Relationships Are Always Transactional, Whether We Admit It or Not

ComfortableJeans · 2025-03-05T12:58:18+00:00

I'm not agreeing with you, or disagreeing, as much as I am just clarifying what people mean when they say that something is unconditional/non-transactional.

Everything in all of existence is conditional. It's a constant. From human emotions to galaxy destroying chemical reactions. Nothing happens that isn't a dependent on something else.

Something being without conditions is purely imaginary. It can't be. Not while obeying the laws of reality, anyway.

Even a parent loving their child is dependent on the condition that they're their child, in some form or another. Even that likely has it's limits. I imagine you might stop loving your child if it did something truly horrendous with intention.

What people mean when they refer to "unconditional/non-transactional" love, is love that comes from a transaction/condition that they deem more wholesome than otherwise. For instance, a person falling in love with another person due to their kindness and tenderness would be deemed a more genuine love, or, a more wholesome transaction/condition.

Where as a person falling in love for money would be seen as a less genuine love.

Though both are transactional/conditional, one is something to aspire toward, while the other is repulsive.

The use of "unconditional" just refers to the nature of the transaction/condition, as everything in reality is a conditional transaction. But not all transactions are equal.

Generally, this comes down to this silly things humans do, where we use words not by their given definitions, but by our social or internal definitions, which leads to confusion. In this case, they're using unconditional when they mean to use wholesome.

It's all quite complicated. Generally, my advice would be not to miss out of the amazing because you were too busy looking for the perfect. Because perfect doesn't exist.

Just because the true 100% pure substance cannot exist, doesn't mean that the 99% isn't functionally as good for our purposes.

It's also worth noting that love may not be an ongoing transaction, but a transaction that infrequently is in play, or even once. Such as saving someone, or being there for someone at a very difficult time.

X took care of me when I was Y, I'll always love them for that.

A thing doesn't have to be because it IS, it can also be because it WAS.

Condition is not ipso facto negative, the nature of the condition is what decides it's orientation... Well, and the nature of the observer, but I'm just running with what I generally feel the vast majority of people would assign negative/positive.

No one really understands something to be without transaction/condition, but they more so mean the transaction/condition was something they found to be distasteful/tasteful.

Big-Sir7034 · 2025-03-05T13:51:37+00:00

Yes but I’m pretty sure what people mean is that the purpose of the transaction should be mutual benefit, rather than the mutual benefit of a transaction being only incidental to your primary goal of self benefit.

You’re correct in that it’s conditional, but when people say transactional they tend to mean it’s in a selfish individualism way.

the_1st_inductionist · 2025-03-05T14:03:30+00:00

There’s a huge difference between being a friend because you like the person and because you’re being paid to. It’s completely mistaken to conflate the two.

GrandpaDallas · 2025-03-05T14:58:23+00:00

I think it's pretty disingenuous to call a relationship transactional if the only value exchanged is love, care, and attention.

It's close to when men say that every woman is a prostitute, even if instead of giving "money" for sex you're giving "time and attention." It's stupid to think that, because you're completely discounting the want/willingness.

I'm still committed to a relationship even on days where I don't receive any sort of transaction. I don't keep tabs on the transactions that take place.

You can go into "technically" all you want, but the word transactional has connotations that you're ignoring.

mobjack · 2025-03-05T14:27:45+00:00

Transactional implies keeping score. I pay for dinner, so you owe me sex.

In healthy relationships, people do things for each other without expecting anything in return.

Sure if you completely neglect your partner, then the relationship will suffer but that doesn't make it by definition transactional.

BobtheArcher2018 · 2025-03-05T13:03:17+00:00

Yes. Transaction is the foundation. But true love exists and can grow with the right foundation and transcend the transactionality. Of course, the extent of that transcendence is usually limited, and that love will usually perish after some time if the core exchange becomes too lopsided.

But love is real nonetheless. It just rarely is everything and tends to need to be properly fostered and cared for to grow and continue.

ratsareniceanimals · 2025-03-05T14:45:34+00:00

Relationships are transactional, but they're not zero-sum. In the best relationships, both parties come out ahead of where they would be if they were single.

To illustrate this, look into a psych/econ experiment called The Public Goods Game. The game goes like this - two people are given $10 each. You can choose how much to keep for yourself, and how much to contribute to the public pool. At the end of each round, whatever was donated to the public pool is doubled, then distributed EQUALLY to both parties.

Example - Husband decides to keep $4 and pitch in $6. Wife decides to keep $2 and pitch in $8. There is now $14 in the public pool, which is then doubled, and both husband and wife split the $28. So the result:

Husband: $4 he kept plus $14 from pool, new total is $18.

Wife: $2 she kept plus $14 from pool, new total is $16.

Now if the wife resents the husband for not pitching in as much, she'll lower her contribution next time, and this starts a race to the bottom. This is an example of a toxic, spiraling relationship that is doomed to fail.

On the other hand, if both parties realize that they're best off contributing everything to the public pool, AND they can trust their partner will do the same, then you have the optimal relationship, where both parties maximize their earnings. That's ideally what you want in a relationship - each giving everything, even if it's unequal, so that both maximally benefit.

Klutzy_Charge9130 · 2025-03-05T16:50:27+00:00

Where I get confused is why it became a taboo to say it out loud.

Practical-Delay-344 · 2025-03-05T14:36:44+00:00

Reciprocal yes, transactional no.

itstheuptowndown · 2025-03-05T13:44:24+00:00

What I've noticed about this subreddit is an unrigorous oversimplification of a concept , often based only on assumed meanings of words.

We all (should) agree that it is ideal that both parties to a relationship get something out of the relationship, whether it occurs simultaneously or not. A friend offers support when it's needed and deserves support when they need it, too.

The mutual ongoing exchange of love, respect, money, companionship, or whatever is what makes a relationship not a transaction.

A transaction is used to describe a one time, self-contained interaction, usually for purely economic gain. A purchase from Walmart is a transaction. Relationships are often nebulous, changing as circumstances change. Loving a child or a friend is not a transaction in any but the most simplistic terms.

If we're going to use business terms, a merger or even an acquisition is the creation of a business RELATIONSHIP, a new entity is formed and the formerly separate parts are now working together, or a company is brought into a family of businesses. A purchase of printer paper by a business from another business is a TRANSACTION.

I guess the real question is: What benefit is there to describing a relationship as a transaction, except to argue that any harmful conduct or choice based on self-interest is justified?

Sharp_Engineering379 · 2025-03-05T15:32:51+00:00

“Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

It's only transactional if you perform with the intention of getting a return. People who truly love want to do selfless acts for their partner, they want to show love, perform acts of service and kindness, show affection without expectation.

Doting on a sick partner for example, as the sick person isn't in a position to return favor.

Using one's strengths and talents to show care, like cooking for another, building something or making their lives easier in small and grand ways.

Ensuring a partner is comfortable and healthy by building a fire, fetching a blanket or a snack. Watching or listening to their favorite genre, participating in their hobbies, supporting their efforts and victories. Kind, encouraging words of support. Sex acts when you aren't in the mood or in the right headspace to receive reciprocal gratification.

There are hundreds of ways to selflessly show care without standing in their way and demanding quid pro quo or a pat on the head.

Only sociopaths are incapable of selfless acts of love.

MiddleZealousideal89 · 2025-03-05T16:27:26+00:00

Sure, although I'd probably use the word reciprocal. Your partner loves you because they're attracted to you and because you make their life better. Your friends love you because you provide them with companionship and are there for them when they need someone. Your parents love you because you're their kid. Your pet loves you because you're the one taking them out for walks/cleaning their litter box and giving them kibble and wet food. Few people deny this. It also doesn't mean that those people don't genuinelly love you, they do, but nobody loves some random person they saw on the street. Love and trust require time and effort.

What people take issue with is the endless pearl-clutching and overly dramatic whining about how unfair it is that relationships require you do/provide something for other people. Some people want to simply exist and receive all the love, affection, support, and companionship with little to no effort on their part, and that's not how this works.

alwaysright0 · 2025-03-05T18:12:20+00:00

I think you're misusing the term transactional

None of my relationships are

Efficient_Bat9162 · 2025-03-07T17:19:30+00:00

I agree with OP. The recent book by Dr Orion Taraban, The Value of Others explains this concept. Everyone should consider giving it a read

Fair-Bus-4017 · 2025-03-05T13:20:57+00:00

Everything in life is transactional if you want to argue in a silly way. Because you can make arguments that things like donating money is transactional, because you gain some sort of satisfaction by the idea of doing something good.

I personally think this is very silly and the same goes for the claim of relationships. A relationship should be mutually beneficial which isn't inherently transactional.

AutoModerator · 2025-03-05T12:43:03+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2025-03-05T12:43:03+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

John_Oakman · 2025-03-05T13:14:08+00:00

It's like capitalists saying that capitalism is just human nature: technically true but also irrelevant & not what people mean in everyday terminology. Yes every relationship has the involved parties contributing something from them, and receiving things in return, however much of that [in healthy relationships] are subconscious & passive rather than conscious & active, which is the important distinction.

Tywinlol2 · 2025-03-05T13:21:08+00:00

I sort of agree, but I don't think relationships can or should be reduced to just transaction, they must transcended that at certain point to be successful and last. In the end of the day people within a relationship must strive to make each other lives better to the best of their ability, however if they are unable to do so due to no fault of their own, for example due to illness, it would be incredibly scummy to abandon them. And society, to take it to the higher level of human interaction, benefits massively from people forming bonds that transcend mere exchange and extend beyond short-term benefit. After all when we are doing well friends, loved ones, family are cherry on the cake, but when we are destitute, sick and suffering they become necessity, without which enduring is almost impossible. And in those moments we rarely able to adequately repay them, at least immediately.

Fun_Push7168 · 2025-03-05T13:38:30+00:00

Yes they are but when people say transactional they're implying that the exchange is either not like for like, or is imbalanced/unfair in some way.

anonymousppd123123 · 2025-03-05T13:58:42+00:00

the only time theyre not is when it's blood, family. but that's self interest with extra steps because your family is genetically copies of you/very close. marriage is a big deal because you are joining 2 clans together, and that's why it persists in the wealthy and powerful as it fades elsewhere

InkAddict718 · 2025-03-05T16:53:16+00:00

Romantic relationships are always transactional and conditional. You want unconditional love? Get a dog

G4M35 · 2025-03-05T17:44:22+00:00

It's a matter of semantic. Using the word "Transactional" doesn't sound right, and doesn't feel right.

The people who disagree with OP, actually disagree with the word, because the vast majority would advocate for anyone to leave a relationship where 1 party was not going anything/much in return for "loving and caring" gestures and behaviors.

On the other end of the spectrum we have sugaring which is pretty pervasive today and - in my opinion - will be the future of "dating" as we know today. With sugaring everything is clear and on the table, and everyone wins.

Downtown_Cat_1745 · 2025-03-05T21:16:08+00:00

There’s no reason to be in a relationship if it doesn’t make your life better in some way. That can be companionship, shared interests, whatever. The main reason I stay with my husband is that I like him. I like being with him, I like talking to him, and I like going places and doing things with him.

nonquitt · 2025-03-06T00:39:34+00:00

I don’t think they’re built on that though, they involve transactional stuff sure, that’s everything, but they aren’t built on that imo

Stock-Argument-1040 · 2025-03-06T01:10:38+00:00

This is a game of semantics. Most people are not using transactional in the literal sense. You can do so but you will be misunderstood and it will be your own fault.

This is a belly button gazing post.

relish5k · 2025-03-06T03:00:30+00:00

i see it like a bank. there are some people in my life that have an enormously high line of credit with me, earned by years of mutual trusts. if they need to make a big withdrawal, or even several big withdrawals in quick succession, then it’s cool, they are covered by the credit.

but if they overdraw and the balance is left on empty for a long time then…yeah eventually that account will be closed.

of course none of this applies to little children who are delightful monsters, and have their own intrinsic rewards and incentives. (yes there’s the long game but thinking about a potential for reciprocity in 40 years doesn’t exactly do much when your toddler will not sleep in his bed and spends the whole night crying for no discernible reason)

Siukslinis_acc · 2025-03-06T03:53:23+00:00

If you look far enough, everything is transactional. Your breathing is transactional.

A transactional relationship means "i do this in order to get that". While in a transactionless relationship you are giving because you love/like the person and don't expect/demand something in return.

Finding a relationship is finding a person who is giving you stuff you want from a relationship without wanting to get something in return, while you give them the stuff they want without wanting to get something in return. Both parties are giving what the other needs without expecting to get something in return. Thus it is not seen as a transaction.

Puzzleheaded_ghost · 2025-03-06T04:28:39+00:00

If two people want exactly the same thing, there need be no exchange—the result will be synergy. When two people want exactly opposite things, they can still negotiate to minimize exposure.

Between those two extremes are trade-offs. We both can get some of what we want with compromise. Language and sentience are nice stuff. Spending 25% of our calories on sentience is a huge caloric investment, and we are apex predators of potato chips.

Motivation can be seen (by me) as two states: here now and there then and how much I want that. That is a direction and a magnitude. Everything we do and say is driven by motivation. Social behavior serves the role of keeping the group reaping the rewards of negotiation and collaboration.

The thing is, this is not a zero-sum game. Collaboration is not addition; it's a force multiplier—synergy.

The zero-sum, us-versus-them mentality misses the point. The power of social structures is synergy. Viewing love as transactional misses the point.

Every social instinct in your body compels you to seek synergy. Zero sum... tsk tsk.

TopShelfSnipes · 2025-03-06T17:11:33+00:00

"Transactional" implies quid pro quo, expectation.

Anything involving two people can be described as transactional if you apply such a literal description to it.

We choose to add people to our lives (and keep them in our lives) because they enrich our lives in some way, without detracting from it in an offsetting way.

This is true for friendships, ongoing relationships with parents once children leave the nest, as well as romantic relationships.

Nothing is unconditional - if you're religious, even God's love is not unconditional...in fact, it's profoundly conditional.

However, things being "conditional" is not the same thing as "transactional". Transactional implies a quid pro quo not just in the overall relationship, but in every single interaction within that relationship. THAT is unhealthy, not normal, and the exception.

Schleudergang1400 · 2025-03-06T17:32:07+00:00

Not sure why people are so in denial about this.

That is pretty selfexplanatory. Insecure people, which this sub is fillled to the brim with, need the idea of unconditional love. Because the moment they accept that the love is conditional and depends on them being able to fulfill another person's needs and wants, they are insecure about their own abillity to provide that. The loving relationship they need could end every moment, because they fail to provide what is their part of the exchange/transaction.

So they cling to the concept on unconditional love. Something that does not require anything from them, so they cannot fail, so they cannot lose their loved partner.

ShiftAppropriate3119 · 2025-03-05T12:52:16+00:00

I'd say it's a miss- attribution, fundamentally I think the real issue is that it is cynical, not transactional. I think if you read their post and comments through that lens it makes a lot more sense. At least that is my personal conclusion.

RoblesTyler1988 · 2025-03-05T12:57:01+00:00

I think generally at first no but once the honeymoon phase is over yes absolutely

DellOptiplex7080 · 2025-03-05T15:45:02+00:00

When you have no soul

S0nG0ku88 · 2025-03-05T13:39:42+00:00

I think most men know this inherently, it's beaten into us at a young age that men are only as good as the support or value they provide. Women idealize & romanticize relationships, monogamy, and sex more.

SnooCats37 · 2025-03-05T13:02:19+00:00

That goes for every type of relationship you have, a partner, sibling, parent, friend. If you aren’t getting out of the relationship what you are putting into it, it doesn’t work. You can’t give endlessly to someone who is just taking and not giving anything back

ThatBitchA · 2025-03-05T17:13:19+00:00

The word you're looking for is : reciprocate

Relationships aren't transactional. If you think relationships are transactional, you shouldn't be in one.

Relationships are reciprocal. A healthy relationship is two people continuously being reciprocal.

Title	Relationships Are Always Transactional, Whether We Admit It or Not
Author	Kind_Parsley_6284
Upvotes	43
Comments	151
Date	March 5, 2025 12:43 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1j4270v/relationships_are_always_transactional_whether_we/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/relationships-are-always-transactional-whether-we.1545668 https://theredarchive.com/post/1545668

Comments