The Desire Dynamic

[forward]

This is a subject that has plagued my mind quite a bit. Especially recently:

I've been spinning plates for a few months (first time not taking the "shotgun" approach to dating -- it's been amazing) and have seen no reason to stop the plates and focus on one, until just recently. This one girl has now clearly become my "favorite" plate. Awesome sex, and awesome personality! 100% pleasant, with no b*tchyness detected yet (though I won't let my guard down and stop watching for it). She conveys a deeper respect and appreciation for me than any girl I've encountered. She has her own life and interests, and consequently is an interesting person.

So naturally the thought of a possible LTR has crossed my mind (though I would still wait quite a while before entering one). If I did end up entering one, I at least know it would be the most educated decision I've ever made in entering a LTR (having finally chosen from a pile of plates, rather than the first one I encountered).

But the topic of this thread is what makes me uncomfortable with the idea of a LTR... (and certainly marriage!) How do I keep things so awesome? Is it possible?

I'm realizing I'd like to have a Real Family someday. But it is essential I create one right. How do you do this? Is awesome, exciting sex that is overflowing with desire something you just have to enjoy earlier on in life, eventually sacrificing it for the "higher goals" of family etc? Or can you maintain both?

Perhaps I should keep spinning plates, avoiding LTRs for the time being and honing my DJ skills, until a DJ is such a part of who I naturally am that an LTR will not diminish this. But another part of my thinks that the DJ needs to experiment with LTRs as well in order to develop that aspect of DJism, as there are differences between LTRs and plate spinning.

Bottom line, I know this awesome girl I'm seeing is replaceable. Not an exact replica of her or anything, but in the sense that: if I can initiate a fantastic relationship with this awesome of a girl, then I can initiate an equally fantastic relationship with an equally awesome girl (hell, probably an even more fantastic relationship with an even more awesome girl, though at the time I have difficulty imagining it).

At the same time, seeing as this is (so far) a fantastic relationship with an awesome girl, I'm tempted to experiment with maintaining it in a LTR. She's not going to wait around forever, as I know she has goals for life as well (family etc). But I'm scared I'm not enough of a DJ yet to handle taking things further, and that a LTR might gradually revert me back to an AFC (like my last "shotgun" LTR).

I've sort of been rambling here, maybe should have started another thread, but this thread just got me thinking. This stuff can be so confusing! All the unknowns...

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

When Lois Lane met Superman he was fighting crime, could bend steel in his bare hands, stop locomotives, leap over tall buildings in a single bound; sh!t, Superman could fly! Then he met Lois and swept her away, rocked her world in the sack and fell in love with her because thats what men do. After a year of this whirwind Lois starts nagging Superman, "Why do you have to always be out there fighting crime, huh? Why do you always have to prove you're so Macho? Does it threaten your Ego? You really need to get in touch with your feminine side. What about MY needs and why can't you get a real job? I'm not getting any younger you know, you've got some responsibilities to live up to. When am I gonna see a ring?"

So eventually this wears down on Superman and he submits to Lois' requests (demands?). After all he 'should' really 'grow up' anyway, right? It's the right thing to do. So Superman changes his name to Clark Kent (Super-'MAN' was so male-self-agrandizing anyway) and lands a job as a reporter at a great metropolitan newspaper. Clark begins wearing glasses - even though he can see X-Rays, and shoot lasers out his eyes, he wears them because Lois says it makes him look Metrosexual and SHE likes them.

Time goes on and Lois and Clark marry. 5 years into the marriage Lois gets bored. Same old, same old. Clark is so mundane and unassuming. She longs for the days he would fly and do that funny steel bending trick he used to do when they were dating. He hasn't done any of that for so long; not because he can't, but because he's afraid she'll get upset with him and not put out that evening if he gets '****y' with her. In fact she's not putting out even half as much as she used to these days. Clark just doesn't arouse her as much as he used to and she just can't seem to put her finger on the reason for it.

Then one day Lois ran into a guy named Bruce Wayne. Bruce was dark, mysterious and in great shape! He couldn't fly, but he made up for that in so many other ways. He fought crime! He wore a mask and spoke in short, purposeful sentences, never mincing words. He didn't wear glasses (that was so retro!) and he came and went at the time of his pleasing, not hers. He was a vigilante, a maverick. He sent shivers down Lois' spine (and other places that hadn't felt shivers in a while) when he began seeing her.

Then one day, after a 60 hour work week at the Daily Planet (swanky apartments don't rent cheap), Clark made his way home on the subway (since flying was out of the question) and picked up a dozen roses to suprise Lois with (she tended to put out when he showed his 'feminine side') when he got back to the apartment. However it was poor Clark who got the surprise upon discovering Bruce Wayne bending Lois over the kitchen table when he opend the door. Bruce promptly towled off while Clark, slack-jawed with horror, watched speechless.

"How could you? After all we've meant to each other!" Clark began to cry as Bruce excused himself from the now estranged couple. Clark was used to crying a lot now to show his sensitivity.

"What could you have possibly seen in a guy like that?!" He shrieked like a school girl.

"Well,.." Lois said indifferently, "Batman is a Superhero."

----

I wrote this back in 2004 and while I still think it's clever and to the point about how women's perception of masculinity changes, the message is particularly important to any guy considering an LTR. I'd argue that the single most important key to maintaining genuine desire in an LTR is retaining your own identity fearlessly in spite of all a woman does to mold you to her idealization of what she thinks your personality should be. The most difficult task in an LTR is maintaining the frame in the face of a woman's need for security.

The constant temptation, the constant sh!t test, will always be one of compromising your identy/personality - the one she originally had the most unquenchable passion and genuine desire for - with placating to her need for prolonged security with the perceived expectation that she will reciprocate with the same desire and sexual response for doing so.

This then is the trap - incrementally surrendering the frame to her while catering your own identity to what SHE progressively think she's entitled to over the course of an LTR in exchange for her (contrived) desire. Far too many men slowly slip into this arrangement in order to "keep the peace", which is really a euphemism for "keep the pussie". Their LTR woman comfortably rations out her sexuality as a reward/reinforcer of desired behavior, but her real passion is elsewhere.

Too many men are trained to believe that holding onto the identities that attracted their LTR is "selfish", "uncompromising" or "juvenile". Rare is the guy that sees past this. It seems counter intuitive not to give in to her for fear of "not getting any" when she's become his only source of sex, but retaining that identity IS what will prompt genuine desire.

 

[jophil28]

And here's the kicker: you can only be happy if you don't live for your own happiness. Because if you live only for yourself, you're fighting a losing battle.
.

Indeed. and this understanding is lost on this board and in particulatrar in this thread.
"Desire" is a necessary ingredient in any successful relationship but to make it the primary driver in an LTR is to pander to "me-ism" above eithical and moral commitment.
I never want another LTR which is continuously fuelled by desire above commitment -sexual or otherwise. I have had two like this and they were too nerve wracking and much too uncomfortable because I needed to endlessly measure HER desire to remain, and my desire to remain with her.

It seems to me that making "desire" the primary glue only applies when a deal is not regarded as a deal to one or both of the parties.

Not my way.

 

[forward]

Very helpful advice Rollo.

Do people find that some women don't allow a man to maintain his identity and consequently the desire in a relationship? It seems some women are so brainwashed by our culture to believe a man who maintains his identity is a jerk/*******.

This is how my last LTR played out. Granted, I shouldn't have been with her anyways... b*tchy, attention-*****, full of baggage, uptight sexually, disrespectful to and unappreciative of me... looking back, wow. Just wow. Thanks shotgun approach! Haha.

In this previous LTR my identity caved in about half way. I lost enough of it to kill the desire, but kept enough so that her and all her friends considered me a total *******. She had many friends in relationships/marriages with total AFCs, and it was always "Why can't you be more like them." Her friends of course couldn't believe she put up with my not (completely) supplicating to her. Yet it's amazing just how much I did supplicate to her, without even realizing it!

I was always reminded of how I was "selfish" and "unwilling to compromise". It was a horrible experience. And in return I got lousy, desireless sex. It really sucks being demonized like that. Especially since I know I'm a good guy, and don't deserve such treatment.

So big question: How do you guys deal with girls comparing you and your relationships to AFCs and their relationships? Or do you just need to find a girl who doesn't consider the AFC relationship "normal" and a strong-identitied man a jerk.

So far the girl I'm particularly interested in doesn't exhibit these beliefs but it's still early... I guess I want to be prepared.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear All,
OK perhaps the only way to achieve happiness is to eliminate desire....But that does take a lot of fun out of life...just watching acquaintances who could be loosely defined as DJ's over a very long time,I would observe that their romances become less and less passionate,their length and the period between them gets shorter and shorter,I think the buzz word for this is Limerance,concentrating more on just those first few euphoric months,weeks...it is the same as every other sense...how soon one palls of gourmet style food on a Cruise,how boring just loafing around at home can become,and yes after a longer time you actually become quite blase about Stoking the same Lady...This is just the most profound of questions isn't it?and there is no magic bullet....not all questions are amenable to answers....

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

If I'm understanding this correct, doesn't this all boils down to self-respect? Superman gave up his identity of being superman, but he disrespected himself by giving up what he hold dear about himself. Destroying the the very qualities that makes him attractive, but also disrespecting himself allowing to give up what was making his life fun.

No doubt self-respect is a key element of retaining your own identity in a relationship, but it's one of these nebulous terms that 'sounds right' and common sensical, but in practice becomes something we don't really recognize or is too easily perverted into a negative like "self-importance" or "self-ceteredness". The idea of a steadfast self-respect is easier conceived than really practiced when you are truly aware (consciously or not) of your own conditions.

The Superman story was illustrative of course, but few men, super or otherwise, make a conscious decision to compromise themselves. If I were to tell you "Humanist, I have the perfect girl for you, she's 'quality', loyal, loving, mother material, and will ƒuck you like a porn star - the only thing is you have to cease doing everything you now enjoy and devote your attentions to her exclusively", you'd most likely pass on the whole thing. It wouldn't actually be "perfect". But this isn't how men come into Superman's fate. It's etched away incrementally, it's a prolonged bait & switch.

I'm not devaluing self-respect, but it's important to see how men come to lack it where they had it prior. It's too easy to convince oneself that self-respect is in fact selfishness when he's conditioned to believe so by his only source of intimacy.

"Desire" is a necessary ingredient in any successful relationship but to make it the primary driver in an LTR is to pander to "me-ism" above eithical and moral commitment.
I never want another LTR which is continuously fuelled by desire above commitment -sexual or otherwise.

Without Desire commitment is servitude. The commitment my wife and I have shared for the past 12 years is due to our genuine desire for each other. Desire IS the glue that makes that commitment worth it. Misery is being bound to a commitment you have no passion to maintain.

 

[Andy_Dufresne]

Without Desire commitment is servitude. The commitment my wife and I have shared for the past 12 years is due to our genuine desire for each other. Desire IS the glue that makes that commitment worth it. Misery is being bound to a commitment you have no passion to maintain.

Rollo,

Wa-how.

You certainly "get" women. No argument there, dude.

But are you "getting" life?

Scientifically I agree with what everyone is saying here. Your original post is spot on. On a base level it is how humans operate, how we are wired. It is psychobabble of the highest quality, and it should be required reading before getting into any relationship.

But it begs the question - what about commitment, over so-called “desire”?

Until the last post, commitment has been largely ignored here. By most if not all who have posted.

I do not find this surprising. Modern psychology and our Western media never really address commitment over desire.

When you marry as a Christian, you commit. “In sickness and health, for richer or poorer, ‘til death do you part.” The reason there is 6 billion humans and only a handful of baboons is that we have such customs and laws such as marriage in place. As civilized humans we have learned to control ourselves and not run around like a bunch of baboons taking Mystery and David D. and Doc Love as gospel (as opposed to guidance) and playing this adult form of “King of the Mountain” trying to screw all the baboons we can and get to the hottest and richest ones.

A bud of mine - his wife gained 30 pounds right after they got married. She couldn’t help it, her family was stuck with obesity problems. She has always tried 100% to keep her weight down, her game on, and look the best she can given her circumstances. Later on they had a child with a major birth defect. I remember getting the call when the child was born. I knew that very moment my bud’s life had changed forever.

After many many years they are still married, and still devoted. To my knowledge he has never strayed – and he could have very easily. The couple is (within their means) still very romantic and there is tons of mutual respect. There is mutual respect because despite her issues she tries to maintain herself and be the best she can be.

They have a larger purpose in life.

They can control themselves.

They are not perfect, however I often point them out as an example to my two teenagers.

Anyone in the construction industry has probably seen the safety video “Remember Charlie”. The story starts with Charlie as the “man”, a true DJ who became a family man. Then Charlie gets burned 60% of his body from an industrial accident that could have easily been avoided – he psychologically and physiologically changes for the (much) worse. About a year later his wife leaves him. She could not stand his self destruction.

“I blame myself” Charlie says.

But what about her?

Where was her commitment level in her husband’s severe time of need? She chose desire instead. As the story goes she destroyed a family and set a horrible precedent for her kids.

What if this was you? What if were in severe pain and depression and your hot wife had to hand bathe your disfigured body every day for the rest of your life and change bedpans? Would she be there for you?

And what if the shoe were on the other foot? Sorry if one of my last living memories of my grandparents was my my grandfather doing exactly the above to my grandmother.

Maybe its me. Maybe I have little tolerance for those who seek instant gratification at each and every corner in life.

Rollo, masculinity can mean getting 40 tats and parading around like Mystery looking like Cat in the Hat and being able to tell your friends over some suds on a Thursday night how back in the day you macked three models in a hot tub. That’s all fine and good if that is how you want to live your life.

Or, masculinity can have deeper meaning such as sticking to your decisions, playing the cards you are dealt, keeping your word, and accepting risk into your life.

What do you desire?

 

[forward]

This conflict between desire and commitment is interesting.

I see a parallel with nature and civilization.

My mind has been struggling with this conflict. Desire is so wonderful, and certainly good to be conscious of and actively maintain within a LTR/marriage. But at the same time, my concept of "A Family" (a concept which is still developing for me) is something larger and greater than just desire.

I'm seeing family as creating a life together - an entire life. And there is much more to life than sex and sexual desire.

Yet this desire is such a wonderful component of life, it would be a shame to be committed to live without it (all the while constantly teased by it).

And so I sure hope I can successfully maintain it, should I ever "commit" to a woman. It is a great feeling, experiencing a woman's intense, passionate desire for you.

Rollo, is there a point you hit where you become aware/capable enough to avoid your identity being "etched away" unnoticed? Do you know for certain when you've reached this point? Does it just have to happen to you several times before you adapt? I do feel stronger in avoiding this, it having happened to me once (it was so sneaky and under the surface of things).

 

[Tazman]

I'm seeing family as creating a life together - an entire life. And there is much more to life than sex and sexual desire.

Funny thing about that is, it's like the most important component. If you really analyze why we do the things we do, like the ambition to accomplish something you feel is significant, anything from art to becoming wealthy, that drive, believe it or not, comes from sex/reproduction. You may not be consciously thinking about the act of sex but that motivation to achieve and prosper is all about reproducing successfully. At least that's my belief.

 

[mrRuckus]

A bud of mine - his wife gained 30 pounds right after they got married. She couldn’t help it, her family was stuck with obesity problems.

Ha! Eat more calories than you use = weight gain.

"Couldn't help it" my ass. Fat doesn't come from no where.

 

[STR8UP]

Ha! Eat more calories than you use = weight gain.

"Couldn't help it" my ass. Fat doesn't come from no where.

True....however, people have different metabolisms, and it's very EASY for the person eats like a horse and doesn't gain a pound to point this out.

Me? I'm blessed and cursed. The blessed side is that I can easily put on muscle and retain it fairly well. The cursed side is that I also put on fat fairly easily, and it doesn't come off as easily as it does for some people.

 

[ketostix]

Rollo,

Wa-how.

You certainly "get" women. No argument there, dude.

But are you "getting" life?

Scientifically I agree with what everyone is saying here. Your original post is spot on. On a base level it is how humans operate, how we are wired. It is psychobabble of the highest quality, and it should be required reading before getting into any relationship.

But it begs the question - what about commitment, over so-called “desire”?

Until the last post, commitment has been largely ignored here. By most if not all who have posted.

I do not find this surprising. Modern psychology and our Western media never really address commitment over desire.

When you marry as a Christian, you commit. “In sickness and health, for richer or poorer, ‘til death do you part.” The reason there is 6 billion humans and only a handful of baboons is that we have such customs and laws such as marriage in place. As civilized humans we have learned to control ourselves and not run around like a bunch of baboons taking Mystery and David D. and Doc Love as gospel (as opposed to guidance) and playing this adult form of “King of the Mountain” trying to screw all the baboons we can and get to the hottest and richest ones.

A bud of mine - his wife gained 30 pounds right after they got married. She couldn’t help it, her family was stuck with obesity problems. She has always tried 100% to keep her weight down, her game on, and look the best she can given her circumstances. Later on they had a child with a major birth defect. I remember getting the call when the child was born. I knew that very moment my bud’s life had changed forever.

After many many years they are still married, and still devoted. To my knowledge he has never strayed – and he could have very easily. The couple is (within their means) still very romantic and there is tons of mutual respect. There is mutual respect because despite her issues she tries to maintain herself and be the best she can be.

They have a larger purpose in life.

They can control themselves.

They are not perfect, however I often point them out as an example to my two teenagers.

Anyone in the construction industry has probably seen the safety video “Remember Charlie”. The story starts with Charlie as the “man”, a true DJ who became a family man. Then Charlie gets burned 60% of his body from an industrial accident that could have easily been avoided – he psychologically and physiologically changes for the (much) worse. About a year later his wife leaves him. She could not stand his self destruction.

“I blame myself” Charlie says.

But what about her?

Where was her commitment level in her husband’s severe time of need? She chose desire instead. As the story goes she destroyed a family and set a horrible precedent for her kids.

What if this was you? What if were in severe pain and depression and your hot wife had to hand bathe your disfigured body every day for the rest of your life and change bedpans? Would she be there for you?

And what if the shoe were on the other foot? Sorry if one of my last living memories of my grandparents was my my grandfather doing exactly the above to my grandmother.

Maybe its me. Maybe I have little tolerance for those who seek instant gratification at each and every corner in life.

Rollo, masculinity can mean getting 40 tats and parading around like Mystery looking like Cat in the Hat and being able to tell your friends over some suds on a Thursday night how back in the day you macked three models in a hot tub. That’s all fine and good if that is how you want to live your life.

Or, masculinity can have deeper meaning such as sticking to your decisions, playing the cards you are dealt, keeping your word, and accepting risk into your life.

What do you desire?

This is a good point. I think people more and more are sort of discarding the value and benefits of ethics and the wisdom in the concept, "The wages of sins is death" for lack of a better term.

I haven't read through this thread yet and off the top of my head I would say the average, normal person desires what they don't have. If they don't have sex and desire, then sex and desire tops their wants. Once they have sex and desire, now they want commitment and devotion.

Whereas an "abnormal" person might be stuck in sex and desire exclusively too long for their own good. There's nothing wrong with having devotion to the right person. It would seem sex and desire would precede and be a prerequisite leading to devotion. I think this in a nutshell is how it works, but again I haven't read through this thread yet so maybe I'm way off.

 

[LeftyLoosey]

Rollo,

Wa-how.

You certainly "get" women. No argument there, dude.

But are you "getting" life?

Scientifically I agree with what everyone is saying here. Your original post is spot on. On a base level it is how humans operate, how we are wired. It is psychobabble of the highest quality, and it should be required reading before getting into any relationship.

But it begs the question - what about commitment, over so-called “desire”?

Until the last post, commitment has been largely ignored here. By most if not all who have posted.

I do not find this surprising. Modern psychology and our Western media never really address commitment over desire.

When you marry as a Christian, you commit. “In sickness and health, for richer or poorer, ‘til death do you part.” The reason there is 6 billion humans and only a handful of baboons is that we have such customs and laws such as marriage in place. As civilized humans we have learned to control ourselves and not run around like a bunch of baboons taking Mystery and David D. and Doc Love as gospel (as opposed to guidance) and playing this adult form of “King of the Mountain” trying to screw all the baboons we can and get to the hottest and richest ones.

A bud of mine - his wife gained 30 pounds right after they got married. She couldn’t help it, her family was stuck with obesity problems. She has always tried 100% to keep her weight down, her game on, and look the best she can given her circumstances. Later on they had a child with a major birth defect. I remember getting the call when the child was born. I knew that very moment my bud’s life had changed forever.

After many many years they are still married, and still devoted. To my knowledge he has never strayed – and he could have very easily. The couple is (within their means) still very romantic and there is tons of mutual respect. There is mutual respect because despite her issues she tries to maintain herself and be the best she can be.

They have a larger purpose in life.

They can control themselves.

They are not perfect, however I often point them out as an example to my two teenagers.

Anyone in the construction industry has probably seen the safety video “Remember Charlie”. The story starts with Charlie as the “man”, a true DJ who became a family man. Then Charlie gets burned 60% of his body from an industrial accident that could have easily been avoided – he psychologically and physiologically changes for the (much) worse. About a year later his wife leaves him. She could not stand his self destruction.

“I blame myself” Charlie says.

But what about her?

Where was her commitment level in her husband’s severe time of need? She chose desire instead. As the story goes she destroyed a family and set a horrible precedent for her kids.

What if this was you? What if were in severe pain and depression and your hot wife had to hand bathe your disfigured body every day for the rest of your life and change bedpans? Would she be there for you?

And what if the shoe were on the other foot? Sorry if one of my last living memories of my grandparents was my my grandfather doing exactly the above to my grandmother.

Maybe its me. Maybe I have little tolerance for those who seek instant gratification at each and every corner in life.

Rollo, masculinity can mean getting 40 tats and parading around like Mystery looking like Cat in the Hat and being able to tell your friends over some suds on a Thursday night how back in the day you macked three models in a hot tub. That’s all fine and good if that is how you want to live your life.

Or, masculinity can have deeper meaning such as sticking to your decisions, playing the cards you are dealt, keeping your word, and accepting risk into your life.

What do you desire?

What is commitment, exactly? From the female perspective, it is obtaining the security from a man that she requires in order to enable her to support her offspring. From the male perspective it is selecting one mate above all others and denying himself the opportunity to be with any other woman, usually for the sake of supporting his wife and family.

So, we have a female who benefits and a male who sacrifices.

You'll hear older couples talk about a "higher love" that goes beyond sexual desire, a "deeper passion" that can only be attained through a long lasting committed relationship. The husband and wife will talk about how they need each other and you'll often hear stories of the male passing away at an old age and the female who was otherwise healthy passing away within a few months.

You can call this passion or higher love, but what it actually is is the interdependency that inevitably develops between two individuals after knowing nothing else but each other. Frankly I think it's tragic that two people become some dependent on each other that they can't survive without the other - like a baby to its mother.

Why are there 6 billion humans and only a few thousand baboons? Not because of the social structure forced upon us (marriage). It's simply a matter of technology - health care, food supplies, shelter, etc. Take a look at how the human population grew after the industrial revolution. Before that that global population went through spikes and dips even though culturally we were still expected to seek out committed relationships.

Just because men seek relationships based on desire does not mean they can't have a fulfilling life. Andy, what you're forgetting to acknowledge is that a DJ does not make women the primary focus of his life. He has hobbies and interests beyond women, and hopefully, in the end, the goal of developing his spiritual self, and studying the important philosophical questions of life.

Hell, go do some volunteer work if you think you're living too selfishly. I think spending the majority of your time committed to your wife and kids with the end result of increasing the world population and the burden on society to be the ultimate act of selfishness. Give back to the world - it needs your help.

 

[LeftyLoosey]

Also, while we're on this topic, there was an episode of "Between You and Me" on CBC Radio yesterday that discusses exactly this. You can find the podcast here: http://www.cbc.ca/radiosummer/betweenyouandme/podcast.html

Listen to the July 31 episode called "Passion".

The psychologist brings up an interesting point... he talks about what happens in a marriage when the two individuals become dependent on each other for validation. There is always one partner (usually the wife) who controls access to sex. What determines whether or not a marriage will succeed is how the other partner reacts to this. He can either break things off because he's no longer receiving the validation he needs, or he can acknowledge the inevitable dynamic, "the greater wisdom of marriage," and realize that he does not need the validation of his partner to determine self-worth. By doing so he can pursue the interests that he finds fulfilling outside of marriage, and naturally this will result in his wife's desire returning.

So, you can either submit to your dependence on your spouse for validation and feel miserable, or become a true DJ and seek validation elsewhere. Only then will you find true happiness in your marriage.

I'm glad this psychologist agrees with everything we say here.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

When you commit to anything you lose options, this is the nature of commitment and the source of most people's frustration with commitments they later regret. The idea being that the reward for committing would outweigh any other options. The true meaning of power isn't about how thouroughly you can control others, but how much control you have over the decisions you make for your own life. Committing to anyone or anything limits the options you have available from which to make decisions for yourself. Some committment is unavoidably necessary (field of education, career path, personal passions and ambitions, military service) others are entirely voluntary (marriage choice, job, external choices), regardless, each committment constrains, limits or eliminates options. A man without options becomes necessitous, and necessitous men are never free.

Since we're discussing marriage committment, I think the obvious limitation is that your options to see who you will are eliminated. The well trained AFC will see marriage as goal or a summation of a life long 'need' he's been conditioned to believe he has, and just a passing mention of staying uncommitted or non-exclusive for as long as possible is met with the same resistance he's been taught to respond with - "you're just too immature and/or 'shallow' to commit" or "you're committment-phobic." All of which are standard feminine social contrivances.

Look deeper than this though. The silly, binary answer is " oh Rollo, you just want guys to bang as many girls as they can", but try to look beyond the sexual shaming that comes with this. There are many more options that you are restrained from by committing that are entirely unrelated to sex. Your personal time, your ability to pursue your ambitions, your career, your family, even your choice of automobile all become subject to this committment. And at any slight deviation in your asserting your previous, non-exclusive options, your present degree of committment becomes questionable and suspect so as to bring you back under it's control.

Committed people have a kind of jealousy of the uncommitted to the point where they will shame them into a similar committment. This isn't bourne from anger, but rather a sense of respect for the uncommitted. You instantly make yourself powerful because you remain unchained and ungraspable, rather than surrendering to the group as most people do. You posess options that they do not. And sometimes the potential derived from those prospective options is the source of greater envy than even committed successes.


Committing oneself to anything is a conscious process; in other words we must first WANT something passionately, or desperately, enough to forsake any other future opportunities and/or the rewards from them that result. Desire exists apart from commitment. It is entirely possible to be committed to something you have no desire to be committed to - this is called servitude. All ANDY has done in his post is what most people in this position will do to affirm choices of commitment they regret - raise the idea of "commitment" (and it's derivative, "devotion") to an ephemeral level. Redefine "commitment" as a cosmic purpose, a holy ordained reason for enduring the worst (or the best) circumstances irrespective of even the most all-consuming desire to escape the same commitment.

For every heroic example you can give me about some guy sticking by his overweight woman, I can give you one of a 60+ y.o. man trapped in a passionless, desireless marriage for the past 30 years who'll still be proud of his committed martyrdom. So what would be best? Commitment to a lack-luster woman who settled on you, or commitment to a woman with a genuine fire and passion to be your committed partner? Commitment isn't a goal, it's a function that should proceed from mutual desire.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear All,
Commitment...For Petes sake Why?...Being committed used to mean being entered into a Lunatic asylum,things haven't changed that much have they?....The caveat being unless you wish to procreate...Tell me Guys,what are you buying one half as good as you are selling?and please don't try to sell me that lonely old Man syndrome,what am I missing out on?I sure as Hell Know what I have that you gave up without a fight,I am a free man ...Well last night was great,went out dancing with a Bird,went back to her place had a really great session....but then the nicest part of the evening,coming home...My Home not our home nor the Banks,not something to be sorted out in Court with Maybe a third to me a third to her and a third to those legal sharks (May they all rot in Hell)...I get out the frying Pan fry up a feed,bacon,eggs a tin of beans,knock the top off a bottle of Chardonnet,lie back as those first few delicious mouthfuls slide down the old red tunnel,and listen to a little restful music, then its up to my little cot a little bit of English Comedy then its Down the Road with Mr Sandman....No worrying about waking her up,no lectures on Chloresterol,in the Morning well I get up when I want then do what I feel like,no foolscap lists of chores,no relations to visit,no stupid shopping,who said you cant just eat the icing off the Cake,get me slice and I'll show you how its done....In the dim distant days before the benificent State took it upon itself to control the relationships between Men and Women,there was a Poet called Khallil Ghibran,he wrote some lovely thoughts on Marriage remember?
"Love one another but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.
Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping".Amazing but I last heard these lines at a good mates wedding,what a joke to spout such stuff as they fit you up with handcuffs and lock you up in a golden cage...My thoughts on comitment,for an older man never,for a younger Man later...

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Humanist,
No,No,no....I think Rollo is very fair and objective,and you must admit he knows his Onions....he puts a remarkable amount of research into his articles,and a lot of time.....Mate you can't run a Basketball Match without some ground rules...Rollo is not a Dr Goebbels,there is a remarkable divergence of opinion on this site....even the Ladies are free to contribute....all good.Until we are confronted with new,different ideas our opinions will never change,we just stop growing ...Without differing views,People,Institutions even,become hide bound,the Chinese stopped progress dead in its tracks about 1430 and until relatively recently never really got going again,this at a time when their huge fleets were exploring the World,long before Columbas and their technology was Streets ahead of the West...This can be taken too far,the Golden age of Athens was destroyed in thirty years by a generation of youths who under the influence of Pericles questioned all ideas,rebelled against all Authority,the result anarchy and destruction...It's like many aspects of life the case of choosing a happy medium...anyway your post is still there isn't it?...

 

[Andy_Dufresne]

what most people in this position will do to affirm choices of commitment they regret - raise the idea of "commitment" (and it's derivative, "devotion") to an ephemeral level. Redefine "commitment" as a cosmic purpose, a holy ordained reason for enduring the worst (or the best) circumstances irrespective of even the most all-consuming desire to escape the same commitment.

For every heroic example you can give me about some guy sticking by his overweight woman, I can give you one of a 60+ y.o. man trapped in a passionless, desireless marriage for the past 30 years who'll still be proud of his committed martyrdom. So what would be best? Commitment to a lack-luster woman who settled on you, or commitment to a woman with a genuine fire and passion to be your committed partner? Commitment isn't a goal, it's a function that should proceed from mutual desire.

OK I'm back....again good post, Rollo but a lot of this is getting lost in translation. It's not a question of being a martyr. And of course any man would want and should marry a partner with the same passion for life.

The key for me is that I am with someone who thinks like me. They fight. If my wife ends up using a feeding tube - she fights. If I have to push her around all day in a wheelchair, I do it. Provided she fights, and maintains her sense of humor; provided there is some way of rekindling the memories of "what brought you there", its worth it.

As far as looks go, and losing your looks, I was out to dinner with some colleagues at a Thai place the other night. The waitress was a local, marginal as far as looks, but her wit and her smart ass attitude was second to none. It made the seemingly undesirable, desirable. We had the discussion "would you bang her?" Normally, no; but her personality was special. It made the difference.

If my spouse gave up - didn't try; didn't do her best given some adversarial circumstance - THAT would be a problem.

My point is: Bluntly. Life can and will throw you curveballs, kids. And when it does...are you gonna have Christopher Reeve's wife? Or Donald Trump's?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

...are you gonna have Christopher Reeve's wife? Or Donald Trump's?

Excellent comparison. My reasoning is that the women who'd marry Trump don't hold a genuine desire for him, but rather what he can provide. The world is full of very rich men who are paired with women they would never otherwise be able to attract if they lacked the means. This is the Desire Dynamic in bold letters - women pairing with a man they lack genuine desire for in exchange for having their security needs provided for. The commitment may be entirely valid - insofar as the guy has the capacity to provide - but the genuine desire is not.

Christopher Reeves' wife, it could be argued, had a genuine desire for her husband that preceded his accident. I think the disconnect people have with desire is a genuine passion, fire, desire and the ability to express it. In fact the woman committed to a passionless, yet well providing, LTR will be unable (or less able) to express her real desire for the Man who really turns her on. In the Reeves' situation the inability (or inhibited ability) to express that genuine desire does not lessen that desire. Yes, his wife's commitment is admirable and ennobling, but perhaps it was her desire for her husband that prompted this? It could be her semi-celebrity status and living up to this wholesome image that made her so dedicated as well, but in contrast to Trump, I'd think she had a genuine desire for Christopher.


Maybe a better question is this, should a widow, in an otherwise good marriage, re-marry after her husband's death? Does she disrespect her "commitment" to her dead husband by dating and remarrying? It's easy to point fingers at a gold digger, breaking her commitment and divorcing a Trump to move on to the pool boy, but what about the widowed woman? Should she remain a widow for life?

 

[The Bat]

Maybe a better question is this, should a widow, in an otherwise good marriage, re-marry after her husband's death? Does she disrespect her "commitment" to her dead husband by dating and remarrying? It's easy to point fingers at a gold digger, breaking her commitment and divorcing a Trump to move on to the pool boy, but what about the widowed woman? Should she remain a widow for life?

Hmm..probably not.

Probably because it depends on how long they were married. If they were married for 20+ years, then it wouldn't be a good idea to remarry because when you remarry after 20+ years, you're remarrying your entire family (kids, grandkids) to the other guy's entire family (kids, grandkids). 20+ is just a good estimate. On individual basis, that cutoff could be lower or higher.

Probably not because let's think about plate spinning theory..the shotgun logic. Young guys (and girls) should be spinning plates to get as much dating experience as possible. Plate spinning is designed to prevent one-itis and prevent the belief that there is only "one" out there for the guy or the girl. So if the widow had been married for say 5 years, then it'd be a good idea for her to spin plates because chances are she'll find somebody just like her dead husband (or even better..) when she dates multiple prospects at same time.

Assuming this is all after she has mourned the passing and gotten over him emotionally, etc...

If I were the dead husband, would I want my now widowed wife to remarry? If we've been married for 5-10 years, YES. She deserves to live the rest of her life in peace. Just like I'd be resting in peace. Is that not genuine desire to want the same for your partner as you have it now?