I “Phil” Your Love
The Paradox of Unconditional Love
Maya:
You know, Lena, unconditional love is the ultimate kind of love. It’s pure, it’s patient, and it’s unshakable. No matter what, you just love.
Lena:
Maya, please. If unconditional love existed, I would’ve burned all my exes’ stuff by now and sent it to them with a "thanks for the memories" card.
Maya:
That’s the problem, though. You’re still stuck on conditions. True love doesn’t have conditions. You accept the other person, flaws and all.
Lena:
Flaws, huh? Like, cheating? Lying? Betrayal? If someone keeps doing that to me, I’m gonna need more than just "unconditional love." I’m gonna need a restraining order and a new phone number.
Maya:
But love is about accepting someone for who they truly are, even when they mess up.
Lena:
So, if someone steals my car, I should just be like, “Hey, no worries, that’s just Dave being Dave”? That’s not love, that’s enabling a criminal.
The Hypocrisy of Unconditional Love
Maya:
But unconditional love means never pulling back, no matter what. You keep loving through thick and thin.
Lena:
You know what? I love pizza unconditionally, but I’m not going to love it if it’s cold and soggy. Same goes for people. If you’re gonna act like garbage, I’m not gonna treat you like gold.
Maya:
But it’s about being patient with the other person. People aren’t perfect.
Lena:
Sure, but patience doesn’t mean allowing yourself to be someone’s emotional punching bag. If you let someone kick you, you’re not loving them—you're just getting kicked.
The Martyr’s Selfishness
Maya:
I give and expect nothing in return. That’s what love is about—being selfless.
Lena:
Oh, selfless? Really? I’ve heard that one before. The “I do everything for you and expect absolutely nothing in return” act. That’s not love, that’s called being a martyr… and you’re probably going to resent everyone you help. Trust me, I’ve seen it.
Maya:
No, Lena. I just want to help people.
Lena:
Girl, you’re not helping, you’re collecting receipts for every favor you’ve done. If you’re expecting thanks and recognition every time, that’s not selflessness. That’s just another form of emotional hoarding.
The Covert Contract Scam
Maya:
Love should be freely given. You don’t keep score.
Lena:
Oh, we’re not keeping score? Tell that to the person who never calls unless they need a ride. Suddenly, they’re too busy to help you when you need it. But the second their car breaks down, guess who’s on the emergency contact list? Spoiler: it’s not a stranger yearning for your unconditional love.
Maya:
But love is supposed to be unconditional, without expectations.
Lena:
Unconditional love? Sure. But reciprocity matters. If you’re loving someone who doesn’t return the favor, you’re not in a relationship—you’re in a one-woman charity.
The Self-Love Paradox: The Covert Contract in Action
Maya:
I’m all about self-love. You have to love yourself first before you can love others.
Lena:
Sure, Maya, but you’re taking it too far. Self-love isn’t about locking yourself in a room with a mirror and chanting “I’m amazing” over and over. It’s about balance.
Maya:
Well, it’s hard to love others if you don’t love yourself first, right?
Lena:
Look, I get it. But if you love yourself, you wouldn’t turn down every request for help like you’re auditioning for "The Self-Care Olympics." Helping others is a form of self-love, too. If you really loved yourself, you'd feel good about giving back. But if you can’t even pick up the phone, then maybe you’re just hoarding your love like it’s a limited edition.
The Ego Paradox
Maya:
I’ve completely let go of my ego. I’m above all of that.
Lena:
Maya, please. You’re telling me you’ve got no ego while you’re over here trying to convince me how enlightened you are. Newsflash: Your ego is speaking for you. It’s louder than a fire alarm in a quiet library.
Maya:
No, I’m just saying I’ve reached a higher state of being.
Lena:
Right. And by telling everyone how “ego-free” you are, you’re just racking up the ego points. You can’t be both humble and constantly telling everyone how humble you are. That’s the definition of ego hiding behind humility.
The Emotional Parasite Theory
If you believe in unconditional love, let’s test something.
Can you love someone without them ever lifting a finger for you?
Can you love someone who never asks how you’re doing?
Can you love someone who only sees you as useful?
If your answer is yes, congratulations: you’re a host, not a partner. Because that’s not love, that’s being an emotional parasite’s food source.
Maya:
But, I love unconditionally. I give everything, no matter what they give me.
Lena:
Oh, you’re the emotional ATM, huh? Just constantly giving out love with no withdrawal limit? That’s cute, but at some point, you’re going to run out of funds, Maya.
Maya:
But love is selfless. You just give because it feels good.
Lena:
No, Maya. It feels good when someone gives back. Love is supposed to be a two-way street, not a one-way ticket to emotional burnout. You can’t be everyone’s personal emotional buffet and wonder why you’re starving yourself. Hellinger’s got this universal law of giving and taking—if it’s not balanced, there’s always someone giving and someone just taking. The one who’s always giving? Eventually, you burn out. And the one who’s always taking? They owe, and they’ll bail when it gets too heavy.
Maya:
But I thought unconditional love meant just giving, no strings attached.
Lena:
That’s where it gets messy. Hellinger talks about the “Order of Love.” It’s a pretty simple rule: love flows from the elder to the younger, not the other way around. When that order’s messed up, it throws everything out of whack. Here’s what he says:
"Son to Father: Dad, you are the big one, I am the small one. You are the one who gives, I am the one who takes."
Maya:
Wait, so you’re saying the love I’m supposed to give to my kids isn’t unconditional?
Lena:
Exactly. It’s like this. Parents give love to their children, and older siblings give love to the younger ones. And then, you teach the younger to respect and honor the older. But here’s where it gets twisted: when we start teaching kids that love flows from them to the adults, we flip everything upside down. That disharmony is exactly what Hellinger was talking about. It’s unnatural. If we want healthy love, we need to get that balance right, or it all falls apart.
Maya:
So you think this “unconditional love” idea is just a bunch of nonsense?
Lena:
No, I’m not saying love isn’t real—it is. But the idea that love should be unconditional all the time, especially when it’s out of balance, is dangerous. That’s when you start letting people take, and take, and take. And guess who gets drained? You do. Hellinger’s whole thing is about respecting the flow. If you flip it, you create chaos, and that’s when love becomes burdensome, not beautiful.
Maya:
But... I still want to give everything to my kids.
Lena:
Of course. Love your kids. But know when to stop pouring from an empty cup. Hellinger’s teachings—especially around the balance of giving and taking—remind us that we have to honor the natural flow of love. And that means being okay with receiving back, not just endlessly giving. If it’s out of balance, eventually, it’s going to collapse.
Maya:
So what do we do? Just stop loving unconditionally?
Lena:
No, Maya. You keep loving, but you love wisely. Love should be healthy, not some idealized, unrealistic fantasy. When love is mutual, when both people show up, that’s where the magic happens. But when it’s one-sided, it’s not love—it’s just a power struggle, a race to burn out.
And that’s the problem with this unconditional love narrative. It’s not about loving without limits. It’s about loving with respect, balance, and a willingness to receive. Only then does love become something that gives back. Because without that balance, you’re just throwing everything into a void, and that’s a hell of a way to love yourself.
Maya:
I see that now. It’s about making sure love doesn’t drain you.
Lena:
Exactly. So, love the right way. Healthy love is the love that lifts you up, not the love that drags you down. And that’s where true connection happens.
