she has shifted her responsibilities to you. You can’t MAKE someone responsible for your happiness. So if this is happening, yes, absolutely break up with her.

To put it simply: if you’re feeling guilty for not living up to her demands, it’s probably because you don’t really want to do whatever it is she wants. You’ve lost value-for-value and one of you has become a parasite. Or maybe you both are parasitic and in win-lose competition. There’s no reason to continue. BREAK UP and minimize the future damage.


Suit yourself, but I’m fairly consistent. I am NOT perfect, but I do make the effort. I don’t deviate very far from what I’ve described here.


Except those things ARE values.


How many times did your wife yell at you yesterday?


Who said anything about a score? I don’t like seeing people lose. I want everyone to win. Value-for-value.


Who’s competing? Who wants entitlement? I’ve repeatedly said that you should neither give nor received the unearned or the undeserved


Suicide. You want respectful discussion, but decry value-for-value.

The “bond” thing reeks of parent-child and master-slave. Is your wife or gf your mommy? Or is one of you dominating or abusing the other? I personally find that distasteful, but whatever... And nobody is nitpicking anything.

Unacceptable for YOU, maybe. What about her? How many times did you let her scream at you yesterday? How many times did she hit you or break your things?

How often does she make you feel guilty? How often do you try to shame her for something?

Ok, so you say it has nothing to do with TR or NTR. That’s demonstrably false. If NTR, then no exchange. Someone can do whatever they want, get whatever they want from someone and that person has no right to expect something in return. And should they ever ask for a favor, they’re selfish for even asking.

Lots of relationships are like that. I’m not denying the reality of NTR.

But if there is absolutely zero flow of value in either direction, then there’s not really a relationship in any meaningful terms. It’s fantasyland, fairies and unicorns.

One possible alternative to violence and abuse is assessing mental capacity. If it is unknown, unusual, or extraordinary for your wife to abuse or try to leave you, you have to make the choice whether to leave her (self-preservation), endure her abuse (self-hate), or get her the support she needs either by accommodating her condition/illness, or getting help, potentially committing her to a mental institution. Are you or your wife delusional? If that’s the case, you might want to have that checked out by a professional.


Time is infinite. People are infinitely valuable. That much is correct. However, nobody has infinite time. Time is linear from our perspective in terms of what we can do about it. You don’t reward based on what you don’t have. You reward based on what you DO have. Though we have infinite value, we don’t all share the SAME values. Therefore we gravitate towards those who share our values and reject those who do not.