Nobody is entitled to a relationship

Agree or disagree?

Why ask a question with a painfully obvious answer? I agree btw.

It's not so painfully obvious.

Since love, sex, and relationships are on the bottom of Maslow's pyramid, then you would assume that they are part of what makes a human being healthy.

LeaningIntoTheMuse said:

It's not so painfully obvious.

Since love, sex, and relationships are on the bottom of Maslow's pyramid, then you would assume that they are part of what makes a human being healthy.

Click to expand...

True; social relations whether platonic or romantic are important for a healthy wellbeing. But you didn't ask about the value of love and relationships, you asked if people were entitled to one. So I answered accordingly.

Well, what about the value, then? Is someone entitled to be happy?

It's a simple question. Let's not complicate it. I'm not talking about female or male roles, just in general. This can also apply to lesbian and gay relationships.

No one is entitled to anything. Nothing's promised to us.

Well Americans (at least, I don't know about other countries' documents) are entitled to pursue our happiness, so long as nothing illegal makes us happy.

VanillaCreme said:

No one is entitled to anything. Nothing's promised to us.

Click to expand...

Are the basic human rights like food, water, shelter, and clothes on our back, something that we are entitled to? Or does it mean absolutely nothing at all?

murmi97 said:

Well Americans (at least, I don't know about other countries' documents) are entitled to pursue our happiness, so long as nothing illegal makes us happy.

Click to expand...

This is a rational response, and I tend to agree. People are generally given free will to pursue relationships, but that doesn't mean that they are lovable in that way.

LeaningIntoTheMuse said:

VanillaCreme said:

No one is entitled to anything. Nothing's promised to us.

Click to expand...

Are the basic human rights like food, water, shelter, and clothes on our back, something that we are entitled to? Or does it mean absolutely nothing at all?

Click to expand...

You know, as sad as it is to even think of this, no, they aren't promised to us either. If they were, the world wouldn't have thirsty, hungry babies all over. Yes, everyone should be able to have access to clean, fresh water and good, healthy food to eat on a daily basis - as well as a nice, warm home - but not everyone is so fortunate.

If you strip a human down to just the bare mammal that we are then no we are not entitled to a relationship. We're on the earth with the program to mate and reproduce then move on... then we became 'civilized' and had an uprising of 'society' who helped man make things such as relationships, marriage etc. It is only through 100's of years of evolution that we have come to accept things like being in a relationship is the norm when really it goes against our very genetic make-up.

Thus my point is no we are not entitled to a relationship but through society's eyes that's what they expect of us.

(Just my thoughts anyway)

The only things that people should be entitled to are the basic requirements for survival. Technically speaking you don't need a relationship to survive.

I do believe everyone deserves a fair chance, though.

No.

Unlike a relationship, things like food aren't a part of another human being with free will and needs and so one can be entitled to those basics.

I get the idea that Muse is trying to steer this direction towards, in that as civilization progresses as a society we start to take care of things that are considered "needs" for other people (at least in more socialist leaning countries) where a person is unable to provide such for themselves. Welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc.

But the kicker here is that these other needs are generally able to be taken care of when you throw enough money at the problem. Food, clothing, shelter and medicine can be bought. A bit hard to purchase love. That said we're only entitled to these things in certain countries because the people of these countries collectively agreed (at least by majority) that they were willing to pay a tax to provide them. I don't see a lot of people out there agreeing on the idea of a love tax where people are required to give out certain units of unconditional love to people they don't know by tax season. But it sounds like an interesting idea for a sci fi novel which I would definitely read, especially if it somehow ended up into erotica where hot girls upon graduating college were required to show up at my house for a "love donation". .... **** that would be awesome. It's like mandatory military service, but messier and more fun!

Also Maslow's pyramid has long since been discredited to a degree that it shouldn't be taken as gospel. Though that isn't to say it isn't still a lofty goal to attain your needs and wants in this order.

^ Hey, that sounds like a novel! I might actually write it, lol...would have to go under a pen name, though, because I would be embarrassed to have it published under mine.

Getting back on track...I don't think it's necessarily outdated, the pyramid I mean. Someone who is healthy socially is healthy mentally, which makes them healthy physically, which makes them live longer and not combat things like anxiety and depression. When you take either psychological, physical, emotional, or social health out of the equation, you have the ability to unbalance everything.

That's not to say that there are healthy individuals who are in relationships. You can be extremely unhealthy, and be in a relationship. You can be an evil, or terrible, person, and still be in a relationship.

We are not entitled to relationships or love. When we are born, we have the instincts needed for survival. For example, we know we are cold or hungry. However, we don't possess the ability to love. While we might recognize someone as a source of comfort, we do not love him/ her. Love is something we learn (or don't).

LeaningIntoTheMuse said:

Well, what about the value, then? Is someone entitled to be happy?

It's a simple question. Let's not complicate it. I'm not talking about female or male roles, just in general. This can also apply to lesbian and gay relationships.

Click to expand...

Why would this NOT apply to lesbian and gay relationships? I don't even know why you put that bit in.

Relationships don't work the same as food, water or other basic needs. The fact is that if you are in a relationship you can really, really hurt somebody or be such a dead weight that you pull them down and keep them from living their own life. Relationships won't necessarily SOLVE any of your problems at all. If you eat food you get unhungry. Relationships aren't that simple. You can be lonely if you're in a relationship; you can fresia up a relationship and be worse off than you started.

No, nobody's entitled to a relationship. Relationships take work and in my eyes you both have to earn it.

People are entitled to relationships?? No.

What about murderers and rapists...people like that are not entitled to anything IMO. As often in life "entitled" doesn't play into it, you get what you get and you take the rest, and you lose some along the way...what your entitled to is just a footnote that is debatable but not worth debating.

It is a nice idea that everyone gets to have relationships and be happy and to escape loneliness...but its not a given.

I wish I was in a relationship right now, but I know that I'm not entitled to have one. No one owes me a relationship. I can't earn it with X number of Boy Scout badges or Y number of good deeds earned in a day/week/month/year/lifetime.

I will find a relationship if I am patient, and I'm the most patient person on the freaking planet. lol

ajdass1 said:

No, nobody's entitled to a relationship. Relationships take work and in my eyes you both have to earn it.

Click to expand...

Yes.. oh my yes. Both.. have to earn it. Each needs to do the work.

But.... What about the sex tax idea I had?