What's so great about commitment?

[bbf]

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

In one sense, yes I think I should be able to. I think we should all be able to do many things that I wouldn't necessarily do. There's a lot of pain in this world created by an unnecessary sense of entitlement. But I'm not a sociopath. I empathize. I often enjoy emotional connection. I can understand another person's pain and that compels me to give them comfort and support, such as they need and is healthy for them. To me those are still choices available to me.

 

To me commitments are external influences. For example, many have made commitments to conforming to social expectations. I don't believe I should comfort another because of some social obligation. I don't want that kind of comfort from them either. Who would?

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

 

As for marriage sure, we enter them voluntarily. But people have consistently shown their inability to imagine future consequences and fail to predict their own future behaviors. How many couples stay together purely for the sake of commitment? Their union was once a choice but it isn't any longer. They've already cut off most of their other options. What is the value and meaning of that kind of relationship?

Edited November 12, 2009 by bbf

[carhill]

The value is in one's sense of self-respect and love of self, which comes from and is reinforced by the choices one makes each day. Every moment, every second, is a choice. A choice to live, a choice to die, a choice to affect the future of everyone. With choice, with freedom, comes the balance of responsibility, for most humans, narcissists exempted. We are responsible for the choices we make and their consequences, whether intended or unintended.

 

I've lived some of what you speak of, as a philosophical anarchist who rails against societal norms and constraints. I've walked that path and understand it pretty well. The clear mandate is again one of choice. You can follow your path of singular freedom and potentially enjoy it alone, perhaps completely alone, or you can choose a path which others walk, necessarily compromising some parts of your singularity to be a part of the community. Your choice. You can't control the community, only your reaction.

 

My wife wanted a divorce and filed for divorce. I had no control over that. I can only control how I react. I tell people, if they ask about 'it', that I think she's happier now. Maybe, looking back, your path and hers are not so far apart. I'm good with that

[bbf]

The value is in one's sense of self-respect and love of self, which comes from and is reinforced by the choices one makes each day. Every moment, every second, is a choice. A choice to live, a choice to die, a choice to affect the future of everyone. With choice, with freedom, comes the balance of responsibility, for most humans, narcissists exempted. We are responsible for the choices we make and their consequences, whether intended or unintended.

 

Yes I agree, in fact those things are all very important to me. But the meaning of my choice and what makes it real to me is the extent to which I can attribute it to my own internal values and processes. A choice at gunpoint is hardly a choice is it?

 

I've lived some of what you speak of, as a philosophical anarchist who rails against societal norms and constraints. I've walked that path and understand it pretty well. The clear mandate is again one of choice. You can follow your path of singular freedom and potentially enjoy it alone, perhaps completely alone, or you can choose a path which others walk, necessarily compromising some parts of your singularity to be a part of the community. Your choice. You can't control the community, only your reaction.

 

What good is singularity or community? To me these are just means to an end, to live according to our values. This is what dictates my path whether I am alone or not. But the world is a wide wide place, and I believe that there will always be people who share my path or are at least willing to join me for a while.

 

My wife wanted a divorce and filed for divorce. I had no control over that. I can only control how I react. I tell people, if they ask about 'it', that I think she's happier now. Maybe, looking back, your path and hers are not so far apart. I'm good with that

 

Maybe not, but I don't think you and I are thinking as differently you might think.

[bluestraps]

bff.. Whats the problem. Mariage is the only way to go. Nothing is wrong with marriage its the people who are married. To me, if you care about the other persons happiness more than your own then marriage is a good idea. People get divorced because they get selfish and end up destroying each other, or the other person.If a person cares about themselves more than their mate, there is a problem.

[ADF]

OP, I don't accept your logic, but I'll tell you this: if I'm ever on trial for my life, I want you as my lawyer!

 

Not being married doesn't make relationships any better or any worse. LTRs are difficult to sustain, whether they are legally recognized or not. People who have "common law" marriages resemble married couples in just about every respect, never mind the fact they never made it official.

 

When a man refuses to make a commitment, what he is really saying to a woman is, "I want an easy way out." No matter how long they are together, no matter how many children they may have, no matter how many years the woman invests in the relationship, the man who won't commit expects to be able to walk away, just like that, owing nothing, never looking back. That is a very harsh message to send someone you love. By entering into a legal relationship, a man puts something at risk, and that is the point. The fact he can lose something is a testament to the fact he believes in the future of the relationship, that he is willing to risk something for it. Saying you love someone is easy. Making it legal takes some guts.

[Boundary Problem]

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.

 

 

So you get married, and you die together and it is dust to dust, as the preacher says.

 

But what about the lifetime you lived together. If someone mistreats the other, the "victim" must have the option of walking away.

 

And either the relationship will crumble into dust, or the "aggressor" will realize the harm and make amends (say sorry etc) and then the relationship will be stronger for the breach/separation/lesson learned.

 

No relationship is perfect.

 

But in the end, it is all dust to dust. Either in your lifetime or beyond.

 

But the strength of a true relationship is

1. having a connection

2 loving eachother

3. having the strength to walk away when that love is being damaged

 

The act of walking away protects the love, which in turn protects the relationship. To stay when the status quo is unacceptable is to have a relationship slowly die on the vine.

 

I don't think putting a ring on someone's finger guarantees perfection. Enforcing boundaries will be as close to healthy as two people can get. Living together is never perfect. Who wants perfect? I know I don't.

[ADF]

Frankly, OP, you are looking at this from a totally male point of view. No doubt, most men would be perfectly happy just "hanging out" with a woman forever without ever making a commitment. But look at it from her perspective.

 

When a man refuses to marry or make a commitment to the woman he says he loves, he is basically telling her that no matter what, he always wants an easy out. No matter how long they've been togther, he has no confidence in the ultimate success of the relationship. No matter how many years of her life she invests in the man, he wants to be able to walk away from her at any time, owing her nothing and never looking back. That is a very harsh message to send a woman. It shouldn't be hard to understand why it makes them feel unloved and unwanted.

[Crusoe]

Frankly, OP, you are looking at this from a totally male point of view. No doubt, most men would be perfectly happy just "hanging out" with a woman forever without ever making a commitment. But look at it from her perspective.

 

When a man refuses to marry or make a commitment to the woman he says he loves, he is basically telling her that no matter what, he always wants an easy out. No matter how long they've been togther, he has no confidence in the ultimate success of the relationship. No matter how many years of her life she invests in the man, he wants to be able to walk away from her at any time, owing her nothing and never looking back. That is a very harsh message to send a woman. It shouldn't be hard to understand why it makes them feel unloved and unwanted.

 

Who would walk into a casino and gamble all they have on a game they cannot win?

 

Well, you can win but only if you stay at the table. If you ever walk away you lose, if you break the rules you lose, if the dealer walks away you lose and if the dealer breaks the rules you lose. The chances of winning? Little better than the toss of a coin.

 

The game is loaded to the dealer, without a ring the man deals, with a ring the woman deals.

[ADF]

Who would walk into a casino and gamble all they have on a game they cannot win?

 

Well, you can win but only if you stay at the table. If you ever walk away you lose, if you break the rules you lose, if the dealer walks away you lose and if the dealer breaks the rules you lose. The chances of winning? Little better than the toss of a coin.

 

The game is loaded to the dealer, without a ring the man deals, with a ring the woman deals.

 

That's very adversarial way of looking at relationships. In your example, relationships are not about finding companionship. They are about one person getting dominance and control over the other. If you take that route, ALL your relationships are going to be nasty power struggles.

[threebyfate]

That's very adversarial way of looking at relationships. In your example, relationships are not about finding companionship. They are about one person getting dominance and control over the other. If you take that route, ALL your relationships are going to be nasty power struggles.

Yup. Power struggle relationships are horrible. Love either never takes seed or dies pretty quickly on this barren, parched ground.

 

A need to dominate and control your partner, is steeped in MAJOR insecurities. In essence, you don't trust your own judgement, when it comes to people picking.

[Crusoe]

That's very adversarial way of looking at relationships. In your example, relationships are not about finding companionship. They are about one person getting dominance and control over the other. If you take that route, ALL your relationships are going to be nasty power struggles.

 

I am not talking about dominance and control, I am talking about fairness and equality.

[threebyfate]

I am not talking about dominance and control, I am talking about fairness and equality.

You're never going to have a fair and equal relationship, if you walk into one with a big chip on your shoulders. Your partner will get tired of shouldering not only the weight of the relationship, but also the weight of your chip.

 

Viable relationships are built on trust and respect, which includes trusting your own people picker. Otherwise, it's an exhausting slippery slope of one party PROVING the unproveable.

[Crusoe]

You're never going to have a fair and equal relationship, if you walk into one with a big chip on your shoulders. Your partner will get tired of shouldering not only the weight of the relationship, but also the weight of your chip.

 

Viable relationships are built on trust and respect, which includes trusting your own people picker. Otherwise, it's an exhausting slippery slope of one party PROVING the unproveable.

 

No chip on this shoulder, no problems with trust or respect either. I am a fair, equal and honest man, I know that well enough and feel no need to argue it.

[ADF]

I am not talking about dominance and control, I am talking about fairness and equality.

 

No, you're not. Your line was, "without a ring the man deals, with a ring the woman deals." That is a straight power equation. You're saying that so long as a man doesn't commit, he controls the woman. As soon as he commits, she controls him. That not a question of equality, it is a question of dominance.

[threebyfate]

*waits for the legal inequality, when it comes to divorce argument*

 

*precounters with making your mark in life first, where your earning potential and fiscal security are secured first, hedge your bets with a prenup, as well as honing your people picker, argument*

 

[Crusoe]

No, you're not. Your line was, "without a ring the man deals, with a ring the woman deals." That is a straight power equation. You're saying that so long as a man doesn't commit, he controls the woman. As soon as he commits, she controls him. That not a question of equality, it is a question of dominance.

 

ADF, I know my words, I know my thoughts, in the future please do not tell what I am saying or thinking. I am not here to argue or cause offense.

 

I have said nothing about power, dominance or control. What I was getting at is, it is a little unfair to expect a woman to make the sacrifices of being a wife without a ring, is it not? At any time a man could lie, cheat, break the rules and leave her high and dry, with much less than when she entered the relationship. It is natural she wants a little security behind her.

Whereas once married, the woman can lie, cheat, break the rules and leave a man screwed. I am not saying she will, or that she wants to, or that's what she is thinking about when getting married. I am saying at any time she can decide she wants out and walk off and take him to the cleaners. That also is a little unfair.

I know dozens and dozens of men who say they will never marry, or that if they do marry they are getting themselves a swiss bank account first. This is pure and simple because of rules of divorce. This is nothing about men vs women, it is about the rules of the game.

You mentioned that men are not committing because they want an easy way out, it is not so much they want an easy way out, it is the dont what to put their arse on the line until they are 100% sure. I understand this may frustate a lady, all I am asking is if you can understand why men are being cautious?

Were the rules of divorce a little fairer, I believe you would see men more willing to go down on bended knee.

 

I apologise for this being long, I apologise for I am sure this must by now be off topic, to tell the truth I cannot even remember what the topic was. I just dont like being told am saying something I am not.

[Crusoe]

*waits for the legal inequality, when it comes to divorce argument*

 

*precounters with making your mark in life first, where your earning potential and fiscal security are secured first, hedge your bets with a prenup, as well as honing your people picker, argument*

 

 

Me personally, done the first, the second too, am set up for life. Would undoubtedly do the third, and as for the fourth, yup, would do that too, but it would take time, and maybe the woman would get frustrated during that time.

 

None of it is very romantic is it?

[threebyfate]

Me personally, done the first, the second too, am set up for life. Would undoubtedly do the third, and as for the fourth, yup, would do that too, but it would take time, and maybe the woman would get frustrated during that time.

 

None of it is very romantic is it?

 

Because of you

I never stray too far from the sidewalk

Because of you

I learned to play on the safe side so I don't get hurt

Because of you

I try my hardest just to forget everything

Because of you

I don't know how to let anyone else in

Because of you

I'm ashamed of my life because it's empty

Because of you

I am afraid

[carhill]

I know dozens and dozens of men who say they will never marry, or that if they do marry they are getting themselves a swiss bank account first. This is pure and simple because of rules of divorce. This is nothing about men vs women, it is about the rules of the game.

In another thread, with a markedly different tone, I asserted essentially the same thing. That said, as I mentioned there, successful men can and do enact plans of equitable distribution which respect both their life's work and their commitment to a woman whom they choose to love. It's called 'plan B'. Plan A is dying with their beloved and family at their side after a faithful and long-lived union.

 

Take care of plan B and work diligently to see plan A succeed. Commit to success

[Crusoe]

In another thread, with a markedly different tone, I asserted essentially the same thing. That said, as I mentioned there, successful men can and do enact plans of equitable distribution which respect both their life's work and their commitment to a woman whom they choose to love. It's called 'plan B'. Plan A is dying with their beloved and family at their side after a faithful and long-lived union.

 

Take care of plan B and work diligently to see plan A succeed. Commit to success

 

Agreed, I just find it a shame. All of it, the need for a plan B, the arguments between men and women, the break ups, the affairs, the cheating, the lies, the hate, the lack of forgiveness and understanding. Its all just a shame.

[Tayla]

Because of you

I never stray too far from the sidewalk

Because of you

I learned to play on the safe side so I don't get hurt

Because of you

I try my hardest just to forget everything

Because of you

I don't know how to let anyone else in

Because of you

I'm ashamed of my life because it's empty

Because of you

I am afraid

 

 

And that song is from a childs' perspective of seeing a parent cope thru divorce and how it embedded itself into the childs' distrust for people and events. The child wasn't going to make the same mistakes.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Tayla

[ADF]

ADF, I know my words, I know my thoughts, in the future please do not tell what I am saying or thinking...I just dont like being told am saying something I am not.

 

But I quoted you directly. How can I be putting words in your mouth if I am reading your own words right back to you? Those were your words, not mine.

[threebyfate]

And that song is from a childs' perspective of seeing a parent cope thru divorce and how it embedded itself into the childs' distrust for people and events. The child wasn't going to make the same mistakes.

Whether the entire song is applicable in this case or not, is moot. The excerpt has a recurring theme of external blame for fear, rather than the acceptance and understanding that if a fear exists, it's within your power to negate it.

 

Having said all that, not everyone can commit. For those who can't, DON'T EVER get married.

[alphamale]

i've been dodging commitment all my life, its a ten letter word to me. when i think of all the fine women who wanted to commit to me i feel sad for i ran from them. why? i don't know.... but thats the way it goes.

[Crusoe]

Whether the entire song is applicable in this case or not, is moot. The excerpt has a recurring theme of external blame for fear, rather than the acceptance and understanding that if a fear exists, it's within your power to negate it.

 

Having said all that, not everyone can commit. For those who can't, DON'T EVER get married.

 

Sorry TBF, there is no "case" here.