Un Conditional Love

I'm not convinced that unconditional love exists, not in the way it's portrayed anyway.  If you were to ask someone their definition you'll probably hear something to the effect of, "love that has no limits, no boundaries, only forgiveness."  Parts of our society teach that love is transactional and there are many people who not only believe it but live that way.  

Question:  if a person has become a burden on a family, their local system, just generally a drain on society, is it right for another person to say, "I've had enough, I need to get myself on track and stop putting you and your mistakes above me."  

There's a common idea that the one who's needing to get away from what becomes a toxic environment is selfish or wrong for feeling that way.  One half of their peers will tell them, "good, you have to take care of you and yours first" while another half is remarking on the epic selfishness of that decision.  They swing back to the notion of unconditional love, stating that in order to love someone completely you have to not only accept their harmful behaviors but also allow them to happen.  This concept only applies to others.  I've never actually heard or read anyone who advocated for us to love ourselves unconditionally.  We are told we are to sacrifice ourselves for others, put ourselves out, enable behaviors, take losses, but not protect ourselves.  Yet...if we're sick or on an airplane statements like, "well you can't pour from an empty cup" or "how can you love some one else if you don't love yourself first" inevitably comes up.  OK.  So, I have to keep myself taken care of so I can better take care of someone else.  That looks an awful lot like a condition to me.  The only reasons I should make myself better is so that betterment can be passed on to someone who is not me.  There is no acceptable notion that we are to do well for ourselves simply because we love ourselves.  

As a general rule, the instant a family member or band of friends chooses to remove themselves from someone who's pulling them down into a pit, they are hit with massive backlash.  Inevitably there's the naysayer who throws the unconditional love card in their face.  "Well I'd take Billy in because he's my insert whatever family term here.  I love him more than you do."  Now suddenly it's a contest.  Chances are that person never asked and didn't care that getting away from Billy was the most appropriate, safe thing the person could have done for themselves or those immediately affected by Billy's behaviors.  The very idea of unconditional love becomes a weapon. a gas lighting technique used to shame the self preserver.  I mean, hey, who are we to try and protect ourselves anyway?  Self protection can only be done when it's consensually allowed by those around us--family, friends, general society.  

In that particular scenario love equals enabling.  I'm willing to enable this so I can prove you wrong and show everyone around us how mean and unloving you are.  Oh but I love you too and I'm going to enable whatever harmful thing you need also.  It's totally fine if you die at an early age and leave small children behind.  It's totally fine that the thing I'm handing you on a silver platter only exists because it's a bandaid for a massive void of self love.  

It's OK that what I'm enabling will destroy your life and potentially kill you because I do it out of "unconditional love."  

See what lacks of boundaries can do?

 

Society blames abuse victims for staying.  They blame them for getting into the relationship to begin with.  The term "but I love him/her" is not a good enough excuse to stay and be beaten weekly, no that person is obviously a fool.  They are weak and wrong for not loving themselves enough to leave.  BUT.  That person who couldn't take being miserable everyday and who sees the erosion of a committed relationship is wrong for trying to get out.  They are told love is a verb and they must remain and work on themselves and learn to love the other person no matter what.  There's literally no way to win.

Billy didn't mean it, I know he loves me, I just mess up sometimes.  I love him so much, he just needs to rest/eat/sleep/get a good job/etc.    

That's not love.  Geeze Louise what's wrong with you, don't you have any self respect?  Don't you love yourself?  

So which is it Society?  Yeah I'm looking at you.  Are we supposed to act in self love and protect ourselves thus possessing the ability to love and protect those we are closest to?   OR.  Are we supposed to sacrifice our emotional stability because old drunk uncle Billy needs a couch to crash on while his wife cleans up the aftermath of the fight before she picks him up to go home?  Or maybe that's the trade off.  That's the transaction.  I have to lose a part of myself in order to prove love of another.  

How about...we take care of ourselves the best we can and do as much as we're capable for others and let it be enough.  Period.  This is what I can do today, full stop.  If there is a drain, a menace to our personal being, be allowed to let them go without prejudice.  Family can be toxic.  Close friends can be toxic.  A label does not absolve someone of their emotional or physical crimes.  Sometimes the best way to love someone is to let them go and deal with their own crises alone.  It isn't cruel.  Every action in this world is a choice.  The choices may not be neat and easy but they are choices nonetheless.  If one has to live with their choice and the consequence then why doesn't everyone else?  

There will always be a condition, self preservation over destruction.