But they're not real, are they? So while it's fun to consider the possibility, it doesn't pay much to invest in the idea. Now comes my proposition: unconditional romantic love is a unicorn. Those three words are a paradox when juxtaposed. "Unconditional romantic love."
Let's take a look at what unconditional love is. Someone is ugly. You consider their needs at least as important as yours, if not more so. Someone is beautiful. You don't consider their needs any more important than the ugly person. Someone hurts you. Someone helps you. Someone wallows in their own laziness. Someone works as hard as they can. Someone hates you. Someone loves you. Regardless, you love them all equally. It doesn't matter what they can provide for you. It just matters that they exist. That's the only condition of unconditional love.
Now let's take a look at what romantic love is. Someone is ugly. You don't consider them a potential mate. Someone is beautiful. You put them in your sights. Someone hurts you. You distance yourself from them. Someone helps you. You grow more comfortable and grateful. Someone wallows in their own laziness. You disregard them. Someone earns their own. They gain clout in your eyes. Someone hates you. You couldn't imagine living with them. Someone loves you. You love them.
Romantic love only exists when a series of conditions are met. Only when you find someone capable of filling your needs. That may be money, attention, sex, badinage, emotional support, a nice thing to look at—numerous possibilities. A romantic interest only becomes interesting when they can fill a certain percentage of your needs. If that weren't the case, there would be no obsession with finding someone to love. You'd just walk up to somebody, ask them if they wanted to get with you, and they'd say yes. That's what romance would be like if romantic love was unconditional.
But now come the real questions: is all this bad? Are all men pigs? Are all women whores?
No.
Having standards is a good thing. It's okay to care about your own well-being and the well-being of your children (not to mention your partner). That's the entire premise of natural selection. Just keep in mind that you aren't going to find the perfect partner, and neither will your partner.
This post was inspired by the negative connotation for the word 'objectify'. We assess other people on various criteria by objectifying them. Everyone does it. Of course there's a level where you reach too much objectification, but if none existed then no one would ever mate and the species would die.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe inability to find or be a perfect partner should also inform objectification. Meaning that one must be willing to consider as potential mates those that don't necessarily ring all of the bells at first. Some might think of this as lowering one's standards. But many have discovered highly valuable but less visible traits in another only after relaxing their previously overly narrow standards.
ReplyDeleteTo objectify--definitions according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification
ReplyDeleteAccording to Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if one or more of the following properties are applied to them:
1.Instrumentality – treating the person as a tool for another's purposes
2.Denial of autonomy – treating the person as lacking in autonomy or self-determination
3.Inertness – treating the person as lacking in agency or activity
4.Fungibility – treating the person as interchangeable with (other) objects
5.Violability – treating the person as lacking in boundary integrity and violable, "as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into."
6.Ownership – treating the person as though they can be owned, bought, or sold
7.Denial of subjectivity – treating the person as though there is no need for concern for their experiences or feelings
Rae Langton proposed three more properties to be added to Nussbaum's list:
1.Reduction to body – the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts
2.Reduction to appearance – the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses
3.Silencing – the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak
From the way the notion of objectification is referred, it's clear these definitions factored nil into the writing of this article. From the structure of the argumentation and the way the premises are used, two other things of which no knowledge factored into the article are the conflation fallacy and the false cause fallacy.