Equal Value In Relationships

Post Reply New Topic

Great article. It brings up my points in a good way and avoids interpreting reciprocating as transactional.

Read it. The author is biased against transactional relationships, and “relational” as stated in the article isn’t much better. “Relational” according to the author is still transactional. The focus in relational is on quality of service to the partner. It’s a lot more well-meaning than a blatant non-transactional relationship.

What I DISlike about relational is that the focus is on the partner FIRST. I don’t think it’s right to live for someone else. What if they haven’t earned or deserved it? Or if they become abusive? Are you still going to put that person first? Or if you had wanted more from the relationship, like marriage or children, and your bf has no interest whatsoever in those things? Or is relational really just about your partner getting everything and you getting nothing?

A relationship will often work best if give/take is appropriately balanced.

When a relationship is “self-focussed,” what every partner must understand is that the other partner feels the exact same way. Your partner values YOU enough to commit to you; do you feel it’s appropriate to punish someone you love by not reciprocating? Guilt is never a good motivator, and you shouldn’t reward your partner because you feel guilty. But if you don’t take care of your partner, you run the risk of losing someone you value. You shouldn’t work to keep someone because you’re AFRAID to lose them or you feel guilty, but rather because you genuinely value them that much.

If you do feel afraid or guilty, something is wrong. And if you don’t value someone enough to do what it takes, something is defo wrong if you’re trying to stay with this person. You’re not going to be happy. The solution is to live consistently with your values. So if you’re dealing with fear, guilt, or indifference, and it’s causing you to be unhappy, you should break up. If you don’t want to break up, reexamine your values and make a change. The hardest breakup I’ve ever had to endure was with a girl I deeply loved, and I had to face the fact that a life with me would ultimately be harmful to her. Our lives were simply headed in opposite directions. And as much as I loved her, the best thing I could do for her was say goodbye. Sure, I could have reordered my life around her, but then I would have been unhappy and missed out. It would have been wrong to force her to deal with my dissatisfaction with life. It seems paradoxical, but I did her the most good by putting myself first.

When two people have an interdependent relationship, it really does resemble what you describe as “relational.” I think that works out, but you absolutely must be careful to make sure you’re not just being used. Relational can turn non-transactional very quickly and you can end up worse off.

It’s good food for thought, Sweetleaf. Thanks for posting that!

Relational is what I call non-transactional. It's how many NDs prefer relationships to be, while transactional is NT.

If you think relational is still is transactional, then there is something wrong with your definition of transactional.



That's what I like about it.



You might see relational as the next step in the "evolution" of a relationship. Once you have trust between you, you no longer need value-for-value and can go on to unconditional giving.



Not when it involves keeping scores and people resenting each other for not reciprocating properly.



Where do you think this belongs? According to the article, this is when transactional relationships go wrong, and you resent each other for not giving things you feel entitled to.

Quote from article:


Note here how this will lead to abusive relationships. When people fight to be winners, they will use increasingly hostile tactics to get their way, including violence or threat of violence.



I think this is transactional gone "I must win", and then abusive.

*yawn*

You have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve shown that non-transactional relationships don’t work. I’ve shown that transactional by definition means value-for-value trade and eliminates risk of abuse. It’s not a zero sum game. Everyone wins. I’ve written more than enough about it and don’t feel like repeating myself. You’ve lost the argument. Stop wasting time on it.

I’m going to bed now.

That’s simply being a jerk spouse vs being a good spouse.

Your argument obviously is that everything that has gone wrong is non-transactional while everything that works is transactional. It's impossible to have a sound discussion on those premises.

An absolute minimum standard for decency is to admit that all types relationship strategies can fail and succeed and have inherent advantages and disadvantages.

When it comes to my own love story there is a shared goal of getting into a more standard relationship and form a family. Thus, to describe it as only fictional is not honest. There are issues to solve before that happens, but things clearly are moving in the right direction.

True but transactional relationships require the status quo be kept in balance. If one side can’t keep it or if one raises theirs the relationship fails. Sounds awfully stressful and Tiresome to me.
Non transactional relationships would seem more like to not fail. The idea that ones a parasite is a transactional view point. People in non transactional relationships don’t see relationships that way.
Just as people pro welfare don’t see welfare as a parisite.
Welfare is views differently depending how how you view society systems.
Same thing is happening here. It’s like trying to explain the merits of welfare to a capitalist.
I think most of the pro transactional relationship people are also anti welfare. They capitalist who see dollar signs ever. The idea that time is money so timemhas value.i don’t agree with time is money. Which seems to be the basis for this whole idea. Women’s time is money and thus it’s valueable. And so men must offer something of equal value. Why isn’t men’s time value?
Where as if you don’t see time as money then it isn’t valued and oth people are together just to be with each other. No balancing, no status quo.

In this thread people are more discussing semantics by now than anything else. Everyone insists that their interpretation of what 'transactional' and 'value' mean is the true one and albeit it's obvious that other people use a much broader or narrower definition of the word than themselves they react as if they meant the same thing as themselves. If you interchange the meanings of each person's 'transactional' with that of the opposite side nothing anyone says in this thread really makes sense.

At least some of the people who posted here do not have the same interpretation of what 'transactional' entails as the article you linked.

In it's broadest interpretation 'transactional' just means that attraction and falling in love is non-random and that people will only enter a relationship with you if they think they'll be happier with than without you. It means you need to be attractive to attract someone (not only referring to looks and what exactly attractive is can depend on the person you want to attract).

I don't think everyone here who says relationships are transactional endorses unhealthy relationship dynamics, but if you read their 'transactional' as having the more narrow meaning some others assign to it, it absolutely would be. That said, it seems to be mostly a discussion between rdos and AngelRho by now and I typically don't agree with much of either of their opinions on relationships.

If transactional just means you select a partner you enjoy, then it becomes pretty useless as a concept. The opposite of that is simply planned marriage, not a non-transactional relationship.

I find the definition in the article useful, and something that actually is meaningful ib a discussion.

Except the definition is completely inaccurate.

Now that I think about it, that article is filled with doom and gloom. I don’t need that kind of negativity in my life. Some people thrive on negativity and misery. If that fits you, then good luck. I can’t help you.

Alright, fine...

All types of strategies can succeed and have inherent advantages.

Yes, non-transactionals can succeed. People can successfully leech off poor people, making them feel guilty or fearful, and sustaining the parasite while he doesn’t have to lift a finger to do anything or support his victim.

Yes, non-transactionals have inherent advantages. You don’t have to do anything to deserve a partner. You can cheat on her and slap her around just because you feel like it, and she has no right to speak out against it. If she really, truly loves you, she’ll keep her opinions to herself. After all, you owe her nothing, right?

Nope, I don't enjoy negativity at all. In fact, that's part of why I don't like value-for-value as this is typically what breeds negativity. I believe a relationship should be about trust, and if you need to use value-for-value that means you don't trust your partner to always do his/her best in the relationship.

I don't think anybody would stay with an abusive partner unless they are dependent in some way. Dependence could be a commitment like marriage. It could also be because they cannot speak up or are afraid. That's a situation that cannot appear with a distance connection.

Not owing your partner anything (not feeling entitled) doesn't mean there is no reciprocal interchange. It only means nobody keep records of the scores, and that people give without concern that it will be reciprocated. Sure, if you give without requiring anything in return, there is a risk you can be used. Which is where trust comes into the picture. Trust is broken by abuse or consistent failure to reciprocate.

The criteria for success in a non-transactional relationship is similar to the criteria for a transactional. Everything else would be strange. The initial conditions might differ a bit though. Nobody should enter into a non-transactional relationship without complete trust in their partner. It might be acceptable for a transactional as the regulated exchange might somewhat compensate for lack of trust.