Love, as it is
Socioeconomic system organizes reproduction through the establishment of nuclear families. These families conform an economic and sexual unit that is responsible for its own support and that of the children they procreate. The inhumane conditions to which the system undergoes these families, especially if they have children, produces a widespread rejection of their formation, particulally by men, who have greater previous economic autonomy, and find their standard of living deteriorated by the formation of the family, and are less exposed to the supplementary marketing of parenthood. In order to counter this rejection, the system generates an entire ideological couple marketing subsystem through which it seeks to convince that it provides extraordinary subjective emotional compensation. That ideological subsystem is love.
Love, therefore, from a sociological point of view, is an ideological subsystem that stems from the socio-economic system, whose function is to sacrifice individuals, in favour of social reproduction (which does not coincide with that of the species), through the formation of existential chasms called "families".
It is funny to note that the only truly solid argument in favour of love, just put forward by purely conservative views, is that without it families wouldn’t be ever formed. When forming a family is the meaning of life and a final good in itself, love acquires its ultimate and true sense. As long as the need for the individual to be tricked into being enslaved by its subsumption to family unit is rejected, love loses its function and should be rejected with it.
From the point of view of individual experience, as already explained, love is a blind script, a heterogeneous elements composite elements resulting in the following of a prewriten story whose feature character plays deceived, guided by patterns different from the original, which are written by the speech that love provides about itself, and always will prove elusive, until the fulfillment of their reproductive function. Once this function is achieved, the script ends abruptly and the individual becomes empty of meaning, outside the world of love, rejected by it, and finished for sex-sentimental socialization.
Upon discovering the social function of love we understand that individual experience, and refuse love also from that perspective, from that definition of alienating blind script, and from that which made it present itself as the natural form of personal fulfillment and maximum moral good.
This is, very concisely, the true meaning of "love" in our culture, and it is this love that agamy rejects. But one must understand the subordination relationship that the rest of "loves" have with this central and substantial love. Both nontraditional couples’ love, familiar affective loves (especially that from the parents) or spiritual love, drink from the fountain of irrational couple forming love, and use the resource of emotional exaltation to hide their submission to sentimental alienating culture.
Therefore, the rejection of love is the rejection of all kinds of love. The best strategy is not to divide love, so that it is easier to remove it completely. The reforming of love, however, is hardly a practical operation, as it requires a hard working surgery whose product loses clarity and remains at the expense of a relapse into contamination. Also, what for?
To enjoy the best argument for its abandonment, it must be understood that love is the product created for this phase of social reproduction; which is its reason for being; which is its substance. No way to save love without separating it from its substance; without making a thing that would not be love anymore. For this reason, criticism of a type of love becomes rejection of love, without any attempt to correct, amend or redo love into a better love.
Better than any improvement of love is not love.