What's so great about commitment?

[bbf]

So for most it sounds like the main reason they want to get married is that they want a lifelong commitment. But why? That's exactly why I don't want to get married. Commitment ruins relationships!

 

When you're married you can't leave the relationship even if you want to, unless you are willing to go through the pain and expense of divorce. I know that you're committing to more than just staying together, but that is at least part of the commitment, and therein lies the poison. Both people know that they're more or less stuck together so more often than not, married couples stop trying and let themselves go. They stop flirting, stop taking each other on dates, they gain weight, etc.

 

It goes deeper than that though. The foundation of having boundaries is being able to walk away. The only way you can stop someone from treating you badly or neglecting you is to walk away. But marriage means commitment, which means staying together. Your boundaries aren't real, because you can't enforce them. And you see it all the time on these forums. Married men and women who are absolutely miserable about the way they are treated, but ultimately they can't do anything about it. They're trapped.

 

IMO it's because of the fact that they can't leave each other that they start to treat each other worse. When you lose that fear of separation, you lose a huge incentive to maintain a happy relationship. Some people might not want to believe this is true.

 

But think about it.

 

Here's just one example.

 

Let's say you're in the heat of an intense argument. It could be about anything. But do you really think there won't be a difference in the way you approach that argument when you know the outcome could be breaking up and when you know it cant? You really think you wouldn't give your partner's position more consideration in the former case than the latter?

 

Not being married improves the quality of the relationship, because knowing that person is in the relationship of their own free will ensures that it is a relationship based on respect, not obligation. Isn't it better to decide everyday that you're together because you really love each other than because you sign a document and made a promise many many years ago?

Edited November 11, 2009 by bbf

[Lauriebell82]

I agree with some of the points you made. However I don't believe that you are neccessarily "stuck" or "trapped" if you become unhappy in your marriage. If people REALLY felt that way then the divorce rate would be significantly lower. Divorce is basically like breaking up nowadays. It's accepted in our society, therefore couples are doing it more and more the minute they become unhappy.

 

I do agree that some married couples will stop trying to work on problems and let themselves go because they figure it will be more difficult for their partner to leave them (but it still happens). But this is actually becoming less and less common. Couples become unhappy and divorce. And on the flip side a cohabitating couple will try to work things out and respect their partner because they know they can just leave them for anything with no strings attached. But are they really being THEM? Or are they just faking it to keep the person around?

 

Catch 22 I guess.

[bbf]

I agree with some of the points you made. However I don't believe that you are neccessarily "stuck" or "trapped" if you become unhappy in your marriage. If people REALLY felt that way then the divorce rate would be significantly lower. Divorce is basically like breaking up nowadays. It's accepted in our society, therefore couples are doing it more and more the minute they become unhappy.

 

Well here's the thing about that. If you're the kind of person who takes commitment seriously you're the type who can get stuck or trapped in an unhappy marriage. If you're the type that feels like divorce is the same as breaking up, then marriage wasn't much of a commitment anyway. Either way, marriage for commitment doesn't work.

 

I do agree that some married couples will stop trying to work on problems and let themselves go because they figure it will be more difficult for their partner to leave them (but it still happens). But this is actually becoming less and less common. Couples become unhappy and divorce. And on the flip side a cohabitating couple will try to work things out and respect their partner because they know they can just leave them for anything with no strings attached. But are they really being THEM? Or are they just faking it to keep the person around?

 

Hard to say. I don't feel like I'm "faking it" when I'm dating. I just feel differently about the situation because the situation, (I imagine. I've never been married.) IS different. If you're faking it for the sake of the relationship, is getting married the answer to being able show your true self?

[Boundary Problem]

So for most it sounds like the main reason they want to get married is that they want a lifelong commitment. But why? That's exactly why I don't want to get married. Commitment ruins relationships!

 

When you're married you can't leave the relationship even if you want to, unless you are willing to go through the pain and expense of divorce. I know that you're committing to more than just staying together, but that is at least part of the commitment, and therein lies the poison. Both people know that they're more or less stuck together so more often than not, married couples stop trying and let themselves go. They stop flirting, stop taking each other on dates, they gain weight, etc.

 

It goes deeper than that though. The foundation of having boundaries is being able to walk away. The only way you can stop someone from treating you badly or neglecting you is to walk away. But marriage means commitment, which means staying together. Your boundaries aren't real, because you can't enforce them. And you see it all the time on these forums. Married men and women who are absolutely miserable about the way they are treated, but ultimately they can't do anything about it. They're trapped.

 

IMO it's because of the fact that they can't leave each other that they start to treat each other worse. When you lose that fear of separation, you lose a huge incentive to maintain a happy relationship. Some people might not want to believe this is true.

 

But think about it.

 

Here's just one example.

 

Let's say you're in the heat of an intense argument. It could be about anything. But do you really think there won't be a difference in the way you approach that argument when you know the outcome could be breaking up and when you know it cant? You really think you wouldn't give your partner's position more consideration in the former case than the latter?

 

Not being married improves the quality of the relationship, because knowing that person is in the relationship of their own free will ensures that it is a relationship based on respect, not obligation. Isn't it better to decide everyday that you're together because you really love each other than because you sign a document and made a promise many many years ago?

 

 

 

I agree 100%.

 

Time and time again I see marriages comprised of a dynamic where the person who cares the least, dominates.

[LDR]

I agree with you too. Some of the happiest couples I have seen are not married. I know a a couple in their 70s who still act as if they were boyfriend and girlfriend: they hold hands, kiss each other. I posted something similar in another topic:

Sometimes I think that people who live together w/out getting married have more fulfilling relationships as it is easier to walk away, therefore they make a bigger effort to keep the other person happy. After reading some of the marriage forums here, sometimes that "piece of paper" keeps people trapped in unfulfilling relationships as it is more difficult to get out.

[PinkToes]

If "commitment" makes someone feel trapped and lazy and obligated to behave in ways that aren't compatible with his or her true self, commitment isn't right for them. If it feels negative to you, by all means, avoid it.

 

On the other hand, what commitment means to me is that I am free to be myself without fear that my partner might just decide to throw in the towel because something didn't feel right in some random moment. It means security, not shackles.

 

Relationships always eb & flow, and it feels pretty good knowing that your partner is committed to sticking it out on the days when you sit across the table from each other and wonder what the hell you were thinking when you got married.

 

And if you're with someone who treats commitment as an excuse to stop trying, the problem isn't the concept of commitment at all, but with your choice of partner. I wouldn't choose to be with someone who behaved that way.

[carhill]

LTR's with cohabitation and/or children are often essentially the same as marriages in the eyes of the law, so 'walking away' if not married isn't the panacea often proffered. Marriage is a social and legal contract and it takes a lawsuit (divorce) to dissolve it. Serious stuff.

 

Sometimes, even with trying and all the best intentions, things just don't work out. Life is like that. Failure is a part of the success of living. The best part about commitment and marriage for myself was the additional depth of living that was added with the expressed and implied intimacy, adhesion and fidelity which was part and parcel of the commitment of marriage. Those nuances added positive space to my psyche and added new and vibrant color to life. Positives I wouldn't have experienced without the commitment.

 

Also, knowing a divorce wasn't a simple, fleeting, situational, emotional thing caused us to work harder on having a good relationship before giving up on it; trying where a lesser commitment would have ended on an argument or moment of passionate anger. It was the psychology of marriage which impelled us to learn and grow and, even if ultimately divorcing, improve ourselves as people.

 

IMO, it's easier to be selfish when not legally bound, whether via matrimony or common law, because, simply, there are no significant consequences. Such are relationships in their simplest form, purely for the mutual pleasure of the parties. Such selfish pleasures are fine, but not as the foundation for a family, because, in time, selfish must necessary balance with selfless, which is a much more difficult psychological concept for most people to deal with.

 

I see many around me live the laissez-faire style of relationships, in the moment, and I accept that it is their path. Mine is different. I hope they find the joy and contentment they are looking for.

[stillafool]

I agree with some of the points you made. However I don't believe that you are neccessarily "stuck" or "trapped" if you become unhappy in your marriage. If people REALLY felt that way then the divorce rate would be significantly lower. Divorce is basically like breaking up nowadays. It's accepted in our society, therefore couples are doing it more and more the minute they become unhappy.

 

I think most people worry more about what they will lose financially when they divorce rather than what society will accept.

[carhill]

Well, my stbx lost nearly all her 'couple' friends in her last divorce, and I will lose most of the similar type friends in her most current one, with me. Sometimes divorce is one way to find out who your true friends are. So, there is one potential (YMMV) social impact, meaning the social interaction and support network can be changed dramatically in negative ways. I won't even broach the 'family' part. Can o worms on steroids...

 

Obviously, absent a pre-nup, and even with one, finances are a consideration when divorcing.

 

What happens if two 'lovers' own a house as joint tenants or tenants in common? What happens if one partner buys a house and the other lives there and they co-mingle finances and 'stuff'? Think about that. It isn't as simple as it seems. How does the non-owner feel about contributing to something they have no stake in? Selfless love? More things to consider

[bbf]

If "commitment" makes someone feel trapped and lazy and obligated to behave in ways that aren't compatible with his or her true self, commitment isn't right for them. If it feels negative to you, by all means, avoid it.

 

On the other hand, what commitment means to me is that I am free to be myself without fear that my partner might just decide to throw in the towel because something didn't feel right in some random moment. It means security, not shackles.

 

Relationships always eb & flow, and it feels pretty good knowing that your partner is committed to sticking it out on the days when you sit across the table from each other and wonder what the hell you were thinking when you got married.

 

But wouldn't you rather believe these things were true based on the strength of the relationship rather than on the strength of a commitment?

 

And if you're with someone who treats commitment as an excuse to stop trying, the problem isn't the concept of commitment at all, but with your choice of partner. I wouldn't choose to be with someone who behaved that way.

 

I don't think anyone purposely uses commitment as an excuse. I think it's something so subtle we don't even realize it's happening, and it just builds up over time.

 

You might start off by saying, "well, we're married now so even though there's less pressure to keep each other happy, I'm gonna keep my foot on the gas and make things work!" But 5, 10, 20 years down the line you're not even going to remember what that pressure felt like.

 

One day you feel too tired, too angry, too depressed, too whatever to do something for the relationship you would have done if you weren't married. And then it's down the slippery slope.

 

This happens to so many people in so many marriages and it sounds like you're saying the solutions is just that no one should have married them in the first place. Well, in a way I agree.

[Els]

I don't know, but for me personally, the main point of marriage (ie formal commitment) is:

 

1. If you want kids. Family unit, official papers and all that.

 

2. In case certain sacrifices need to be make, that would not be made without some assurance that the other person is equally committed, and that also require some sort of security. For example, if I were to leave my job to move cross-country with a man, to a place where my qualifications might not net me a job easily, he'd damn well better marry me.

 

Other than those, I probably wouldn't be too fussed with marriage myself.

[carhill]

Also, dependent on country/jurisdiction, certain privileges and/or rights inure to legal spouses in areas of health care, retirement, survivorship, insurance, etc. simply with the stroke of the pen on the marriage license. These are all aspects of the 'marital union' which is created of the two separate parties and parts. It's part of the psychological 'security' of marriage.

 

I've been unmarried for far more of my life than married, and am no apologist for marriage. I'm simply pointing out the differences with and potentials for marriage as a relationship option. It surely is not for everyone, nor is it meant to be. Live, love, be free, and then die. Enjoy it. It is so brief, life.

[bbf]

Thanks for responding, there's some really thought provoking stuff here.

 

LTR's with cohabitation and/or children are often essentially the same as marriages in the eyes of the law, so 'walking away' if not married isn't the panacea often proffered. Marriage is a social and legal contract and it takes a lawsuit (divorce) to dissolve it. Serious stuff.

 

Sometimes, even with trying and all the best intentions, things just don't work out. Life is like that. Failure is a part of the success of living. The best part about commitment and marriage for myself was the additional depth of living that was added with the expressed and implied intimacy, adhesion and fidelity which was part and parcel of the commitment of marriage. Those nuances added positive space to my psyche and added new and vibrant color to life. Positives I wouldn't have experienced without the commitment.

 

It sounds like the ritual of marriage changed your perception of the relationship. But to me it doesn't make sense that the simple act of marriage can add true intimacy, adhesion, and fidelity. IMO, those things are created in other ways. Does a placebo work when you know it's a placebo?

 

Also, knowing a divorce wasn't a simple, fleeting, situational, emotional thing caused us to work harder on having a good relationship before giving up on it; trying where a lesser commitment would have ended on an argument or moment of passionate anger. It was the psychology of marriage which impelled us to learn and grow and, even if ultimately divorcing, improve ourselves as people.

 

IMO, it's easier to be selfish when not legally bound, whether via matrimony or common law, because, simply, there are no significant consequences. Such are relationships in their simplest form, purely for the mutual pleasure of the parties. Such selfish pleasures are fine, but not as the foundation for a family, because, in time, selfish must necessary balance with selfless, which is a much more difficult psychological concept for most people to deal with.

 

I see many around me live the laissez-faire style of relationships, in the moment, and I accept that it is their path. Mine is different. I hope they find the joy and contentment they are looking for.

 

I like your tolerant attitude

And yes, maybe a couple would stay together longer if they're married. But what do you think about my post, that the commitment itself creates unhealthy dynamics. Isn't it better to try to learn selflessness and learn to overcome petty conflicts and learn to sustain a long term relationship (if that's what you want) without hobbling your freedom of choice, or relinquishing your boundaries?

 

Well, my stbx lost nearly all her 'couple' friends in her last divorce, and I will lose most of the similar type friends in her most current one, with me. Sometimes divorce is one way to find out who your true friends are. So, there is one potential (YMMV) social impact, meaning the social interaction and support network can be changed dramatically in negative ways. I won't even broach the 'family' part. Can o worms on steroids...

 

Obviously, absent a pre-nup, and even with one, finances are a consideration when divorcing.

 

What happens if two 'lovers' own a house as joint tenants or tenants in common? What happens if one partner buys a house and the other lives there and they co-mingle finances and 'stuff'? Think about that. It isn't as simple as it seems. How does the non-owner feel about contributing to something they have no stake in? Selfless love? More things to consider

 

I really appreciate that you've included the practical side of cohabitation. I've thought about this problem too, and it's something that I still feel conflicted about. I've considered never cohabitating, never sharing accounts, etc, but I don't know if that's something I'm willing to do. I still think less commitment is better, so to me cohabitation is still preferable to marriage.

[carhill]

But to me it doesn't make sense that the simple act of marriage can add true intimacy, adhesion, and fidelity.

 

Neither did I until, at 41, I got married for the first time. I'm generally not one of those LS'ers that says you have to be married to understand marriage, but perhaps, in a narrow range of experiences, such an assertion is appropriate. I can't quantify (with empirical data) a 'feeling', but that's what it felt like to me, taking those simple Hawaiian vows with the ocean of life as the backdrop. Even my stbx commented on the way with which I repeated them, perhaps foretelling what would become a marked difference in our styles of love over time.

 

Like I said, we each have our own path. If your path does not include marriage, or even cohabitation, that is your path. Embrace it, for it is uniquely you

[PinkToes]

But wouldn't you rather believe these things were true based on the strength of the relationship rather than on the strength of a commitment?

 

I don't think anyone purposely uses commitment as an excuse. I think it's something so subtle we don't even realize it's happening, and it just builds up over time.

 

You might start off by saying, "well, we're married now so even though there's less pressure to keep each other happy, I'm gonna keep my foot on the gas and make things work!" But 5, 10, 20 years down the line you're not even going to remember what that pressure felt like.

 

One day you feel too tired, too angry, too depressed, too whatever to do something for the relationship you would have done if you weren't married. And then it's down the slippery slope.

 

This happens to so many people in so many marriages and it sounds like you're saying the solutions is just that no one should have married them in the first place. Well, in a way I agree.

 

I wouldn't make a commitment to someone with whom I didn't already have a strong relationship, or with someone who didn't share my belief in maintaining the strength of that relationship. Commitment is nothing more than a mutual understanding that the relationship is worth preserving, even during those times when it isn't going so well.

 

Both of you have to decide in advance whether you're willing to do what is necessary to make a committed relationship work. It's a promise to each other to keep that love alive, because preserving love always takes work -- even when you don't feel like it. But you do that because you decide before even making that commitment that the relationship is worth it.

 

I take my commitments very, very seriously, and I gravitate toward others who feel the same. No one wakes up one day too tired, too angry, or too depressed to work on a relationship unless they've made a conscious choice to stop feeding it. It doesn't just happen unless you let it.

 

In my experience, non-committed relationships rely a lot more on feeling good in the moment, which is why you so often hear people say they love someone but they're not in love anymore. Love is a decision. If I make a commitment to be with someone forever, I know that I'm going to do everything I can to keep that love alive. Even when it's the last thing I feel like doing.

 

But that's just me. And if you'd rather stake the future of a relationship on the way you're feeling on any given day, and whether you happen to be motivated enough to stick around, just don't make that commitment to work through the bad times. Then you can walk away without looking back. Just make sure you're honest upfront with anyone you're involved with.

[Boundary Problem]

I really appreciate that you've included the practical side of cohabitation. I've thought about this problem too, and it's something that I still feel conflicted about. I've considered never cohabitating, never sharing accounts, etc, but I don't know if that's something I'm willing to do. I still think less commitment is better, so to me cohabitation is still preferable to marriage.

 

 

 

Good luck with that.

 

If you want to date someone, then date them.

 

If you want to build a life together, you will have to give up some independence. That is the reality. Particularly if there are children involved.

 

The sacrifices involved in raising children are enormous. If you don't want to make any sacrifices and give up a dating-type lifestyle, then don't have children. It is that simple.

 

If you want to remain living alone, then that is fine, but you better warn people about that issue you have when you are dating.

 

Theory is all well and good, but at 3am when the child has puked for the 4th time and there is no more clean laundry, there are certain expectations on both partners to pull together.

 

I'm editing to add this: The financial consequences for the primary caregiver of a child (even if that mom is working full-time) are incalculable. We are planning swimming lessons on our breaks, we are organizing car rides while cooking dinner, we are trying to do our jobs on 4 hours sleep, we are trying to get our children on waitlists for this/that etc. To think that a cheque for $800 a month (to pull a number from the air) is going to compensate your partner for "her share" or some 1/2 payment of cost is insulting. The institution of marriage was created to financially protect women who are vulnerable - or at least that is generally why women push for marriage. To strip away the protection of marriage, and then further suggest finances would be separate, and even live separate (we know who the puking child will be living with) - makes a mockery of the sacrifices involved in raising children.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Boundary Problem

[bbf]

Who says I wanted children? And of course I would tell long-term partners. After hearing the stories of so many unhappy people, I'm just trying to find a better way (for everyone involved), that's all.

[bbf]

I wouldn't make a commitment to someone with whom I didn't already have a strong relationship, or with someone who didn't share my belief in maintaining the strength of that relationship. Commitment is nothing more than a mutual understanding that the relationship is worth preserving, even during those times when it isn't going so well.

 

Both of you have to decide in advance whether you're willing to do what is necessary to make a committed relationship work. It's a promise to each other to keep that love alive, because preserving love always takes work -- even when you don't feel like it. But you do that because you decide before even making that commitment that the relationship is worth it.

 

I take my commitments very, very seriously, and I gravitate toward others who feel the same. No one wakes up one day too tired, too angry, or too depressed to work on a relationship unless they've made a conscious choice to stop feeding it. It doesn't just happen unless you let it.

 

In my experience, non-committed relationships rely a lot more on feeling good in the moment, which is why you so often hear people say they love someone but they're not in love anymore. Love is a decision. If I make a commitment to be with someone forever, I know that I'm going to do everything I can to keep that love alive. Even when it's the last thing I feel like doing.

 

But that's just me. And if you'd rather stake the future of a relationship on the way you're feeling on any given day, and whether you happen to be motivated enough to stick around, just don't make that commitment to work through the bad times. Then you can walk away without looking back. Just make sure you're honest upfront with anyone you're involved with.

 

If you're defining commitment that way, then sure I can get behind that. Mostly I'm talking about commitment in the context of marriage though. When I say things like, But wouldn't you rather believe these things were true based on the strength of the relationship rather than on the strength of a commitment? I'm trying to distinguish trying to make things work because the relationship is worth preserving and trying to make things work because you really have no choice other than divorce. The former I support through a relationship outside marriage, but not the latter.

 

Also I really do believe that knowing it's harder to separate because of marriage makes people try less. And I don't think that it's a conscious decision. That's just my observation and it makes sense to me.

[Boundary Problem]

Who says I wanted children? And of course I would tell long-term partners. After hearing the stories of so many unhappy people, I'm just trying to find a better way (for everyone involved), that's all.

 

And you should be commended for that.

 

I just get a little sensitive. (as you can see).

 

I'm personally completely dissatisfied with the permanence of marriage and I think that people stop 'trying hard' once they have the security of the ring on their finger. So if there is a way to rework the benefits of marriage, and lose the disadvantages, then I'm all ears.

[carhill]

I think that people stop 'trying hard' once they have the security of the ring on their finger.

 

Was that your experience in your M? I ask because I've been around married couples for over a quarter century as a peer and I've rarely gotten that impression. Obviously, and being married I know from experience, what goes on inside a marriage is not readily visible to outsiders, but, still, one gets impressions and I rarely got that impression. So, I wonder where yours comes from

[Boundary Problem]

Was that your experience in your M? I ask because I've been around married couples for over a quarter century as a peer and I've rarely gotten that impression. Obviously, and being married I know from experience, what goes on inside a marriage is not readily visible to outsiders, but, still, one gets impressions and I rarely got that impression. So, I wonder where yours comes from

 

 

Yes that happened in my M. ex turned on a dime two months into marriage.

 

But I'm surrounded by marriages that are either sexless, or one dominates the other, or they are miserable so one spouse travels all the time, or one spouse Wants the other to live overseas and just send home cheques etc.

 

I'm 36 - and those are the marriages that surround me. I can't name one marriage that I envy.

[carhill]

Wow, really? I'm trying right now to pinpoint one 'lazy' M amongst our social circle and I'll be damned if I can think of one, and nearly all have had their issues over the years. Even in ours, I can't say either of us was 'lazy', even if ultimately incompatible. We worked through a lot of difficult times and enjoyed a lot of good times too. I could say the same for most of the couples I know well enough to comment on their M's. Most of my friends have been married 20+ years, so perhaps there's a difference in perspective because of our age (I'm young, at 50, amongst my social circle) and life experience.

 

As I said prior, everyone has a unique life path and, if I was seeing life through your eyes, I might come to the same conclusion as you have. I think that's appropriate. Plenty of room on planet Earth for all perspectives.

 

BTW, I'd love to hear more about the delineation of 'relationship' and 'commitment' and how they OP defines those dynamics. Perhaps mistakenly, I believe a healthy relationship requires commitment, and cannot function effectively without it. This applies to all relationships, whether business, personal, familial or with my cat I want to better understand a healthy relationship without commitment and how exactly that is defined.

[PinkToes]

If you're defining commitment that way, then sure I can get behind that. Mostly I'm talking about commitment in the context of marriage though. When I say things like, But wouldn't you rather believe these things were true based on the strength of the relationship rather than on the strength of a commitment? I'm trying to distinguish trying to make things work because the relationship is worth preserving and trying to make things work because you really have no choice other than divorce.

 

Fair enough; I'll give you that.

 

I'm curious about carhill's question as well though, in terms of the delineation of 'relationship' and 'commitment,' in your view.

[bbf]

The main way I delineate relationships and commitment is whether my choices are made for me or by me. To me relationships between adults should be voluntary. We start out in the world and we're not bound to anyone or obligated to anyone. If you start a relationship with me that's your choice and mine as well. It's because of the value we can offer and share with each other. To what extent it's possible I like for all my actions to be voluntary as well.

 

Many times in a relationship you might feel like you're obligated to do this or that, but you don't have to think of it that way. To the extent that you can walk away, those actions were your choice. Maybe that's semantics but it's a perspective that comforts me and empowers me.

 

A lot of people say things like, "Well when the going get's tough, it feels good to know that we've made a commitment." To me this kind of commitment is an influence external to my own choices. I want to believe that we can all be happy because we live in a world of our own creation. Not to be glib, but to me marriage sounds like destroying our own power, freedom of choice, for the sake of naivety at best, fear at worst.

 

I think parties being free of this kind of commitment is healthy. To me growth in a relationship would be teaching each other to be more independent, to grow our own strengths, not become codependent on each others'. I think that is a better solution for what marriage is trying to accomplish.

 

I also want to know that we're together entirely of our own choice. To me, to live otherwise means that we are always living with resentment and regret. If I had a girlfriend and she thought that she could be happier with someone else, I think she should be with that person. I'd hope I could be happy for her. I think I should be able to do the same.

 

I know the practicality of this kind of philosophy can get complicated very quickly. Especially with children, because I think we do have a one way obligation to our children. I suppose the same is true of our pets. But for now I don't worry about that; this is only one reason that I don't think I want children anyway.

Edited November 12, 2009 by bbf

[carhill]

To me relationships between adults should be voluntary.

 

Of course they should. Every part of a healthy relationship is voluntary. Some people take vows or other expressions of commitment voluntarily. They agree publicly to certain conditions of their relationship. They have a meeting of the minds. A contract.

 

No one is pressuring you into 'voluntarily' giving up any of your inherent freedoms and/or preferences. You can absolutely have relationships with no commitment at all, with people who are like-minded.

 

Imagine a friendship where you are encouraged to make and cancel plans without concern; feel free to go out dancing as planned even though your friend was just in a life-threatening auto accident; laugh and expound upon your day without regard to your friend going through a painful divorce or other similar experience. Then, imagine the reverse. No commitment; no obligation; care if and when convenient and/or when you 'feel like it'. Do exactly as you feel without regard to another. It's entirely voluntary.

 

I think it's very convenient. I hope it works for you. Seriously

 

For myself, the above describes interactions with strangers and acquaintances, which are 99.9999% of the people I encounter.

 

To bring it back to the title, what's great to me about commitment is how it makes me feel. Take a risk sometime and try it. It might not be for you but how will you know if you don't try?

 

BTW, I'm going through a divorce right now. Reconcile that with the perspective offered above. I think it's instructive