The concept of selfless relationships can definitely work and is useful for some, but the post makes a few assumptions that make it seem like this mindset towards dating and relationships is useful for more people than it is:
Not all relationship seekers seek a relationship to last forever. This makes a selfless relationship not useful for people who want to share interests with someone for a short- or medium-term e.g., a summer fling or a winter cuddle partner.
Not all relationship seekers have a stronger preference to stay in the same relationship than to achieve some other personal preference. This makes a selfless relationship not useful for people who would always place a certain preference in their innermost circle of concerns above their partners, e.g., a contradictory religious or ethical belief or a demanding career.
This leaves only people who want to stay in the same relationship forever, and who want to find a partner with whom they will stay forever regardless of future conflicts of interests. There are certainly people who seek that kind of a relationship, but for people who seek other kinds, this definition of selfless relationship is detrimental to them and their partners.
Note that “selfless” here doesn’t mean “self-abnegating”, it just means that your innermost circle of concern contains at least one person other than yourself. This may mean, for example, that if you’ll enjoy the plums in the icebox more than your partner you should just eat them and this doesn’t make you a bad person (although it’s still a good idea to apologize and make it up to them). It means not only that when it’s late in the evening my wife and I will rate ourselves on 1-10 scales for horniness and sleepiness and do whichever gets the highest combined score but also that I have learned to calibrate my preferences down because my wife is less decisive about the difference in her preferences and if I reported my scores accurately I would get what I want too often and she not enough. Selfless relationships mean acting on the combined utility function.
The combined utility function implies the parties are a single unit finding the best approach to fill the preferences of all parties involved. The arguments above point that some relationship seekers don’t see themselves as a single unit with their partner, and seeing themselves as such will be harmful for their own preferences, e.g., a short-term relationship or a non-negotiable belief system.
The concept of selfless relationships can definitely work and is useful for some, but the post makes a few assumptions that make it seem like this mindset towards dating and relationships is useful for more people than it is:
Not all relationship seekers seek a relationship to last forever. This makes a selfless relationship not useful for people who want to share interests with someone for a short- or medium-term e.g., a summer fling or a winter cuddle partner.
Not all relationship seekers have a stronger preference to stay in the same relationship than to achieve some other personal preference. This makes a selfless relationship not useful for people who would always place a certain preference in their innermost circle of concerns above their partners, e.g., a contradictory religious or ethical belief or a demanding career.
This leaves only people who want to stay in the same relationship forever, and who want to find a partner with whom they will stay forever regardless of future conflicts of interests. There are certainly people who seek that kind of a relationship, but for people who seek other kinds, this definition of selfless relationship is detrimental to them and their partners.
These are countered in parts of the text (ex)
The quote is not countering the arguments.
The combined utility function implies the parties are a single unit finding the best approach to fill the preferences of all parties involved. The arguments above point that some relationship seekers don’t see themselves as a single unit with their partner, and seeing themselves as such will be harmful for their own preferences, e.g., a short-term relationship or a non-negotiable belief system.
I see what you’re referring to I think. Thanks for clarifying, what you’re saying makes sense.
Your comment’s examples are useful, but I will note that even this is covered in the original text: