THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: pi on 26 May 2008, 17:46

Title: Commitment
Post by: pi on 26 May 2008, 17:46
You're with a significant other. You like each other, very much. So you decide to get married. But how can you ever possibly know that you are with the best possible person for you? There is no way you can sample everyone in the world, and there are loads of people that can outdo your other in any category.  Asserting that they have the perfect combination of characteristics for you seems a bit silly, as you don't really know that -- you don't know what specifications the perfect person for you has, or even what all the specifications of your partner are, not all of them. Besides, perfection is something to be striven for and never achieved.

If you concede that you can never have the perfect partner, or if you do, you could not know it,
      
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/commitment.png)

I don't mean to imply that if you settle for something great, realizing that you will probably never have perfection, you could find your soul-mate, though it's theoretically possible. The point here is that if you can never have perfection, there will always be something better*. Knowing this, how can you ever make such a commitment as marriage, when any day you know you could meet that someone?

Then, when you meet someone you think is better for you, you have to make a decision: either you break your vows of commitment and take a shot with this new person, or you suck it up and stick with your current person, whom you like a lot, but now you think that there's a person that is even better for you, and now you will never get the chance to be with him/her.

Doubt and uncertainty plague the lands and all you can think about is that other person and what you might have had together were it not for all these little snot-nosed goblins doing their best to destroy all the things in the house that can be, into sharp shards, to then fall on and hurt themselves, or you, you could be even happier, which is actually easier to accomplish now that your world is plagued with the aforementioned doubt.

I guess that was the reason behind marriage in the first place: creating a stable and positive environment for kids to grow up in, not having them worry about the guy that beats up dinosaurs and drags them back to the cave choosing a new cave and not informing his kin [unsure about proper punctuation here]. But I don't think that's why people get married now, at least not for the most part.

So how can we take those vows today, how can we promise to be with another person until death does part us, knowing that you could run into someone that would make you either a liar or misearble until death?


thread rule: you aren't allowed to use the word "love" or you lose. Except me. I am allowed.

* While the mathematical relation of people's worth (one person being better than another) might seem overly simplistic, I think it gets the point across.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: WriterofAllWrongs on 26 May 2008, 17:51
This tastes like livejournal.  Or a C+ creative writing project.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: ForteBass on 26 May 2008, 18:01
I thought this shit tasted familiar...
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: öde on 26 May 2008, 18:44
Divorce.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: redglasscurls on 26 May 2008, 18:48
He cheated and wants to be told it's ok, she was probably actually his soul mate.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Aminal on 26 May 2008, 19:13
There is no way you can sample everyone in the world, and there are loads of people that can outdo your other in any category.

Yeah, but the person you're with now is apparently able to tolerate your milquetoast, wishy-washy-Romeo ambivalence.  You should tell s/him that there's someone better out there for s/him.

SACK UP, HO'.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: StMonkey on 26 May 2008, 19:40
Honestly though, so what if you find "the one" after you get married. If you're getting married, you obviously get along really well with this person, and he/she makes you happy, content, and jut makes you feel great in general. If you're getting married to someone who doesn't make you all this then you are merely settling and, really, sealing yourself in. Arranged marraiges aside, no one is forcing marraige upon you, you do it out of your free will because you really really want to. If someone is going to make you feel that good and maybe even give you that unmenionable fuzzy feeling, then whats it to ya if you find that someone who is who you're with now and also likes that little quirck of yours.

tl;dr: Marriage is not a high school relationship to be easly dumped, you've put a lot of time and commitment in. An extra one percent is not gonna blow you outta the water.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Darkbluerabbit on 26 May 2008, 20:08
There is no such thing as "the one."  If you're with someone and have been in a relationship for a long time, and you meet someone else who SEEMS more perfect, it's probably just because you don't know them as well.  I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally, if you're in a good relationship and otherwise happy, and you develop a crush on someone else, it's because they are new and exciting.  If you were to start dating them, eventually you'd get back to that same old point where you're happy, but the sparks are gone. 

There are several High Fidelity quotes that apply perfectly.  Like when Rob says  "Do I just keep jumping from rock to rock every time I get that feeling in my gut?  Because lately I've been thinking that my guts have shit for brains." 

Some people just aren't suited for monogamy, but if you don't like monogamy because you're on some neverending quest for "the one," then you're probably going to wind up disappointed.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: tania on 26 May 2008, 20:10
i find it interesting how ability to commit is so often used as a means of measuring whether someone is a "good" person or not. there is absolutely nothing wrong with backing out or changing your mind if you don't feel comfortable in a given situation. people really value idiotic stubbornness for some reason.

after a series of epiphanies a couple of years ago i now find the concept of marriage absolutely fucking ridiculous and only do open relationships. my relationships have been fucking fantastic since then. best decision i ever made. to me, i've accepted there is no one person and that's just super. there's your answer.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: ViolentDove on 26 May 2008, 20:17
Yeah, but the person you're with now is apparently able to tolerate your milquetoast, wishy-washy-Romeo ambivalence.  You should tell s/him that there's someone better out there for s/him.

SACK UP, HO'.

Milquetoast is my new favourite word. Thanks Aminal!
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Tom on 26 May 2008, 20:23
I'm afraid of it
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 26 May 2008, 20:25
Think about it, it works for Gene Simmons and his girlfriend, and their kids don't seem to be screwed up too badly.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: WriterofAllWrongs on 26 May 2008, 23:07
My take on commitment is thusly: If you like a person enough, why not?  I mean, people tend to get upset when they're not the ONLY one having sex with you.  Some form of a biological defense or junk.  So, if you like them and want to date them, and you know they wouldn't like you dating or having sex with other people, why would you want to do that to them? Commitment seems to be like a combination of discipline and respect concerning your loved one, and just kind of a pact saying "You're so awesome, I wouldn't sex any other person."

However, on the flipside, cheating is less of a big deal to me.  Easily forgivable.  Trust is important, but I understand that people slip up.  I mean circumstances definitely make or break it for me, but generally I'm comfortable with forgiving it just so long as they don't do it again.  It's not that hard.  Just don't do it.  That said, if you did cheat on some person, that's fine.  You fucked up.  Everyone fucks up.  What isn't cool is coming on some internet forum and making some spiel about commitment.  Get a blog, dude.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Cartilage Head on 27 May 2008, 00:14
 Just get a fucking blog. Christ.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: jhocking on 27 May 2008, 01:44
how can you ever possibly know that you are with the best possible person for you?

You can't. Nobody gets to be god, with total universal knowledge, but at some point you just have to make a fucking decision. Welcome to life.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 27 May 2008, 03:13
There is no such thing as "the one" as has been mentioned before. There are how many billion people on this planet? Roughly six the last time somebody quoted statistics at me. Assuming that that is true then you have a very very small chance of ever meeting the one person who is right for you. There are probably a great many people who are 1) "right" for you and 2) willing to spend their days with you. Thinking there is only one person out there is ridiculous because there is almost no way you would ever find them.

I'm all for commitment. I don't care about marriage because it is really only a piece of paper that says you love someone (fuck you I'm saying it). Commitment is only important because it makes people more likely to look after your offspring than someone elses which is what it's all about really. If you don't care about commitment that is cool too but I probably wouldn't want to be going out with someone who would prefer an open relationship because, even though I don't want kids, I would prefer a monogamous relationship. I don't think changing your mind or backing out of something is wrong, in fact it is totally the right thing to do if you don't feel that situation x is the one you want to be in.

You want to know if you're with the best possible person for you? Tough, you can't possibly know that because you'll never be able to do the appropriate research. If you find someone that you like hanging out with, enjoy having sex with and are prepared to sacrifice your own comfort to ensure theirs then you probably love them. If you think you can continue to do this until one or more of you is dead then great. If not, maybe don't make silly vows that you can't keep.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: David_Dovey on 27 May 2008, 04:10
Quote
There are how many billion people on this planet? Roughly six the last time somebody quoted statistics at me. Assuming that that is true then you have a very very small chance of ever meeting the one person who is right for you.

Man, and that's if "The One" has the good fortune of being born around the same period of history as you.

I've felt that incredibly intense, overwhelming romantic love that people tend to talk about in hushed and reverent tones. It was the first time I was in love. That kind of feeling led me to stay in a relationship that was mutually destructive for both parties almost a year longer than I should've.

I never felt that feeling again. I haven't had that with the person I'm with currently at all. I don't care. Because I've also never felt genuinely afraid for my life with her either. Fuck the choirs of angels and undying infatuation. I'll "settle" for simple shared interests, mutual physical attraction and intellectual engagement cheers.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: pi on 27 May 2008, 06:31

Yeah, but the person you're with now is apparently able to tolerate your milquetoast, wishy-washy-Romeo ambivalence.  You should tell s/him that there's someone better out there for s/him.

SACK UP, HO'.

I guess I should have made this more clear, but this was a hypothetical question. I was merely wondering if people had any insight on the topic of commitment/marriage, or, preferably, personal attacks. I am actually single. Har, Har, I wonder why.

Quote
the one

again, to make clear, I don't really believe in the idea of soul mates, but am rather agnostic about the matter. I was saying that its hypothetically possible, however improbable, to find your perfect mate; I am not looking for him/her. I would consider it probable to find a person marginally better than the one you're with, given that you will continue to meet new people. It would also appear more than just possible to find a person who is much better than the one you're with, making you wish you were with that person.

Given that you really would be much happier with that new person (which is possible), and the fact that you've already considered the possibility of this happening, promising to be with a person forever seems difficult.

Quote
get a blog

Since this is not autobiographical, but rather I wanted others' input to a query, a forum seems more appropriate.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: öde on 27 May 2008, 06:39
Quote
it's just a guy asking a "hypothetical question" so he can state his opinion without really listening to what anyone else says, even if they agree with him
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Inlander on 27 May 2008, 07:01
You see, this is why we can't have nice things. Sure, it's all very well and good everyone going "Don't do list threads, don't do list threads" all the time, but then the minute somebody starts a thread that actually requires some thoughtful discussion, half the replies are people mocking the O.P., or insulting the O.P., or just generally behaving obnoxiously in an effort to sabotage the thread without adding anything whatsoever to the discussion. Other than a slightly verbose opening post, I can't see anything that pi has done to warrant such unpleasant behaviour. So, guys, the decision is yours, here and now: do you want an interesting, thoughtful, friendly forum where people can feel free to invite others to discuss things that interest them, or do you want a forum that comprises an endless stream of "look at this funny video" threads? Well?

In summary: don't be arseholes.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Lunchbox on 27 May 2008, 07:16
I'm sorry Harry.

I can take the water-skiing squirrel down if you like.

(I did it because talking about things such as have been discussed in these couple of threads make me slightly uncomfortable. I cover up my uneasiness with a veneer of cheap novelty acts and throwaway sentences! Everyone wins!)
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: a pack of wolves on 27 May 2008, 07:28
again, to make clear, I don't really believe in the idea of soul mates, but am rather agnostic about the matter. I was saying that its hypothetically possible, however improbable, to find your perfect mate; I am not looking for him/her. I would consider it probable to find a person marginally better than the one you're with, given that you will continue to meet new people. It would also appear more than just possible to find a person who is much better than the one you're with, making you wish you were with that person.

To me this equates people with quite simple things and that's not right. Like a computer for example. I can get a laptop with a faster processor, bigger screen etc and that will be definitely better than the one I have right now. People are a lot more complex than that. If you're with someone you don't love or who drives you absolutely crazy then being with someone you do love or who isn't going to drive you into therapy is probably an improvement. Maybe. But being with one person you love and then changing for someone else you love, all you can say for sure about that is it'll be different. Better or worse isn't a way I'd look at any relationship where I've felt I was in love.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: tania on 27 May 2008, 07:48
talking about relationships with people often feels a bit like talking about religion to people in that even though i'm pretty happy with my stances on both, i have pretty controversial views and i sort of feel when i bring the topics up like i'm making other people uncomfortable and making them question things they had a lot of faith in. i don't want to seem like i'm accusing nearly everyone on this forum of being idiots in silly relationships, these are really just my views but man monogamy and commitment are very weird to me. i don't like marriage not because i can't commit but because i don't like the idea of two people having to sign a contract stating that they now can't back out no matter what. to me it seems as though it sort of transforms the relationship from a mutual loving agreement into a weird test of how long you can stay together. like, instead of being together because you want to be, you HAVE to stay together because you're MARRIED and DAMNIT, you made a COMMITMENT. i just don't think not being able to commit makes you a bad person. it basically says we value people who are stubborn. personally, i'd rather be happy. not to say two people can't make each other happy obviously, but if i'm in a relationship that doesn't make me happy i'm not going to stay in it simply for the sake of being a good person who knows how to commit. that's pretty silly if you think about it.

the fact that there are billions of people on earth and that any one of them could be really compatible with you just makes a lot of sense to me as to why i prefer open relationships. i'm probably not polyamorous by definition because i don't think i'd be able to sustain more than one meaningful relationship at the same time but i really don't see the big deal with dating and/or sleeping with multiple people.  personally when i sleep with someone else while in a relationship i'm not looking to replace them, i'm still just as attracted to them as i ever was. i just have the ability to be attracted to more than one person simultaneously. almost everyone thinks about it and statistics show that most couples cheat, so why not just eliminate the part where cheating is supposed to be this really horrible thing and accept the fact that it happens? monogamy makes me think we just constantly hold ourselves to standards we can't even meet because we love being disappointed and cynical about relationships. people are only human.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: pi on 27 May 2008, 08:03
To me this equates people with quite simple things and that's not right. Like a computer for example. I can get a laptop with a faster processor, bigger screen etc and that will be definitely better than the one I have right now. People are a lot more complex than that. If you're with someone you don't love or who drives you absolutely crazy then being with someone you do love or who isn't going to drive you into therapy is probably an improvement. Maybe. But being with one person you love and then changing for someone else you love, all you can say for sure about that is it'll be different. Better or worse isn't a way I'd look at any relationship where I've felt I was in love.

See, I was trying to avoid the concept of love because it seems to be an irrational emotion, or one that people have trouble defining. There was a thread on love a few years back, and I thought Tommy held his own. And, using irrational concepts in a rational discussion makes it difficult to understand or counter as you don't completely understand it.

I get that you're saying that relationships are complex, but my point was that it is possible that, in any  relationship, there is room for improvement, and it might be found in another person, whom you may meet and discover this.

Are you disagreeing with the existence of such a possibility?
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: jhocking on 27 May 2008, 08:12
Sure it's possible, but you'll never know right off the bat from meeting them. Whether or not a given person is right for you in the long haul is something you can really only find out by being in a committed relationship with them (learning by doing, if you will.) There's the thing, a relationship commitment is not so much a statement that you are absolutely sure as it is a statement that you're fairly sure and want to be with this person long enough to find out.

You are hitting the perfectionist's roadblock, that until you are absolutely 100% sure of the decision you should make you are unable to make any decision. The obvious problem there is that you will never be absolutely 100% certain, so you will never make a decision. Of course, this is only a problem if you actually wish to make a decision.


For what it's worth, consider my specific situation. I am currently engaged to a woman I deeply love and very much want to be married to. However, I'm finding I'm having trouble actually discussing our wedding and setting a date because I find the whole idea of a wedding to be a big hassle. It's like, I wish we were already married, if that makes any sense. I want to be married, but I don't want to deal with getting married.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Lines on 27 May 2008, 08:16
I guess that was the reason behind marriage in the first place: creating a stable and positive environment for kids to grow up in

Man, it's obvious you have commitment issues, but that statement really bothers me. I wouldn't have been bothered if you said family alliance or money, the former which includes having kids, but that alone just bothers me.

I don't believe that there is just one person for anyone. When you're married, your husband/wife should be your one person. It's not just a piece of paper, it's a commitment to one another to be there for each other. That's why they say until death do you part, because that's what it should be. Yes, I believe divorce is right for some situations, but giving up just because you meet someone new who might be better is crap. Sorry. Especially if you really do love the person you are already with. If you don't want or can't handle the commitment (which I know happens, considering one of my uncles is on his 4th wife for this reason), don't get married.

Maybe I'm romanticizing it a bit, but that's what I really believe. Really, I honestly only want to be married once.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: pi on 27 May 2008, 08:54
You are hitting the perfectionist's roadblock, that until you are absolutely 100% sure of the decision you should make you are unable to make any decision. The obvious problem there is that you will never be absolutely 100% certain, so you will never make a decision. Of course, this is only a problem if you actually wish to make a decision.

But are you not, in essence, saying that you are 100% certain that you will stay with your partner until death, when you take your vows?

I guess that was the reason behind marriage in the first place: creating a stable and positive environment for kids to grow up in

Man, it's obvious you have commitment issues, but that statement really bothers me. I wouldn't have been bothered if you said family alliance or money, the former which includes having kids, but that alone just bothers me.

You think marrying for money or because your parents told you to is morally superior than doing so for the wellbeing of your children?
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: jhocking on 27 May 2008, 09:06
But are you not, in essence, saying that you are 100% certain that you will stay with your partner until death, when you take your vows?

Not really. I mean, I suppose technically you are saying that if you get really pedantic about parsing the rhetoric, but as with many things in life people state things in absolute terms in order to convey the depth of their emotion. Given that you sound like you are attempting to understand this scientifically, let me compare it to an example a scientist might understand: how sure are you about evolution? Absolutely 100% certain or just so sure that you really can't imagine it not being so? If you aren't 100% sure, are you still certain enough to take a great risk (eg. basing a career around evolution being true) for it?

Of course, when taking vows you are clearly saying that you are very certain, and I pointed out that you should be very certain, not marrying on a whim.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: supersheep on 27 May 2008, 09:21
See, I was trying to avoid the concept of love because it seems to be an irrational emotion, or one that people have trouble defining. There was a thread on love a few years back, and I thought Tommy held his own. And, using irrational concepts in a rational discussion makes it difficult to understand or counter as you don't completely understand it.
There is a problem with this, though, in that relationships and all human interaction in general is not exactly rational. You don't make a rational choice to be attracted to someone or friends with them, it just sort of happens. Of course, you can make rational choices as to how you behave based on this, but nonetheless it's still based on non-rational behaviour (not necessarily irrational.)
I think Joe said it pretty well - it takes a long-term relationship to let you know if the person you're with is right for you. If, somehow, you do find someone who is so immediately and obviously better for you than the person you are with now, this is probably a sign that you should not be with them any more, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: pwhodges on 27 May 2008, 09:30
If, somehow, you do find someone who is so immediately and obviously better for you than the person you are with now, this is probably a sign that you should not be with them any more, in my opinion.

Take it from me, you can be wrong.

Paul
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 27 May 2008, 09:36
So what do you do if you're in a committed relationship and along comes someone better? Well, you break it off then court the other person, only to later realize you wanted what you had and you should go back. Obviously. Try not to be the 'someone better' in this situation.


My housemate would argue that people desiring others while being exclusive with someone is just a perfect example of why monogamy is a bad idea. I personally stand by monogamy being just as valid a choice as polyamory for dealing with relationships, each having it's merits and appeals for certain people. I think the big thing is, just like your sexuality, not to fall into one mold by convention or default; think about your options and come to the right one for you.


I think people have a natural tendency to get bored with things. This prevents stagnation and is useful for us on many levels. The problem is, after a while, you can easily get bored with anyone, if you're not putting more into it. Also, to bring up high fidelity again, fantasies don't have the old lady underwear and have cute issues, while the person you're with you've seen when they haven't shaved their legs and  have a history of arguments with. This makes a great argument for polyamory, or at the very least, taking breaks from time to time. Seriously, if you're studying, working, or doing most anything for too long, you become less and less productive over time, unless you take breaks. Why would anyone ever think that's any different for relationships?
Not to say that that's for everyone, but I think a successful monogamous relationship requires both parties to lead healthy individual lives so that they've got something without the other person that keeps them going.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Dissy on 27 May 2008, 10:42
I just pray to god that when I finally get married, I don't have Peter Cook saying the mass/marrige thingy.

"Mawage, Mawage is wot bwings us togda today.  Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...
And wuv, tru wuv, will fowow you foweva...
So tweasure your wuv.
Have you the wing?
 ...and do you,Pwincess Buwwercwuup...
Man an' wife."

yes, I have that movie memorized.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: jimbunny on 27 May 2008, 10:55
tl;dr
THE ONE:
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk208/still_life_moves/jet_li.jpg)

...

OK, no one's saying that marriage as society knows it today is perfect. I'm pretty sure that Brittany Spears is the example that always seems to come up under this heading. But that might just be because we're stupid about it. Maybe we always have been. But "the one" is, has to be (in my opinion) a cultural myth, arising in response to an oppressive system that reduced individuals to material quantities (wealth, physicality, age, etc.) which, while perhaps was pragmatic for certain people in certain social positions, on the whole was never necessary for survival after a very early stage as a species. This system is not monogamy per se, but stupidity. I think the reason we don't match ourselves to others well, or that we cannot sustain relationships to people who are good for us, boils down to sheer stupidity. Inversely, the idea that there is one person, among the billions of people on the planet, for whom we are most suited, is also a little daft. The answer isn't, I believe, polyamory; for me, that just seems like so much unnecessary stress. Because "getting bored," as it were, doesn't ever really happen uniformly to both parties in a relationship, at least not very often. I would think it less work, then, to try and work through the boring phases in a relationship than to induce the trauma (to yourself or to the other party) of partial or complete separation.

Basically, I think that making smart choices and working hard at a committed relationship, accepting the sacrifices that go along with it (including letting go of the possibility of something better), is more rewarding than conditional, uncertain relationships. That said, the world is a very large place and people vary enormously; I can't conscientiously say that some things won't work out for some people. But, I think for most people, still, marriage can be a very good thing.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: sean on 27 May 2008, 11:07
Dissy you are my new favorite person ever.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Lines on 27 May 2008, 13:08
I guess that was the reason behind marriage in the first place: creating a stable and positive environment for kids to grow up in

Man, it's obvious you have commitment issues, but that statement really bothers me. I wouldn't have been bothered if you said family alliance or money, the former which includes having kids, but that alone just bothers me.

You think marrying for money or because your parents told you to is morally superior than doing so for the wellbeing of your children?

None of those make me feel morally superior. This is a historical perspective, not what I think is going on now. So considering that you said "reason behind marriage in the first place," which historically is inaccurate, I know that the reasons I gave are true. People in the past cared more about marrying off their kids for an alliance and/or because the other family was rich. Kids were secondary (not to sound harsh) to both of those. This is a historical perspective, not what I think is going on now. (And we're not even getting into religious reasons, which has even more reasons, depending on the religion.)

Now, if you meant you are talking about marriage now, I still have a problem with that statement. I grew up perfectly fine with only one parent and I've always disagreed with "staying together for the kids" if the home environment was suffering because of it. Also, not everyone who gets married wants to/can have children and not everyone who wants children gets married. There are plenty of reasons for getting married, but I don't that anyone can just have one single reason to get married, be it the right or wrong ones.

Besides, say you did get married to someone you loved and then found someone else that you thought would be a better match? Would you cheat? Get a divorce? Stay with your spouse and forget the new person?
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Scrambled Egg Machine on 27 May 2008, 13:26
On the subject of divorce, I can tell you having divorced parents sucks.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: RedLion on 27 May 2008, 14:43
I've never been a big fan of the concept of marriage anyway. The idea of it is romantic and all, but in practical purposes, 9/10 times, it takes out the true romance and spontaneity of the relationship, largely because you're no longer lovers, or even just partners--they're a member of your family, and again, while that may be a happy thought, it also brings into your relationship all the pitfalls that are present in a family. In my view, marriage is a piece of legal paper and a pointless ceremony to declare to people what they already know: that you're in love.

I want to spend my life with someone, to live with someone, but I don't think I need to be married to do that.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: tommydski on 27 May 2008, 14:57
See, I was trying to avoid the concept of love because it seems to be an irrational emotion, or one that people have trouble defining. There was a thread on love a few years back, and I thought Tommy held his own.

I remember this thread! I appreciate this thread and the discussion you have fostered here.

Still, I was a massive dick in that thread and with hindsight, I regret my posts. Years later I actually apologised to one of the participants. I still agree with the general stance I was defending (as I have said at length on these forums over the years, I consider 'Love' to be a mythical construct similar to 'God' or 'Luck') but at the time my choice of words and general conduct was lame.

I will seriously contribute at length when I get the chance but my life has just been plunged into ridiculousness and I don't got the time. To be continued!
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: jhocking on 27 May 2008, 15:01
(http://www.heroestelevision.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/to-be-continued.JPG)

needed more pizazz
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: pwhodges on 27 May 2008, 15:12
I consider 'Love' to be a mythical construct similar to 'God' or 'Luck'

I've never seen it expressed this way before, but I have a lot of sympathy for this view.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: pi on 27 May 2008, 15:13

None of those make me feel morally superior. This is a historical perspective, not what I think is going on now. So considering that you said "reason behind marriage in the first place," which historically is inaccurate, I know that the reasons I gave are true. People in the past cared more about marrying off their kids for an alliance and/or because the other family was rich. Kids were secondary (not to sound harsh) to both of those. This is a historical perspective, not what I think is going on now. (And we're not even getting into religious reasons, which has even more reasons, depending on the religion.)

Now, if you meant you are talking about marriage now, I still have a problem with that statement. I grew up perfectly fine with only one parent and I've always disagreed with "staying together for the kids" if the home environment was suffering because of it. Also, not everyone who gets married wants to/can have children and not everyone who wants children gets married. There are plenty of reasons for getting married, but I don't that anyone can just have one single reason to get married, be it the right or wrong ones.
 
Besides, say you did get married to someone you loved and then found someone else that you thought would be a better match? Would you cheat? Get a divorce? Stay with your spouse and forget the new person?

First off, I didn't say that you thought you were morally superior, merely that the concept of marriage for certain purposes is better, in a moral sense, than for other reasons. I'm not sure if you got the wrong idea, but I wasn't attacking you personally.

If we're talking about marriage in the first place, I might argue that my initial statement was correct, that it was done for the preservation of the offspring, as a female would generally do better if she had a partner to help with the gathering of food or active confrontation, if only for the 'strength in numbers' reason.  Though this wasn't really my main point.
Quote
Now, if you meant you are talking about marriage now
I think I was always talking about marriage. All of the statements you quoted have the word marriage in them. I was particularly interested in the vows that are exchanged during said wedding.
Quote
Besides, say you did get married to someone you loved and then found someone else that you thought would be a better match? Would you cheat? Get a divorce? Stay with your spouse and forget the new person?
I don't know what I would do personally, but the point I was making was that in such a situation, you're either miserable yourself, and thereby might make your partner miserable (not to mention the issue of "settling" for someone), or you hurt your partner, and break your vows, which are supposed to mean something, I think. Hopefully, as I am not in this situation now, I might avoid it by thinking about these things in advance.

But are you not, in essence, saying that you are 100% certain that you will stay with your partner until death, when you take your vows?

Not really. I mean, I suppose technically you are saying that if you get really pedantic about parsing the rhetoric, but as with many things in life people state things in absolute terms in order to convey the depth of their emotion. Given that you sound like you are attempting to understand this scientifically, let me compare it to an example a scientist might understand: how sure are you about evolution? Absolutely 100% certain or just so sure that you really can't imagine it not being so? If you aren't 100% sure, are you still certain enough to take a great risk (eg. basing a career around evolution being true) for it?

Of course, when taking vows you are clearly saying that you are very certain, and I pointed out that you should be very certain, not marrying on a whim.

I think before your edit you said that the vows are more symbolic of your emotional attachment to the person, and should not be interpreted literally. I thought that was a pretty good rebuttal.

Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: jhocking on 27 May 2008, 15:25
I think before your edit you said that the vows are more symbolic of your emotional attachment to the person, and should not be interpreted literally. I thought that was a pretty good rebuttal.

So in my attempt to make my wording more thorough, I made my post worse. I really am an academic!
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: schimmy on 27 May 2008, 15:26
On the subject of divorce, I can tell you having divorced parents sucks.

I can tell you that it's great.
Maybe different people can have different experiences, or something?

Too summarise what my mum has told me several times about marriage: A lifetime is a fucking long time to stick with someone. Why do it if you don't want to?
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Lines on 27 May 2008, 15:39
First off, I didn't say that you thought you were morally superior, merely that the concept of marriage for certain purposes is better, in a moral sense, than for other reasons. I'm not sure if you got the wrong idea, but I wasn't attacking you personally.

If we're talking about marriage in the first place, I might argue that my initial statement was correct, that it was done for the preservation of the offspring, as a female would generally do better if she had a partner to help with the gathering of food or active confrontation, if only for the 'strength in numbers' reason.  Though this wasn't really my main point.

I didn't think you were attacking me. Sorry if I worded it wrongly, but I was simply answering your question on how they feel morally. I think basically we're getting our ideas of marriage mixed up, so lets just leave that.

Quote
Quote
Now, if you meant you are talking about marriage now
I think I was always talking about marriage. All of the statements you quoted have the word marriage in them. I was particularly interested in the vows that are exchanged during said wedding.

I meant now as in contemporary. Just to clarify.

Quote
I don't know what I would do personally, but the point I was making was that in such a situation, you're either miserable yourself, and thereby might make your partner miserable (not to mention the issue of "settling" for someone), or you hurt your partner, and break your vows, which are supposed to mean something, I think. Hopefully, as I am not in this situation now, I might avoid it by thinking about these things in advance.

Depends on the situation, really, and who's in it.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: onewheelwizzard on 27 May 2008, 16:26
I'm pretty sure that Tania is the person I'm most inclined to agree with on this topic.

Here's my take: if I love someone enough to marry them, if my life is made SO GOOD by the presence of another human being that I am driven to write up an official government document saying that the two of us are to be considered a single family unit, I'm pretty sure I can trust myself to love that person no matter who I have sex with, and to be honest I'd probably only feel comfortable marrying someone if I knew that they understood the distinction that exists in my mind between love and sex and were OK with it.

On the other hand, nowadays I really only want to have sex with people that I have meaningful relationships of some nature with.  At the moment that's exactly one person, and while I'm pretty sure she appreciates the way I feel about love and sex (specifically, that loving one person is perfectly possible despite having sex with another), I don't have nearly enough of a desire to have sex with people who are not her to actually go through the process of doing so.

I don't expect this state to last.  I rather expect that there will be other people in my life, in the foreseeable future, who I will feel love towards to the extent that I will want to have sex with them very much.  I do believe, in an abstract way, that it is possible to fully love two people simultaneously and have two concurrent relationships that both have a great deal of emotional weight.  If I did in fact run into someone who is such an outstanding person that I once again am prompted to improve my ability to love sincerely, just for the sake of appreciating them (my current girlfriend is one of these people), I suspect that I'd probably try to do this, and I'm pretty sure that it would not go in any way I could expect.  I might succeed, and that would be quite a step for me ... I firmly believe that having the level of emotional openness necessary for successfully living in love with more than one person at the same time is a strictly good thing to have, even if it doesn't actually translate to polyamory (it would certainly make monogamous relationships better too).
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: a pack of wolves on 27 May 2008, 16:57
See, I was trying to avoid the concept of love because it seems to be an irrational emotion, or one that people have trouble defining. There was a thread on love a few years back, and I thought Tommy held his own. And, using irrational concepts in a rational discussion makes it difficult to understand or counter as you don't completely understand it.

I get that you're saying that relationships are complex, but my point was that it is possible that, in any  relationship, there is room for improvement, and it might be found in another person, whom you may meet and discover this.

Are you disagreeing with the existence of such a possibility?

I can see why you didn't want to bring the concept of love into it but it's unavoidable. You can't discuss the idea of committed relationships without bringing in the reason people are so keen on them. It's difficult and complex and has an incredible number of interpretations, but that's human relationships. They aren't standardised and any reductionist approach to them will only lead to meaningless conclusions.

What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that better and worse can be quantified by any set of criteria. Is a happier relationship better? Not necessarily, you might learn more or gain more powerful experiences from a more difficult relationship. There's no specific way of working this out, and even if there is it would only be one that was applicable when looking back on a relationship not while considering a change. What I'm arguing is that you reach a certain level of happiness in some form with a relationship that I think of as love where you can no longer think in terms of better or worse. Once things reach a certain level there can only be difference. As a comparison, there are the different feelings of pleasure I get from completing a piece of writing and playing a gig. Neither is better, they're different experiences despite both being pleasure arising from artistic creation. Better and worse are no longer really meaningful terms in that context.

Quote from: Slick
My housemate would argue that people desiring others while being exclusive with someone is just a perfect example of why monogamy is a bad idea. I personally stand by monogamy being just as valid a choice as polyamory for dealing with relationships, each having it's merits and appeals for certain people. I think the big thing is, just like your sexuality, not to fall into one mold by convention or default; think about your options and come to the right one for you.

This is the best thing said in this thread. The problem is the idea that there is any kind of set model applicable to everybody. My romantic relationships, my friendships, my family relationships will be different to others because they involve different people. Concepts like monogamy and polyamory should ideally be guidelines for helping people in forming the individual forms their relationships take, but instead they become idealised and immutable. People talk about monogamy as if it's the only option for anyone and vice versa for open relationships. Both seem ridiculous to me as a strict set of rules everyone should live by.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Trollstormur on 27 May 2008, 17:04
love is like, a made up emotion man, it's like a fucking marketing tactic thoughtup by the greeting card companies and jewelers to sell rings and cards and shit man it's like how they control men they made women want to get you locked down with babies and fucking car insurance and goddamn pre-preschool free your fucking mind and throw off these manmade chains that the man made, man it's like a fuckin prison that you have to ask to be let into then you gotta pay for that shit and give yourself a fuckin party to go off to fuckin sing-sing and give each other shackles to wear and share the cell and your kids are your fuckin jailers man so you gotta work at a job to get money to pay for their schooling so they can go to jail just like you

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v12/sademie/Charles_Manson_expressions.gif)
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 27 May 2008, 18:22
I think it's a little silly to flat out deny the existence of love (note that there is a distinction between "love" and "Love"). I think this mainly because I can safely say that I love, well not a great deal of people, but I certainly love my brother, I love my girlfriend and I suppose I love my dad and my stepmum and I guess my grandma.

In regards to my girlfriend, which I suppose is the kind of love (romantic love) that we are discussing here I kind of lean towards Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love (if anyone wants to read the article pm me and I'll email it to you) which basically states that the emotion of love is made up of intimacy (defined herre as emotional closeness or just generally wanting to hang out and spend time with someone), passion (sexual desire, wanting to have sex with, enjoy having sex with) and commitment (here defined as making a decision to stay with the relationship and make reasonable attempts to preserve it; meaning that were the two parties to hit a rough patch they should both at least attempt to improve things before throwing in the towel). The idea is that romantic love exists when all three of those factors are present. If it's only intimacy and commitment then you probably have a good friendship or an ok familial relationship, passion and intimacy are fun too but not anything long term (i think most relationshisp would start out as this, it is not assumed that commitment is there from the beginning. Also this does not preclude open relationships) and passion and commitment, well I can't imagine that to be all that rewarding but it might work for some people.

I think I can safely say I love my girlfriend. And yes, while I do find other girls attractive and judging from their personalities we might get on great, maybe even better than my girlfriend and I, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ditch my girlfriend with whom I have a really good thing going on for someone with whom I might have a good thing. I guess it comes down to what you are risking because, at least in my case, were I to ditch my girlfriend for another person and it doesn't work out I'd be pretty surprised if the woman I had earlier scorned would welcome me back with open arms.

Love is difficult because it incorporates too many things (notice how I started off talking about it and then I got distracted?) and is highly context specific. For instance I loved my girlfriend in highschool despite the fact that she was and possibly still is, a horrible and terrible person for me to be with. The gift of hindsight allows me to say I love my current girlfriend much more than I did someone who was patently awful to me but I honestly can't say the emotion I felt was any different, however I am happier now then I was then which changes the whole thing. I'm happier now and so the love I feel is more worthy than the love I felt when I was miserable.

I can no longer remember what my original point was, I'm sick as a very ill dog and not focusing very well but I'm not going to waste the time I spent on this post by not posting it. Essentially what you should take from this post is that I believe in a thing called love. Just listen to the rhythm of my heart. There's a chance we could make it now, we'll be rockin' til the sun goes down. I believe in a thing called love. Ooooooh.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: onewheelwizzard on 27 May 2008, 18:48
Love is difficult because it incorporates too many things (notice how I started off talking about it and then I got distracted?) and is highly context specific. For instance I loved my girlfriend in highschool despite the fact that she was and possibly still is, a horrible and terrible person for me to be with. The gift of hindsight allows me to say I love my current girlfriend much more than I did someone who was patently awful to me but I honestly can't say the emotion I felt was any different, however I am happier now then I was then which changes the whole thing. I'm happier now and so the love I feel is more worthy than the love I felt when I was miserable.

I don't know, I tend to feel as if happiness is a prerequisite for what I call "love" when i feel it.  If I'm not happy I don't tend to love very well, or rather, when i am happy it allows me to feel the only kind of love I'd use the word for.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 27 May 2008, 18:52
It is just possible that the self destructive relationships of a teenager with depression are not the best things to base definitions of love on.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: ampersandwitch on 27 May 2008, 18:55
Love is dumb, everyone.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: RedLion on 27 May 2008, 19:27
Quote from: Everyone
CYNICISM!!!!!!
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: KickThatBathProf on 27 May 2008, 19:29
Man, how 'bout that whole life thing

Doesn't it just suck balls?
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: onewheelwizzard on 27 May 2008, 20:20
Are you guys kidding?  Life is amazing, love is real, and there's no fitting way to approach the situation except celebration!
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: ampersandwitch on 27 May 2008, 20:29
Real, just dumb as a board and blind to boot.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Elizzybeth on 27 May 2008, 21:06
I don't know what I would do personally, but the point I was making was that in such a situation, you're either miserable yourself, and thereby might make your partner miserable (not to mention the issue of "settling" for someone), or you hurt your partner, and break your vows, which are supposed to mean something, I think.

I think the key to the success of any relationship is clear, open, candid communication, particularly about emotional needs.  My mother, for example, has recently confided to me that, about ten years ago, my father met another woman to whom he was very drawn.  Upon realizing there was a mutual attraction, he came home to my mom and explained.  It was not a sign that he loved her less or that he wanted a divorce or anything of the sort, and through their discussion, she ultimately agreed to bringing this second lady into their lives and bedroom.  For whatever reason, it didn't evidently end up working out, but a decade later my parents are still together and, my mom has said, more secure in their relationship as a result of this incident.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: pi on 28 May 2008, 12:44
Are you guys kidding?  Life is amazing, love is real, and there's no fitting way to approach the situation except celebration!

You're pretty awesome.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Scrambled Egg Machine on 28 May 2008, 13:35
Love is no less real for being seen as fake, if you feel love according to you, then that's what it is.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: pig nash on 28 May 2008, 16:37
When it comes to commitment, I've never had a problem with it.  I like someone and then I only want to be with that someone until the break up comes.  However, in the current relationship I am in, I feel that marriage is something I want.  I don't think I could have kids outside of marriage, and I want kids, and I want those kids to grow up in the same home as both parents.  I don't think that's possible without some sort of agreement between both parties before having a kid.

I agree that communication is the big issue here, and I know that Andrea feels the same way as I do on this subject, so that is part of the reason it's easy for us to commit to one another.  If I do meet someone that is better than Andrea (which is possible) I doubt that I'd go through with anything.  It would probably be a novelty thing, and while novelty is awesome, it wears off quickly.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: jeph on 28 May 2008, 16:46
This thread gets an F.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Dissy on 28 May 2008, 16:49
Not even my Peter Cook quotes could save it!
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: pig nash on 28 May 2008, 16:51
They were a good try though, Dissy.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Liz on 28 May 2008, 16:51
Are you guys kidding?  Life is amazing, love is real, and there's no fitting way to approach the situation except celebration!

I read this as ending with "except cable television" which made me sad because that seems to be the way we're going nowadays.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 17:14
Liz. I can't commit.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 17:37
(I wanted the thread to be locked after I said that. Damnit can't I be a mod?)
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Liz on 28 May 2008, 17:44
Jens, please come to Tronno. You and James can duke it out and I will be entertained.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 18:11
I have never been involved in 'fisticuffs' ever.

Liz is not a guitar. She is a sweet, graceful violin, and I'd say something about playing her but I think that'd make people uncomfortable?
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Liz on 28 May 2008, 18:12
Nah, Ozy would just freak out and tell us to bone again.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 18:14
I think we should surprise double-team ozy.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 18:14
Oh, hey, you have more posts than me!
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 18:16
I think Any and Ozy should bone.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 18:17
Fuck, you also have more posts than me. What's a guy gotta do to get some status around here?
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Lines on 28 May 2008, 18:17
Oh dear god. The three of you go bone already.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Liz on 28 May 2008, 18:20
I think we should surprise double-team ozy.

Oh god that would be hilarious. Show up on his doorstep lookin' all sexy. Be all "Hey baby, how's it going?"
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Lines on 28 May 2008, 18:24
(http://www.outsideprague.com/kutna_hora/KHimages/bone2.JPG)

(http://www.steve-hamaker.com/images/bone3.jpg)

(http://www.chocosho.com/admin/images/380x285/80124_1_bone_stacking_game_b.jpg)

(http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/L959968.jpg)
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Liz on 28 May 2008, 18:25
It's so fun to do this to you guys. You can only imagine.

Also, well played Linds. Well played.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 18:27
I give that an B+. I mean, there are some good images in there, but the Bone one would have been much better if it didn't say 'Bone' on it.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Lines on 28 May 2008, 18:29
(http://www.boneville.com/wp-content/uploads/stuffedBone2.jpg)

?

(I didn't think people would know who Bone is.)
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Lines on 28 May 2008, 18:33
Good point. Bone is pretty awesome.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Inlander on 28 May 2008, 19:24
Who's Bone?
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 19:31
Man Harry I am so glad I have got Liz now, because, frankly, you're just not up to snuff anymore.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: jhocking on 28 May 2008, 19:38
Who's Bone?

(http://800lbgorilla.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/shark-attack1.jpg)
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Slick on 28 May 2008, 19:42
With ozy we could do a love rectangle.

I'll be your pi by two, baby.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Lines on 28 May 2008, 20:52
Who's Bone?

:(

(Comic book/comic book character that I read/liked when I was younger. Look above at the little white plush.)
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Liz on 28 May 2008, 22:11
Man Harry I am so glad I have got Liz now, because, frankly, you're just not up to snuff anymore.

Aww yeah. That is what I like to hear.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Storm Rider on 29 May 2008, 00:21
Man, Liz is seriously loving all this attention.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 29 May 2008, 11:14
Think about, it's like one minute of discomfort for a lifetime of burning when you pee.

Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: Ozymandias on 29 May 2008, 14:49
Guys, there was a lot of talk about boning me here and, yet, here I am not being boned.

Right now, anyway, because I'm at work.
Title: Re: Commitment
Post by: ampersandwitch on 29 May 2008, 15:16
Thought you said librarians were kinky.