All monogamous relationships are necessarily based on conditional love

All monogamous relationships are necessarily based on conditional love.

If something bad happens like cheating, someone becomes severely handicapped, lose facial harmony in a fire, etc., the love will inevitably disappear, and the other person will not love you anymore.

Why would anyone seek out monogamy? What is the appeal of conditional love?

Attached: 1527594140516.jpg (641x530, 44K)

Later on it's just respect that's holding up the relationship. If one person doesn't have any respect for the other, that relationship will fail in about 3 months after the start.

Survival of society.
Stable income of resources for women,
And stable income of sex for men.

The "equal rights" won't change biology, women that work will feel the need to settle anyways, and if they don't, they will be culled out by those that do.
In the other hand, since salaries have not risen, and prices have gone up steadily, providing for a family had become nearly impossible.

You've just cracked the code user. This is why relationships should not be based on love, but on making children.
Like it used to be.
The children will always exist, the couple has a reason to stay together until death do them part.

is it really true love if its conditional like that

Disney made fairytale, user. "True love" doesn't exist.

Why do westerns believe marriage is about love and not about duty?

i think if i were to find someone that shallow i wouldnt want to be with them anyway.
wouldnt you be able to tell the difference if someone loved you for you instead of what you looked like or if you could walk or not etc?
would you want to be with someone like that if you knew you could find someone else with actual worth?
maybe it would be hard to find but its not unattainable.

For most people, looks ARE personality. So it's a moot point. See you on the other side of the collapse, friend.

You're overlooking the obvious economic benefits of pooled resources which is the real motivation behind all human relationships.

The trade is often not of equal value and not in equivalent terms. For example you might get along well in a partnership with someone who has skill in a specific area you do not (such as a uterus capable of producing children) while you contribute a number of minor and varied things like repairing the sink or moving heavy furniture.

This relationship may not even be a significant net benefit for either partner but it allows you to accomplish things together that would be impossible if you were alone.

Today our culture has shifted to a very inward, narcissistic focus where we constantly look for a "better deal" in everything. This is partly due to the rapid increase in risk in our day-to-day lives outweighing the risk of trying to catch that "better deal".

If you were in a very low-risk situation where your needs were satisfied you would be less likely to risk losing everything in exchange for a minor improvement. You'd focus on more incremental improvements that can be invested in from a secure position.

If you are living a life where you are taking enormous risks on a regular basis simply to survive, you no longer have that "safety" to stick to and so you will be more willing to sacrifice what you do have in hopes of gaining some greater benefit overall.

Attached: human_dot_exe.jpg (750x551, 230K)

Loving someone for 'who they are' is still conditional love, though. People loving you for who you are love you to the extent that you can entertain them, impress them, provide for them, listen to all their troubles, et cetera. That's why people talk about getting a better personality, or hobbies, or a job, or otherwise doing 'self-improvement' for a girl; people don't actually like people because they're people, otherwise they would love the beauty in every amazing and less-amazing trait; hard work and laziness, intelligence and stupidity, gracefulness and inelegance, beauty and ugliness. In reality, we only like traits that make us feel good, or match with the traits that we expect of a good member of society, whatever that means. And if those good traits were to go, if someone were to become some violent alcoholic or become brain dead, we wouldn't love them anymore. That's all it is. Conditional love.

would they still be considered the same person in that instance?
i get what youre saying but its not like you have those traits alone, people are more holistic than that.
if you became a violent alcoholic, i doubt the person who loves you fell in love with you being a violent alcoholic.
you wouldnt be the same person in that case, so if you put in the factor that people change over time then that brings a whole different aspect into it.
im not sure if that is considered conditional love or not though.

You're focusing on a wholly subjective emotional abstract like "love" and ignoring anything concrete or real.

Try looking at more concrete aspects of relationships. You might find that relationships as much as people like to claim they are based on emotions like "love" are in fact based upon concrete economics.

Attached: i-dont-believe-you.jpg (1200x900, 106K)

Well, identities are difficult to define. I mean, people are constantly changing, even right now, right? It's difficult to define a person, but considering things like thoughts, attitudes, emotions, beliefs, all those things go into making a person, and all of those things are constantly changing. In fact, some people may fall in love with people because they're constantly changing, no? And people with personality disorders that make them constantly swing between moods or even entire personalities are still people. I understand what you're saying about people changing, as they may love the former person but not the current person. But the important thing to consider is that person still carries the same consciousness as their former self, so they still experience the same things and have the same personality (even though a personality is constantly changing, it still must have the same basic parts), so even if they drastically changed it's still them, the person who was or is in love with their partner.

All love is conditional, would you love a murderer, a rapist, a hypocrite, a liar? Love is a response to virtue and lust is a response to health markers. Some people have different conditions for love, they weigh each virtue differently and shallower people value health markers more than virtue. But ultimately all love is conditional.

And the harsh reality is that we don't "love" "people", we "love" tangible benefits.

Even the wife of the abusive rapist husband gets some net benefit from her situation which motivates her to maintain things. This is due to a combination of things sourced from both sides; the abusive partner may be an effective manipulator while the victim feels they receive some benefit for being a "good person" for their sympathy for the abuser, or any number of other weird delusional complications.

Ultimately though all these types of relationships are based upon effectively playing the game of wielding whatever resources you have to provide leverage to maintain the relationship by making it appear to your partner to be of a net benefit even where it is not.

>Love is a response to virtue
Which is intangible in itself; but your subjective emotional response affects your well being via your emotional state and thereby affects your motivation. A person granted motivation by their partner may receive no other tangible benefits but may improve their performance at work to the point they end up with a higher net income than they would otherwise have achieved on their own.

Ultimately it's all about perceived tangible benefits.

Attached: nosebleed (2).jpg (1920x1080, 183K)

if you weren't a mentally ill frogposter you'd know. but you got unlucky there

>most people
Nobody is stopping you for meeting the one of the rest, retard

>Why would anyone seek out monogamy? What is the appeal of conditional love?
Biological imperative
All mammals seek to breed by their species standard. Simians generally form attachments that last until death or something else significant

Long story short the conditions are very easy and in a healthy relationship they're also mutual.

The classic male breadwinner nuclear family in a tight knit small community is the optimum way to raise children. Monogomy is imperative to this.

not the same user, but yeah the rest which is 0.00000000001%

>The classic male breadwinner nuclear family in a tight knit small community is the optimum way to raise children.
That's a neat hypothesis you have there based upon very recent human history.

If you actually look at realistic timeframes (not 1000s but 10000s of years) you'll find that humans did not form such monogamous relationships and in fact behaved much more like what we see today in our entirely natural modern behaviors.

For example look at hook-up apps like tinder. While this is not at all an accurate representation of the majority of humanity it certainly reflects a subset of the population that has always existed and always functioned in roughly the same way.

They might have been limited to the bar down on the docks and swiping right on hot sailors but they still existed.

Attached: guroi.jpg (1920x1080, 177K)

the number is nowhere near that low, and if it is for you, move the fuck out of there, you're in the wrong place

What are you sources on that?

>If you actually look at before we have any meaningful data on sociology of any kind you'll find that just because are oldest reliable sources suggest humans have been monogamous from the beginning doesn't mean they have been. You're triggering me.


have a (you)

good comment

>What are you sources on that?
Have you ever bothered to do any even basic "google search" level research on the subject?

We have plenty of DNA evidence pointing to tribal situations where males we both breeding the same set of females (shared partners) as well as only the "chief" was allowed to mate as well as structures similar to monogamous "family units".

Which were present depends upon the location and time period, cultures, technologies and other factors. For very significant periods of time we DO NOT have evidence supporting that there were a majority of life partners or isolation between tribes.

We DO have evidence that such systems did exist, but they were not always the majority. Such "family units" actually leads to an increase in in-breeding which did take place very often throughout history in varied locations and time periods.

I'm only arguing against your stupid generalizations.

>the love will inevitably disappear

Love is more like a duty, choice, and action than it is an emotion. Do you think a newlywed husband is more attracted to his wife than he was when he first developed a crush on her?

Attached: 1555997221872.jpg (960x960, 137K)

>the optimum way to raise children. Monogomy is imperative to this.
This is the worst part of it. If it were optimum without any consequences (which there are: isolation can lead to weakness and inbreeding) it would be pretty much the sole system which existed as any tribe with such a system would have defeated any tribe not utilizing such a system.

In fact it is an effective system of tribal warfare... but it is not the "ideal" system for raising young or running a modern society.

That's the misconception I wanted to point out. This type of generalization is ALWAYS wrong. Real life is ALWAYS more complicated than the generalization.

Monogamy is the only winning move provided both parties are faithful. Sadly, most people are opportunistic fucks.

>Sadly, most people choose the actual winning move.
Yeah... it sucks being a loser.

False. Monogamous love is only predicated on the condition of monogamy. This means that its only condition is reciprocation of monogamous love, and reciprocation of love is part of the intrinsic requirements for any loving relationship.
You're just a slut.

idk. but lmk if you have any updates

This guy just wants an excuse to cheat

>All monogamous relationships
ALL RELATIONSHIPS of ANY KIND are conditional so I don't really know what is significant about your post.

I don't give a shit anyway. I like monogamy and that's all that matters to me.

>This guy just wants an excuse to cheat
11 relationships to date. Never cheated, never (to my knowledge) been cheated on.

Actually this guy is simply realistic and thinking intelligently about the problem rather than being an emotional whiny bitchy child who wants something from life that they haven't earned on their own.

You know what? Life is a god damn circus casino and if you got dealt bad cards you'll just need to learn to suck it up and deal with it.

Play the game or GTFO and die.

What the fuck are you going on about, the first half kind of made sense but your second half is just nonsense

>but your second half is just nonsense
Seek Nirvana.

Cheating will cement your self worth at zero unless you have the psychopath gene.

>Cheating will cement your self worth at zero unless you have the psychopath gene.
I wouldn't know. You're speaking from experience? What lead you to choose that path? Were you unaware of where it lead before you took the first steps and found you were unable to turn back?

>Everyone in this thread who believes that our species will collapse if they aren't popping out kids.

I promise you that the sun will still rise on a thriving human population if you never get around to baring a child. I understand people pointing out that there's some biological hardwiring that makes churning out kiddos seem like a good idea to most people at some point in their lives, but it's a wild oversimplification to present that as the sole/primary reason people seek companionship.

>What is the appeal of pursing something that you might potentially lose?

You'll lose everything eventually. There's a comfort in sharing love with someone while you can.