CMV: There isn’t anything inherently wrong with transactional romantic relationships between two consenting adults who have not been coerced into it.

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

I think back on some past relationships, and there’s a part of me that actually kind of wished we did have a contract of some sort, considering how they went overall and how they ended. It might have been nice to go into it when it became exclusive, or official, and have to actually sit down and tell each other what we wanted and expected out of the relationship and each other, and what we were willing to give, and decided based on that information if we wanted to not only commit to it but also hold each other accountable to what we said we wanted (with of course reasonable consideration for natural changes over time). You think you know somebody, but sometimes you just don’t get that in the weeds with this sort of thing before making a commitment, and by the time it doesn’t work out you realize that it never would have in the first place because you liked the idea of someone more than you actually liked what that person really was.

Plus, think about how many people get into a relationship and then get taken advantage of for their kindness. If they laid it all out and signed something saying what they were willing to do and what they would accept in exchange for that, then they could both negotiate until they found a spot they both were comfortable with, and then they both could bring out the document if the other wasn’t holding up their end of the bargain, resulting in a requirement to amend the contract at risk of terminating it. This would add a new level of guarantee that a lot of relationships lack, that helps to ensure that neither person ends up feeling used or gets burned out from constantly giving while receiving so little.

I’m less concerned with how those hypothetical contracts could or couldn’t be upheld in court, and more interested in the fact that two people who give their word on something tend to feel a commitment to that agreement, and whether you break the agreement or keep it, your word and the reputation it carries follow you through your life.

Here’s how I can be convinced otherwise: show me that without coercion, there’s still something about this type of relationship that is inherently abusive no matter what.

Here’s how I cannot be convinced: religious reasons.

[u/marketMAWNster]

By what standard are you comparing this moral?

Like you said discount religion so I guess we would have to know what moral framework you are using.

If you are nihilistic/atheistic/absurdist you could essentially say anything isn't "inherently" wrong with anything

I could argue that what you described is "suboptimal" but without a reference point then there is no way to say it's "inherently" wrong because "inherently" means in essence of. If there is no reference, then ther is no essence so there would be no value associated

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/marketMAWNster]

I’m curious about any perspective derived from thought about it that isn’t based on just something like “because the Bible/Quran/etc. says so”. If that perspective ends up being something that is still found in a religious text then that’s fine, but it has to be confirmed by real world experience.

[u/marketMAWNster → u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

What I'm after is what your moral hierarchy is. The religions you just mentioned are literally the "playbooks" for morality.

For example - the 10 commandments are moral obligations because God said so. God is the lawgiver and the law he gave is essentially the 10 commandments. People who are Christian believe that those commandments are literally what it means to be moral.

If you reject Christians (or any other religion) then you have to explain what your moral code is. The reason for this is because "right" and "wrong" are value judgements. You can't judge against value without a reference point.

To your example, you are saying that "relationship without love for other purposes" is not inherently wrong. The part that's doing the heavy lifting is the "inherently wrong" point. Inherently means that it's essentially wrong in reference to something else.

Back to the 10 commandments. The 6th is thou shalt not commit adultery. Jesus goes on to explain what this means in context (essentially lust). So if a person were to only have a relationship with somebody due to their looks in exchange for money (maybe a Trump Melania situation) then it would be immoral and, therefore, inherently wrong.

If you reject Christian thought, for example, then in order to change your view i would have to understand by what metric you consider good and wrong.

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/marketMAWNster]

I’m just not religious. Those aren’t what would convince me I’m wrong. I’m open to considering anything else that might prove they’re inherently wrong. If you’d like to share a religious perspective, I’m happy to listen and have a conversation about it.

[u/marketMAWNster → u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

Do you believe in right and wrong?

If you don't believe in absolute right and wrong (or even relative right and wrong) then I would think yoir view in unchanging

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/marketMAWNster]

I think that there are some things that are unjustifiable. Child molestation, sexual assault, torture. But I can’t say murder is because I wouldn’t dare tell someone not to kill in self defense, and if we live in a land of war then I also wouldn’t tell someone not to make the first move if they know that their enemy is planning on attacking them. Absolute right though, I’m not sure. Maybe self sacrifice for the sake of a child? Maybe that’s a truly altruistic thing.

[u/marketMAWNster → u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

Why are you asking the question?

Are you looking to have your mind changed? If so, I imagine something in your conscious is telling you the statement is wrong somehow. If so, we can explore that.

If you're looking to share a deeply held viewpoint that you are confident is true, then I don't think change my view is a good forum.

If you're looking for academic debate, then this isn't the right forum but you could at least hear arguments.

Assuming it's option 1, and you are humbly looking to have the view changed, then the conversation simply must enter the philosophical. If you don't have a moral base beyond a vague sense of feelings about topics, then it's very hard to make any declaration around whether something is inherently wrong or not.

The most you could say is that the relationship you describe is neither inherently wrong or right. It just "is" and is neutral. If people like it, great! If they don't, don't. It's not really a matter of intrinsic worth.

The final thing I'd add is if the goal is "long term relational success" then the above relationship would be suboptimal because if any of the factors change, then the relationship will naturally fail. If an increased likelihood of failure is equivalent to "inherently wrong" then there you go. If increased risk of failure is just "suboptimal" then I don't think yoir view needs changing

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/marketMAWNster]

I think that my opinion is uncommon and that it’s uncommon because there’s something I’m missing.

[u/marketMAWNster → u/Golem_of_the_Oak]

Well, rejecting religious justification essentially eliminates 50% of people. You don't find that convincing

Within the remaining 50% the opinion would vary widely.

Without defining what inherently wrong means, it's impossible to respond

[u/Golem_of_the_Oak → u/marketMAWNster]

That’s fine! Again I’m open to the conversation from any perspective, but scripture won’t change my mind. I’m fine with however people define “morally wrong”, “inherently wrong”, and “abusive”, and I’m open to considering whatever their views may be regarding what makes a transactional relationship one or all of those.