A Transaction, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "a business deal : an occurrence in which goods, services, or money are passed from one person, account, etc., to another".

For those who 'love' as a thing, the title of this thread would be scandalous, even disgusting. But for those who have dated and 'loved' and taken stock of their past relationships, this title just is common sense.

How many times have you felt hard done by after a breakup, because you felt you gave more than you received? The relationship was a net loss to you. How many times have you felt guilt after a breakup because you know you didn't do right by your ex? Assuming you have a conscience, you know sometimes, you have really not been as generous with your 'love' as you could.

For a relationship to be considered worthwhile, there has to be corresponding benefits to those we offer, otherwise, resentment begins to creep in signalling, perhaps, the dying process of the relationship.

What Men Should Bring To The Table:
In order of importance, they are :-
1. Finances
2. Protection
3. Offspring

What Women Should Bring To The Table:
In order if importance:-
1. Sex
2. Loyalty
3. Offspring
4. A stable home

The lists are by no means exhaustive, they merely point to what each gender desires in a mate/relationship. 'Love' or the idea of it isn't as important as people think when a relationship transaction is carried out. It is simply a nice thing to have.

When next you think of committing long term to a relationship, think of the future benefits of that relationship. Is the relationship one you want to keep for life? If it were to end today, what would your gain be? Would it be worth it committing to this person or that?

Critically examining these factors and going by the answers they present should greatly reduce the risk of being in the wrong relationship for you.

Shalom.

love don expire since 3000BC. Na moneyluv dey rein nao...

Wow,
Relationship Analyst
Nice one
Although your analysis doesn't always go that way!

Finally, somebody's eyes are opened. Op, I wonder what inspired this post, looks like someone broke somebody's heart.

My contribution though:

That's why people complain and protest in relationships so they can get their entitlement. When you hear things like :

Baby, we need to talk

Then, you know a subtle protest is about to take place.

Some resort to violence by beating sense into their partner, why? So they can claim their entitlement.

Others believe in nagging, stalking, blackmailing, third party interference etc. All in the name of making the relationship work but its all a lie, the other party is just trying to claim his/her entitlement.

For what its worth, if there's anything to learn, its that you should use your head in relationships and not your heart. Don't be a fool, love is a scam we use to take advantage of eachother.

Ab025:
Wow,
Although your analysis doesn't always go that way!

Yeah, that's because the topic could easily fill a book. If I wore in detail nobody would bother to read. I'd rather do that with replies.

Love isn't a scam. However, it's one potent mechanism disingenuous people easily use to scam others who're either unsuspecting or outright gullible.

Also, relationship isn't transactional, at best it's contractual, and a healthy one of it is beneficial - contractual is the euphemism of transactional on this subject.

LordKO:
Love isn't a scam.

Yeah, right.

However, it's one potent mechanism disingenuous people easily uses to scam others who're either unsuspecting or outright gullible.

Is there anything that people don't get scammed with?

Also, relationship isn't transactional at best it's contractual, and a healthy one of it is beneficial.

A contract is a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price. How is that different from a transaction, bros?

Belafonte:

Yeah, right.


Is there anything that people don't get scammed with?


A contract is a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price. How is that different from a transaction, bros?

"Fixed price." Well, the crux of all transactional agreements are materialism, while the crux of contractual agreements, especially in the area of a healthy romantic relationship, are immaterialism - betrothed. This is akin to unconditional vs selflessness love. . . contractual is the euphemism of transactional on this subject.

Meanwhile, a process is different from an end - especially good end. A process has no value of its own, only its end/result always determine its value. This is about your scam question.

LordKO:


"Fixed price." Well, the crux of all transactional agreements are materialism, while the crux of contractual agreements, especially in the area of a healthy romantic relationship, are immaterialism -betrothed. This is akin to unconditional vs selflessness love.

Meanwhile, a process is different from an end - especially good end. A process has no value of its own, only its end/result always determine its value. This is about your scam question.

Your argument in your first paragraph is sophistical, especially with the part in bold. If a transaction and a contract mean the same thing then that mean the same thing and each factor affecting one affects the other. To claim otherwise is to be fraudulently semantic. If the crux of a transactional relationship is materialism, them the crux of a contractual relationship is also materialism, because of the simple reason that they both mean the same thing. Hence, I could extrapolate using your logic that the crux of a transactional relationship , especially in the area of a healthy romantic relationship are immaterialism.
Also, when you begin to qualify love with such adjectives as unconditional and selfless, you get a sense that there are, in fact, different versions of love. Unfortunately, when dealing with others possessing unconditional and selfless love may very well be injurious, and it is only wise to protect oneself from being used and taken for granted.

The idea of a process is to maximise efficiency. Thus, if a better, superior process is discovered the hitherto leading process is jettisoned for the better. When, however, the old process is faulty and is still forced upon the elements of a process it is, for all intents and purposes, a scam.

Loolzzz

I agree with OP, love is a scam in this part of the world, maybe due to poverty or greed. But hypocrites will argue this truism

Belafonte:


Your argument in your first paragraph is sophistical, especially with the part in bold. If a transaction and a contract mean the same thing then that mean the same thing and each factor affecting one affects the other. To claim otherwise is to be fraudulently semantic. If the crux of a transactional relationship is materialism, them the crux of a contractual relationship is also materialism, because of the simple reason that they both mean the same thing. Hence, I could extrapolate using your logic that the crux of a transactional relationship , especially in the area of a healthy romantic relationship are immaterialism.
Also, when you begin to qualify love with such adjectives as unconditional and selfless, you get a sense that there are, in fact, different versions of love. Unfortunately, when dealing with others possessing unconditional and selfless love may very well be injurious, and it is only wise to protect oneself from being used and taken for granted.

The idea of a process is to maximise efficiency. Thus, if a better, superior process is discovered the hitherto leading process is jettisoned for the better. When, however, the old process is faulty and is still forced upon the elements of a process it is, for all intents and purposes, a scam.

It can only take an insightful person - not an academic person that lack insight - to know that there's a very thin but big difference/distinction between the adjective words transactional and contractual. Once more, I say to you that contractual is the euphemism of transactional on this subject. Actually, I don't always like to engage any academic person that lacks insight (articulate incompetent) in dialogue, especially in a forum like this.

Peace out.

LordKO:


It can only take an insightful person - not an academic person that lack insight - to know that there's a very tiny but big difference between the adjective words transactional and contractual. Actually, I don't always like to engage any academic person that lack insight (articulate incompetent) in dialogue, especially in a forum like this.

Peace out.

Out of point. Don't let the door hit you as you tuck tail and bail.

pedrilo:
I agree with OP, love is a scam in this part of the world, maybe due to poverty or greed. But hypocrites will argue this truism

Not just in this part of the world, every man on every continent is waking up to the lies that romantic love has peddled for centuries. At this point in our evolution where women are clamouring for 'equality', it would be foolish to only give to them and not take back. There always has to be balance.

Hhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

LordKO:


It can only take an insightful person - not an academic person that lack insight - to know that there's a very tiny but big difference between the adjective words transactional and contractual. Actually, I don't always like to engage any academic person that lack insight (articulate incompetent) in dialogue, especially in a forum like this.

Peace out.

I actually agree.

With regards this love/romance thingy, if I say to someone: I'd love you as long as you remain alive, it aligns more with 'contractual' than 'transactional' obligation of the relationship despite the similarity in semantics.

'Contractual' tends to align with materialism and immaterialism.