A Vital Truth for Valentine`s Day: Say`s Law and Romantic Love

[NinaBrooke]

Hello,
Hope some of you enjoy this article as well, and it triggers fruitful discussions:

"Like all proper relationships, romantic relationships operate on the basic principle of selfish human interaction, the principle of trade. To put this in memorable terms: The realm of romance, like that of economics, is governed by Say’s Law. Supply constitutes demand. What you produce (supply) is what you have to trade in the marketplace (demand).

Say’s law does not mean that if you create something people will want it—or “if you build it they will come.” It means that if you want to trade with others, you have to produce something with which to trade—something of value. The values you create—whether computers or works of art or educational services—constitute your demand on the goods and services created by others. What you create is what you have to offer in trade for what others create"


http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...alentines-day/

[charlestudor2005]

Some would say there is no place for trading value in a romantic relationship. That a romantic relationship is altruistic in nature. Not greedy. That the trading of "chores" or "sex" in the relationship is done without regard to keeping track of who has done what. It is done out of love, and not out of keeping track of the amount of chits in "my bank" as opposed to the amount of chits in "her bank."

I don't know that the theory that true love does not keep track on and emotional level of who has invested the most into the relationship. Even Steven Covey in his "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" postulates that we each keep an emotional "checkbook" based on deposits and withdrawals.

Personally, I think there is some truth in both. I think we do keep emotional ledgers. But I also think that when the balances seem to be askew, the altruism that most people feel exists in romantic relationships comes into play. While I think Covey's "checkbook" is probably the best simile for romantic relationships, I also think some people can make "love" stretch over chasms that other people cannot do.

If you want to frame Covey's "checkbook" in the light of selfish human interaction, I don't have a problem with it. Just so long as you leave some elbow room for the altruism that might exist in some of those relationships.

[gnadfly]

I just want a blowjob.

[acp5762]

This is what people did before there was a currency. It was called the Barter System. Example, a Carpenter says to a Farmer. "I'll rebuild your broken down Barn if you give me twenty bushels of sweet corn. The Farmer in turn says " You have a deal only if you make me a few quarts of Moonshine out of the corn" The carpenter replies ok but only if you give me your daughter's hand in marriage. The Farmer replies back ah we'll make that contingent on how good the Moonshine is. .

[NinaBrooke]

HiGuys,
Thanks for all the answers.
This whole discussion reminds me of a piece I once read about "love styles". There was a researcher (John ALan Lee) who basically analyzed discourses about love within centuries of books, prosa, morals, ethical attitude and came to the conclusion, that in our society about 6 different love styles exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_styles
http://valarie-king.hubpages.com/hub...ypes-of-Lovers

So, the above mentioned "love" resembles the "Pragma" love, IMHO, which is based on materialistic approaches and security-values, aka economic forces and consideration, also happening when you need to raise kids together. And about the economy on "give and take". I think it is all good within reasoning. But it is certainly not the "only" way to look at love.

Here is "Pragma" explanation:
"Pragma Lover: Practilality and Tradition
These lovers are practical and seek a relationship that will work. Pragma lovers want compatibility, and a relationship that will satisfy all their needs, desires and wants. They are more concerned with social qualities rather than personal ones; family and background are very important to pagma lovers, who don’t rely so much on feelings as on logic. They view love as a useful relationship, and as a way to make the rest of life easier. They ask questions when choosing a potential partner such as: "Will this person earn a good live?", "Can this person cook?", "Will my family like this person?". Their relationships hardly ever decay , because they choose their partners very carefully and emphasize similarities, they also have realistic romantic expectations" (taken from http://valarie-king.hubpages.com/hub...ypes-of-Lovers)

What do you think? Is this comparable to "Pragma" or would any of you have different opinions? I was not sure, because the "wish to take care of a partner" may also be "Agape".