Are your relationships inspired or transactional?

Shanzie wrote:There's no such thing as 'better' when it comes to people. You either love a person or you don't. If you're seeing people in terms of more-less value, as if they're shelved supermarket products - there's no love involved there, only self-interest.
Also, never compare yourself to the other girl or anyone else.

I think people can come to believe they have to keep doing things in order to earn others love. That the affection/esteem/value others have for them depends solely on their own output, service, or productivity: how they perform, what they produce, how well they please, what they bring to the table. As opposed to the idea that they, simply by themselves, have an obvious and intrinsic value. That they are worthy of love and esteem for their own sake. That they don't have to "sweeten the deal" to make themselves more palatable to others.

"Performance" seems to be the male equivalent of the girl who wears racy clothes and lots of makeup. Puts out a little too easily. She's trying to sell herself to win male approval, but doing it in the wrong way. And attracting precisely the wrong kind of attention, the wrong kind of people.

When you act like that, the message you're sending (to yourself and to others) is that you believe yourself to have little value, on your own. And if that's what you demonstrate you believe about yourself, then of course others will come to believe it of you, and to treat you accordingly.

I (we?) may also be oversimplifying this. Without meaning to sound cynical, aren't all relationships, at their core, a question of self interest or of transaction? If there's compatibility, all that really means is that two people are getting what they need from another person while offering something of value that that person is willing to accept in exchange.

If one or the other decides that what is on offer (physical attractiveness, conversation, sex, companionship, insight, validation, sympathy, attention, character) isn't enough to compensate them for what they're giving... or if the other person's foibles/vices are aggravating enough to sour an otherwise sweet deal, then there will be problems. If those are serious enough or go unresolved for long enough, then the relationship may weaken or even dissolve.

So it may not be entirely accurate to say that people should love you for who you are, and not for what you do for them.

Which of these quotes applies to your romantic relationships: the first two or the last? If the last, then doesn't that make you a kind of prostitute or mercenary? If the first, then why do you suppose relationships fail? Because people change? Or because they fail to change? And if that's so, if there's something missing that's a "deal breaker" then doesn't that mean the relationship was transactional all along?

Which of the two points of view applies to your friendships? Which to your relationships with family? Which to your relationship with your employer?

Hey pamelaperejil,

There is, hopefully, some room for relationships that are a mix, the grey middle, because yes, realistically, we people do tend to have traits, requirements, expectations, etc., but I think I lean toward the inspired side.

As to your question, I can only guess. People changing, or failing to change, both seem like reasonable explanations, but it does seem there are a few patterns that tend to be relationship killers such as -

o Financial responsibility, because the reality is living does cost money, and so whether it's lack if income, or over spending, either/both = stress.

o Not everyone seems able to get past that the honeymoon phase is going to cool off. Of course many couples do get past that and it works, but some just don't.

o Children almost assuredly will dramatically change a relationship, and again, not everyone gets through that.

No doubt there are some other key realities that are show stoppers for some, but yes, I think you're right too that people change (adjustments in beliefs, attitudes, dreams, etc.) as they grow older. People can grow apart. Likewise, as you wrote, yea if one is changing, and the other stopped, odds are they are going to grow apart.

I see my relationships as initially inspired. With time, they become more transactional, but I don't over analyse. If it feels right, I go with it. If it feels badly wrong, I stop.

xdude wrote:Hey pamelaperejil,

There is, hopefully, some room for relationships that are a mix, the grey middle, because yes, realistically, we people do tend to have traits, requirements, expectations, etc., but I think I lean toward the inspired side.

I'd like to think that I do too, but the reality is I kind of bounce back and forth between the two as i idealize and devalue people. My concern is that what honestly begins inspired turns much more mercenary as the honeymoon phase wears off, as MarkP indicates. And that can seem like a cynical kind of betrayal or renegging.

No doubt there are some other key realities that are show stoppers for some, but yes, I think you're right too that people change (adjustments in beliefs, attitudes, dreams, etc.) as they grow older. People can grow apart. Likewise, as you wrote, yea if one is changing, and the other stopped, odds are they are going to grow apart.

Maybe that's the trick to extending the inspirational phase, then. To work towards change, for oneself and for the other person, so that you're always offering something fresh.

-- Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:16 am --

MarkP wrote:I see my relationships as initially inspired. With time, they become more transactional, ...

Me too.