Thanks for explaining further what you mean. I still take issue with your usage of Privilege.

I have to point out again that even as you unpack your meaning you are still misusing "Privilege" as a concept. Insurance rates vary based on the statistics of risk, married people have lower health insurance because they are less risk to insure (not because of unearned rewards). Couples pay lower taxes because that encourages the type of spending that our government has chosen to encourage. Siblings, friends, partners et. al. CAN be named as beneficiaries of your investments.

At the most basic level any relationship (couple, triad, etc.) requires some earned asset to exist at a requisite level. They are not arbitrarily being treated as more valuable than potential relationships. Potential relationships may never surpass the requisite level to become established.

The best metaphor I can think of right now is that you can sleep with someone on the first date, but you can't have a baby with someone on the first date. There are inalienable processes that have to happen. Whether you have a realistic or fantastical dream partner you can't have any partner if you don't know any other people.

Treating established relationships as having intrinsic value is unavoidable. It is tautological to say that existence requires value. Seeing/hearing/knowing a person establishes their existence, but you can have neither love nor hate for them without them first exceeding a quantity of value that warrants that label.

More Posts