
Define unconditional love before you accept what it demands
We are often told to give unconditional love. We learn to sacrifice for our relationships, or we feel shame. We understand the social sting of not living up to our own self-measures of worth and generosity.
But, the ideas and stories we tell ourselves are flawed. Maybe we should rethink “unconditional love.”
This does not mean that we should not nurture and care for the selfish blobs of screamy, squirmy flesh that erupt from women’s bodies sometimes. But we should sometimes ask, “Of what use is a newborn baby?” And then, in pondering it, realize we do indeed get something in return if we are quite honest.
Maybe not at first, but children do give back. They are a literal investment in a personal and cultural — even global — future. So don’t think you just sacrifice for them, think that you invest in them, for a greener world.
In addition to that, babies are such objects of affection that they figure very prominently as cultural touchstones of the idea of adoration itself. They provide everything from laughter to poop stories.
Don’t be a baby, be an adult Earthling
Then, also, there is “unconditional” loving in non parental relationships.
Although we think of human offspring when we think of unconditional love, we need to open that circle up to something much, much bigger.
The idea of “unconditional” does not address our unconscious need to have a surplus to give — in order to also be given.
Every relationship on Earth is based on some kind of reciprocity, or at least symbiosis.
Nature designed all the interactive systems this way. Air circulates and moves water. Water pools inside and external to us. Sun gives light and Earth gives nutrients. Life flourishes only when there is exchange.
A lot of exchange.
The way human beings frame things is quite often proved wrong. We thought that being special children in the eyes of a heavenly Father would save us. We thought that dominating the planet would save our species, and improve our well-being and wealth. We learn that “normal” people include some and exclude others, like LGBTQ+, or foreigners, etc.
We can unconsciously turn off the “unconditional love” wherever and whenever it suits us; so what we really learn is to have prerequisites.
We thought males are the smart, strong, holy, and non-hormonal ones so they should run things. Women, notoriously are encouraged to “sacrifice” their bodies, brains, being, and doing to support men and take traditional roles as mothers and maids.
We thought we should conquer “backward” cultures and spread our gospels of greatness throughout the world. And now, beyond.
On each and every one of these points we were wrong. Men and women throughout the ages have spoken up for more equity, honesty, and reciprocity, and it’s never been a popular position.
We are taught to love each other unconditionally, but with a few notable exceptions such as Jesus, Buddha, and maybe Gandhi, or MLK, on a good day, we aren’t good at that.
Yet, women, especially are expected to always put forth unconditional love. What for? For the rewards of course. Like airline miles, but with more turbulence.
Rewards? Wouldn’t being rewarded be something based on the conditions that someone has to meet? Exactly. It is conditional.
The loves of your life require exchanging honesty
Romantic love is the same way. Trying to love without condition leads down a primrose path to purgatory.
What we are sold is something much more unrealistic.
Just love him/her and you will find true love. It’s so romantic. Take giant risks. Be assertive. Stalk and steal time here and there. Show your love by sacrificing meals to lose weight, or risk your life by writing the beloved’s name on the sky, or cliff. Or push your love out of the way of an oncoming truck or troll. Make an athletic effort to win the gold of your true love’s heart. Win the game at all costs. Love bomb your heart’s desire with affection, attention, gifts, dinners, clothes, jewelry, and generous praise.
But all of these “unconditional” loving styles bear not just a cost to the wooer, but to the wooed, as well.
They work only on the premise of selfless offering with no expectation of any kind of repay. Life doesn’t seem to work that way, because we all instinctively will both give and take without even thinking about it.
Our impulses, like those in other living beings, are automatic, and not based on meta-analysis of how can I be even better at giving. At the center of this question is another question: “To what end do I wish to be unconditionally loving?” If there is no expectation of, at the very least, feeling better about one’s self, what is it you are giving without condition or expectations?
It’s like being good for a reward in the afterlife. Why not be good because we are programmed by nature to socially cooperate and collaborate. We are wired to reciprocate, and that is a wonderful thing. If we give because we are paragons of selfless offering how does this even work and how would it not be resented or judged as sanctimonious at best, and ultimately, selfish, at worst?
Maybe the problem is that unconditional love has too many definitions and carries a lot of bulk and judgement. We should be kind, always. Of course we should be tolerant and loving of others despite class, gender, race, age, religion, and more. But this doesn’t guarantee that the idea of unconditional love will not be exploited.
We need to be more honest about how human exchange, and how life, really is.
…
Please clap, highlight, comment, or follow, to receive rivers of thanks from Christyl Rivers, PhD.
—
This post was previously published on medium.com.
***
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
—–
Photo credit: Max Goncharov on Unsplash





I agree with all of it. All mature relationships depend on some level of reciprocity, not a 1:1 exchange but an indication that the other is aware of my existence and willing to expend some time and energy to acknowledge me.