Unconditional Love (Mostly) Doesn’t Exist… And It Shouldn’t!

Exactly what it says on the lid.

The concept of “unconditional love” is pedestalized, considered the gold standard of intimate interpersonal relationships. I can understand the appeal, because being adored just for existing may sound sweet on the surface. However, I’ve always been of the mindset that so-called “unconditional love” is really untenable, undesirable, unrealistic — barring one major exception.

What is (un)conditional?

Unconditional: “not conditional or limited” — via Merriam-Webster

First we must define our terms.

Unconditional, of course, means not conditional, without conditions. So what is a condition? What exactly constitutes “conditional” in this context is central to the discourse, and defining this root word shifts the parameters substantially.

Conditional: “subject to, implying, or dependent upon a condition” — via Merriam-Webster

It is generally agreed upon that a condition is a certain criteria that has to be fulfilled for someone to qualify for something.

For example, universities are conditional because being admitted to one requires meeting a selection process — which takes into account grades, standardized test scores, extracurricular activities, and more — then paying the tuition. By contrast, something like K-12 public education might be regarded as unconditional, as it is a legal right for all children and there is nothing one must do to qualify for it. Or is that so? At least in the United States, schools are legally barred from excluding pupils on the basis of many “protected characteristics”, including even immigration status. But public schools do reserve the right to suspend and expel students who break their rules and/or the law — making access to their education, in fact, conditional. It is a low bar to meet, yes, but enrollment in public schools being contingent on good behavior means there is that condition to be met. Many kids don’t even adhere to that bare minimum standard, sadly.

Love that is (un)conditional

Turning the topic back to interpersonal relationships, many claim to desire, give, or receive a love that is unconditional. Conversely, some claim and complain that the love that they get in life is uniquely conditional.

The comedian Chris Rock famously quipped that (I’m paraphrasing a bit) “only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally — men are only loved if we provide something”. This little zinger has since resonated with countless men, who often cite this guy when lamenting their lot in dating and gender relations. However, just because many feel it’s true, doesn’t mean it is.

Comedian Chris Rock: “Women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provides something.”

Let’s go through them one by one, shall we?

Women

In a world where the trope of trading an aging wife in for a younger model exists, this is laughable. Hell, some studies have even found that a (heterosexual) couple’s risk of divorce increases when the wife is sick, while the husband’s health has little impact.

The conditions for women may be different, but they certainly exist:

• be beautiful (which itself comes with many sub-conditions)

• be light-skinned (because colorism is a thing)

• be young (of course)

• be thin (or have fat only in the right places)

• be feminine

• be agreeable (or don’t bruise a man’s ego)

• be chaste (or not promiscuous)

• Etc

I have seen certain men argue that all of the physical standards women are held to actually don’t count as “conditions” because we are born with our bodies and our beauty; looks and youth are inherent to a woman and can’t be separated from her, unlike a man and his material possessions.

But I would disagree. In my book, conditions are about change, not choice. Falling out of love with a woman when her age goes above a certain number is no less conditional than dumping a man because his bank account dips below a certain number. In both cases, the love hinges on a variable that is not static, not eternal, and will not be with the individual no matter what. It’s not enough for the quality to be intrinsic, it must also be inseparable. And a woman’s youth and beauty can and certainly will be separated from her by Mother Nature and Father Time.

To draw a nerdy analogy: In computer programming, both while loops and if statements are conditional pieces of code.

Womanbot

$ = 100,000

if $ > 100,000:

print(“I love you”)

else:

print(“it’s not you, it’s me”)

Manbot

count = 21

while count < 35:

print(“I love you”)

count += 1

Children

Yeah no, sadly. Not even innocent little babies are necessarily loved unconditionally. Not in a world where child abuse and abandonment exist. Not in a world where crimes against children exist. Not in a world where sex-selective abortion and female infanticide exist. Not in a world where billions of people unconditionally hate (girl)children just for being future women (looking at you, China and India).

Even setting abuse aside, there are some very demanding parents whose love for their own children is contingent on them meeting certain standards. Like, for example, achieving all A’s in school — that’s basically the trope of the “Tiger Mom”. There are parents out there, rare as they may be, who put their own children up for adoption because they’re sick of them. There are millions of deadbeat dads who don’t even love their children enough to give them the family name, let alone a child support check. Given enough (perceived) bad behavior, society at large will stop “loving” a child — juvie exists. This can apply even if the kid is the victim of the bad behavior in question, survivors of child sexual exploitation are treated appallingly and often arrested for their own abuse.

With all of that being said, the idea that children are loved unconditionally is the closest to accurate here, because it is still true that children tend to automatically be afforded affection just for being the vulnerable young humans that they are. Particularly newborns and infants, maybe even toddlers and preteens too; Especially from their own mothers (more on that later). However, the love is far from guaranteed, whether from the family unit or broader society. And (at least for children old enough to have some agency), the love could be negated by the kid’s behavior and actions, which makes it (often but not always) conditional.

Dogs

Animal abuse is a thing, so clearly dogs aren’t automatically loved just for existing.

And again, even setting abuse aside, not everyone is a “dog person” — some people just dislike dogs for various reasons, ranging from personal preference to prior trauma.

On a more righteous note, dogs are put down for attacking people. Pitbulls are a perfect example to use here. Frequent cases of pitbulls mauling people have turned a lot of the public against the dogs, with many calling to ban the breed entirely. See, an entire breed of dogs can be hated on account of their violent tendencies. Therefore, the condition for dogs to be loved is being appropriately docile.

What’s the dispute?

The Chris Rock quote relies on narrowly defining “conditions” as only material provision. Yes, there is certainly more pressure and expectation on men to provide resources, and many men understandably feel dehumanized and slighted by this dynamic. However, that does not negate the fact that women, and even children and dogs, have their own end of the bargain to uphold. Being required to act or look a certain way to receive love means that love is conditional. And those conditions are simply different for men vs women vs children vs dogs, not nonexistent.

Love is conditional!

And that can be for the best — depending on the particular conditions.

Don’t get it twisted, behavioral standards are a good thing — as long as the standards are good. They’re also unavoidable, as even the most extreme masochist has limits to what they’re willing to tolerate. People who repeatedly overstep boundaries will be cut off and left by the wayside — rightfully so. In any human relationship, maintaining the connection is contingent on each party adhering to the rules. Requiring respect, integrity, honor, loyalty, honesty, and so on, from friends, relatives, and lovers is setting conditions. Removing someone from your life because they’re not treating you right means your love for them is conditional — justifiably so.

And that’s a good thing, that’s how it should be. I don’t see this as a fake or inferior form of love — on the contrary, I believe that loving someone based on their behavior is the purest and realest form of love. Our behavior is the thing we can control. (Well, depending on where you fall in the age-old “free will vs determinism” debate, but any stance apart from “hard determinism” leaves at least some room for individual agency.) Our actions are what make us ourselves. Loving someone no matter what, regardless of how they treat you or others, is what sounds fake to me. What is there to love? What is there to love about someone who treats you like shit? That sounds more like just fetishizing some abstract idea of the person, rather than appreciating the real human being. Love without any conditions sounds meaningless. Having to meet standards to be worthy of the affection of other human beings is precisely what makes love so rewarding and precious.

Loving a man based on the figures in his bank account is not more conditional than loving him based on the hours of quality time he spends with you. But people tend to respect one more than the other — because it is the quality of the conditions that makes all the difference. Being valued for shallow things like money or looks is instinctively reviled by most of the population; it is universally considered way more gratifying, desirable, meaningful, to be appreciated based on the content of one’s character. And the content of our character is expressed externally through the actions we take and the choices we make.

I believe that this is what people mean when they wax poetically about “unconditional love” — not necessarily blind devotion devoid of any standards or boundaries, but a deeper, more holistic connection firmly rooted in intrinsic qualities.

Love from afar?

Some would argue that not associating with someone (anymore) does not preclude love for them, including of the unconditional variety. This is a debate I’ve had with one of my e-friends who studied philosophy, he swiped up on my Instagram story to tell me that it’s possible to still love someone who is no longer in your life. That’s certainly an interesting idea to entertain. Depending on how the connection was severed, that might be true in some instances. But fundamentally and generally, I do not agree with this.

Btw, I haven’t read it yet — I certainly plan to though

As the late great black feminist author bell hooks posited, love is a verb. If you do not actively invest in and nurture a bond, it will wither away and die, like a garden in drought. If you are not actively trying to embrace a person, then how exactly are you loving them? You may as well just be a stranger then, because there’s no practical difference.

It reminds me of how many cheaters claim to (still) “love” their partner… while deliberately doing something that they know full well will horribly hurt said partner. If your “love” allows for neutrality or negativity against the object of your affection, then it’s worthless and meaningless, and may as well not even exist.

An EXCEPTION: The unconditional love that does exist

Remember in the start of my monologue, I said that there is one major exception to the nonexistence of unconditional love? It’s the parent-child bond, more specifically the love that mothers have for their children.

Yes, as I said before, children aren’t always loved just for existing; plenty of parents don’t even love their own children, abusive mothers are testament to this sad reality. But, while all mothers don’t love unconditionally, nearly all of the unconditional love that does exist in this world is going from moms to their kids.

And I specify mothers, not fathers, because, let’s be real, women tend to be far more invested in caring for children. I dislike “biological essentialism” (an actual term that is often misused), but I think the fact that babies come from women’s bodies has a lot to do with this difference in energy. Fathers can be capable of that all-consuming, self-sacrificing motherly devotion to children, but it is definitely a trait far more common in moms. When little kids are hurt, when even grown ass adults are beaten down by the world, they tend to seek comfort in mom. Whenever something is up with the children, mothers will reliably be on the frontlines to fight on their behalf.

Now, not to be all sappy, this unconditional maternal love does have big downsides and dark sides. Mothers are particularly prone to excusing or even enabling bad behavior and awful actions from their children. I’m talking about everything from becoming morbidly obese to committing horrific crimes. Some moms will be so blinded by their love that they throw logic out the window and shield their kids from discipline and accountability — which often hurts others around them, and even disservices the kids themselves in the long run.

And that’s precisely why the entire concept of unconditional love is nonsensical and overrated. I do think it’s generally good for a mother’s love to be so strong and enduring, because it’s important for everyone to have that stable bedrock of support. I’m pretty sure that’s why young humans and even baby animals who are deprived of a maternal figure become so fucked up. But “unconditional love” should be like an asymptote on a graph — a line that is approached but never touched. Even moms should retain some conditions for loving their kids.

I’m pretty sure that my mom would finally wash her hands of me if I did something as egregious as dropping out of school to join a gang and sell drugs. That’s ok. My best friend told me that she would drop me if I started hard drugs or enabled an abusive man. That’s reasonable, and her conditions for our friendship don’t make the love any less real.