market dynamics are a consequence of choice the trads and movement incels don't *want* there to be a sexual marketplace, they're *mad* about there being one because they're mad about you having choices but go off sis
-
-
the only thing worse than reactionary takes is the reactionary reaction to the reactionary takes
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There are states other than "in this relationship the other exacts unlimited value from me for no return" and "I must exact precisely the same number of utiles from the other as they exact from me". It is the latter that is being rejected, but the former isn't being endorsed.
-
enh, maybe the former is an enormous cultural formation with centuries if not millennia of momentum and the latter is a zebras-not-horses edge case at worst, yet people should get credit for only speaking against the latter and not supporting the former? skeptical
-
I don't think the latter case is nearly as rare as you would hope--moreover, I think it's something strongly evoked by the term "market". There must be a better paradigm for making relationship decisions than double-entry bookkeeping*.
-
*which my brain wants to spell "double-entry bbookkeeppiinngg".
-
cchheecckk yyoouurr dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh keeping score is absolutely poison, for sure. maybe i should write a glossy book about "abundance transactions" blathering at unnecessary length about how you should think of your relationships are transactional, but generously
-
*as transactional
-
i basically just want people to be occasionally asking the questions "am i making sure it's still worth it for <partner>?" and "is it still worth it for me?", without resentment or guilt because it's supposed to be worth it for one or the other of you ~just because~
-
(resenting a partner for not giving you what you want ~just because~ naturally being a sign that you're still using them to fill a parent-shaped hole in your life instead of having transformed that impulse into something suitable for an adult)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There's a difference between "people are the same as currency' and "people are worth more than what they can do for you" People have more value than the raw activities they can perform. Relationships arent just value passed from one person to another.
-
sure, i didn't say "relationships are transactional the way transactions are conceived of in mercantilism" capitalism corrects mercantilism by observing that value can be added, not just moved around
-
Good ol capitalism, adding value by literally killing people to extract it from their corpses.
-
anyway the point is that if you don't force an artificial boundary between things that are "economic" and therefore profane and things that are "relationships" and therefore sacred, the sum total of what the relationship is doing for you is what you are getting in the transaction
-
and if that is worth more to you than it's costing, you should and hopefully will continue the relationship, and if not, you should and hopefully will exit it (except people who benefit when you stay in relationships you're being harmed by love to tell you why you shouldn't)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But everything is a transaction. That tweet and this tweet are transactions. They serve no purpose other than self-satisfaction.
-
you know that and i know that
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Huh. Usually when I see 'relationships are transactional' it's in the sense that you do something for someone and then they owe you something in return, which is a very bad way to think about it. Healthy relationships don't keep score.
-
i absolutely agree that keeping score is a terrible practice because it's petty and low-trust, the benefit you're receiving from a relationship is a holistic evaluation and you can basically only fuck up by trying to be a bean-counter about it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
the slippery slide from "relationships are transactional" (i mean, yeah) to "human value can be essentialized to their relationships" is sure... convincing to a lot of the ppl replying to that tweet
-
but it nests quite neatly alongside the "MS-13 members are human isn't the best hill to die on" tweet since they both accept that humanity is not intrinsically worthwhile, it's all in how we "relate"
-
brutal power dynamics that enable atrocities are bad... but their ideological underpinnings, those are very, very good
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.