Is it wrong to get into relationship simply for survival reasons?

[Onecirrus]

Survival is exhausting. I feel like having another pair of hands to share day to day tasks with is a much better survival strategy. Marriage and relationships were seen in a much more utilitarian sense in the past, but can’t you still hold that perspective today? 
 

Imagine if someone wanted to be in a relationship with you. You like them and enjoy they’re company, but you’re not over the moon about them or anything. Would it be wrong to get into a relationship with this person primarily to make life a little easier? I’m not saying to just take advantage of them and offer no value in return. Both parties aid the other’s survival, but one party isn’t necessarily in love. Is that wrong?

[Sugarcoat]

Not wrong if it’s mutual and you’re transparent about it

[mr_engineer]

@Onecirrus It is definitely healthier than marrying someone because of looks. Strategically smarter. 

[Leo-Tzu]

Of course isnt wrong but the past is the past if you put it to context you live a better life now ALONE than medieval kings with their 300 people staff. I mean you have (or hope you have) dishwasher, washing machine, ac, ovens, fridge, vacuum cleaner and whatever you might want, you can order food if you dont like to cook. You can order ubers and taxis if you dont wanna drive or even you can order sex by prostitution. The world we live in today has tons of supply of materials or services which didnt even exist in the past and had to be shared by family members. What you want is intimacy, a sense of connection and being at ease with someone or let me write this cliche thing "you need to share your completeness". Even today girls can get what they used to in the past by simply paying like plumbers, security staff, money by working or even manipulating weak men. They can even go to a sperm bank and have a child if they want. Thats why nowdays is so hard to marry or even keeping it alive. 

In the end i dont know how old are you, whwre you live, what is your profession and so on, things that really matter in the dating market, but with all these resources avaiable to you, you owe it to yourself to at least be with somone you love, at least in the beggining.

[Spiritual Warrior]

"Is it wrong to get into relationship simply for survival reasons?"

No, men and women get into relationships in order to survive. None of us are above this.

Edited August 9 by Spiritual Warrior

[DianaFr]

On 01/08/2024 at 5:40 PM, Onecirrus said:

Survival is exhausting. I feel like having another pair of hands to share day to day tasks with is a much better survival strategy. Marriage and relationships were seen in a much more utilitarian sense in the past, but can’t you still hold that perspective today? 
 

Imagine if someone wanted to be in a relationship with you. You like them and enjoy they’re company, but you’re not over the moon about them or anything. Would it be wrong to get into a relationship with this person primarily to make life a little easier? I’m not saying to just take advantage of them and offer no value in return. Both parties aid the other’s survival, but one party isn’t necessarily in love. Is that wrong?

Depends. There's two people in a relationship. You're not wrong for having the thoughts and attitudes you're having. If you have a compatible partner, meaning, they are not going to suffer because of your approach to relationships, then it's completely fine! But if the person secretly desires something you can't or won't offer, it's not that good. Communicate openly and try to learn about what this other person needs and desires, it will help you come to your own conclusion. 

[Consept]

On 01/08/2024 at 3:40 PM, Onecirrus said:

Survival is exhausting. I feel like having another pair of hands to share day to day tasks with is a much better survival strategy. Marriage and relationships were seen in a much more utilitarian sense in the past, but can’t you still hold that perspective today? 
 

Imagine if someone wanted to be in a relationship with you. You like them and enjoy they’re company, but you’re not over the moon about them or anything. Would it be wrong to get into a relationship with this person primarily to make life a little easier? I’m not saying to just take advantage of them and offer no value in return. Both parties aid the other’s survival, but one party isn’t necessarily in love. Is that wrong?

If youre both authentic about it then i dont really see a problem, it wouldnt be that different to having a friend as a roomate and you both help each other. However if one person is really in love and the other isnt, you may run into issues with insecurity or one side not putting as much in etc. But generally if it works and everyones on the same page then yeah. 

[Applegarden8]

That doesn't guarantee better survival. Your spouse can get terminally sick or get disabled. Your spouse can divorce you. Your spouse can spend all your money. Your spouse can plot to harm you. Your spouse can lose their income. Your spouse can become depressed, defeated, lazy. Your spouse could become abusive so it's hard to bear them mentally. Children make survival harder btw and all of those attributes applicable to spouse are applicable to your children. However you do get it easier I guess when people share responsibilities, but it also gets quite limiting. You can good at survival, get bored or depressed because that's merely not enough for you and you can divorce them or become restless and lose everything in life. I think it's the wrong reason to get together.

Edited August 12 by Applegarden8

[Heaven]

No. This is the real reason behind 99% of relationships.

[ICURBlessings]

There are different kinds of pragmatic benefits in such relationships - not just for basic utilitarian tasks. Making important decisions can be much better when 2 are involved instead of one. But like Applegarden8 pointed out - it is not always beneficial. 

I have been in both kinds of relationships - those that are dysfunctional where survival is not enhanced and in relationships that do act as a huge benefit for both.

The biggest mistake is when we look for a partner that is like our self too much, someone that we have too much in common. I find that it is the "differences" that enhances the relationship and make a tandem team more powerful. Of course it is important not to fight over the differences but instead be open to another way of thinking and making decisions. Of course to have skills that are complementary also help greatly. If both have the same likes and dislikes it makes the relationship NOT complementary. ie if he hates mowing the grass but she loves it then you have what makes a good team. If both hates paying the bills and managing the finances then you have a weakness instead of strength.

There other important qualities that need to be shared or more or less strong on both sides. Hardworking is great when both have that quality. If only one has it ... it sucks for the hardworking one. A sense of Justice and fairness matter. Also a continuous willingness to help each other.

There is so much more to say about this...

[Anton Chigurh]

It depends on what your "survival reasons" are. 

An intimate, loving, romantic relationship is being done for survival entirely, of course. But that is higher consciousness and better than saying like - oh I'm just gonna marry this person or whatever because they have lots of money or useful social advantages for me or whatever. I don't really love them but they are useful for money /social advantages - that would be a complete disaster and no way, would be very dysfunctional.