Yes, too often it's legal prostitution. I wrote this tanka once:
"Love’s a condition
that should not have conditions
Love with conditions
is a property exchange
It’s legal prostitution"
inspired by this story by White Feather: https://whitefeather9.medium.com/prostitution-and-divorce-bae0df9fc677
I also had more traditional views on love in the rest of my collection of tanka, https://medium.com/know-thyself-heal-thyself/unconditional-love-3481bffe22f4
Recently I wrote this poem and essay: https://medium.com/@marcus17043/he-loves-me-he-loves-me-not-5adbd59d3cc9
The essay part contains this: "I am a big proponent of vulnerability. My male friends often counseled against it because their relationships with their wives are based on transactional “love.”"
One of those friends who I share with off platform said to me that when people put love over the transactional nature that is when problems occur. Easy for a billionaire to say that. I told him I need both the interdependent partnership and the love for a marriage to work for me.
My text back to him:
"I didn't say one should give more than they receive. The line in the poem is 'Should NOT give so much more than I receive,' which leaves room for a little unequal exchange. I included the Beatles quote as a clarifying line. Here is how I recently described a good marriage--it does not mention love: 'First, let’s examine what makes for a healthy marriage. Any healthy relationship stands on an interdependent foundation. What do I mean by that? The parties to the relationship share goals. They each view the other(s) as having something to contribute to those goals for everyone’s benefit. The contributions do not have to be equal but the expectations of all are understood— they don’t keep score and have no hidden agendas. They do not have to agree on everything and they can disagree, even often. That’s ok — they respect each other's boundaries, values, and priorities. No one belongs to or feels subservient to another. Through open and vulnerable communication, they hope to share their completeness with each other and yet know that they can continue to grow. No matter how complete, no one has achieved perfection.' I did not mention love because I know it is not necessary for many. It is necessary for me though. That's the way I'm constructed and I wouldn't have myself any other way. I fully agree with you that elevating love over the partnership aspects leads to disappointment and failure. For ME, Richard, my dear friend, BOTH are required. By the way, the essay that included my discussion of a marriage with an interdependent foundation was not about people. It was in my essay about marrying science, spirituality (not religion), and philosophy. It's an excellent essay if and when you have the time to read it. One commenter said 'It's a brilliant piece reflecting a remarkable mind. How you lasso all those essays and profundities together is quite remarkable, breathtaking actually.' https://medium.com/@marcus17043/m%C3%A9nage-%C3%A0-trois-between-science-spirituality-and-philosophy-a634f5446364"
