The Desire Dynamic

[dannyegg4575]

This is a very interesting post.

IMHO, I think it’s IL that starts the spark in the relationship and desire that motivates the couple to be together. However, continuing to desire for a new TV will not keep you wanting to have that TV. At one point, a new better TV will eventually come along. Personally, I think it’s experience and maturity that maintain it.

For both people to go through all the different variety, knowing full well she is the right one to settle with and committing to her knowing she will also do the same. Or is my dream too far-fetched?

True, having commitment is equivalent to trying to own someone. Every time you try to own something, it always end up owning you. But what if, you have added in the mix of desire, commitment, and choice? Choice as in knowing you’ve both gone through the variety, genuinely knowing who you’re going to spend the rest of your life with and content with, and choosing to stay friends with this one partner. But this can only happen if both people agree to it.

I had this friend of mine who’s married for 15 years and they look like they really love each other. But underneath it all, she told one of her friends one day how she really want to be able to have sex with another because she wanted to have something different. Not the “same meal every night” she said…

It’s in human nature to be selfish. We may or may not be consciously looking for the greener grass across the fence but when opportunities present itself, will our desire prevent us from going for someone else?

And to the question of whether a widow should remarry… I think it’s only right for her to be because it’s her happiness too. We can’t stand in the way of someone who is seeking for happiness. Just as we are seeking for our own happiness.

 

[jophil28]

True, having commitment is equivalent to trying to own someone. Every time you try to own something, it always end up owning you.

What a strange opinion.

Committment is a moral and ethical contract which is a voluntary promise to the other person and to yourself to act in agreed ways for the life of the agreement for the benefit of the relationship. In marriage the promise is made, " till death parts us " ..

A problem does not arise in making a "committment" - a problem arises if you break your promise.

 

[jophil28]

I had this friend of mine who’s married for 15 years and they look like they really love each other. But underneath it all, she told one of her friends one day how she really want to be able to have sex with another because she wanted to have something different. Not the “same meal every night” she said…

It’s in human nature to be selfish. We may or may not be consciously looking for the greener grass across the fence but when opportunities present itself, will our desire prevent us from going for someone else?


.

Desire is a double edged sword.

Your married friend surely has an unmet "desire" to have sex with another man outside her marriage.. SO what ? She, like many women and men, is experiencing a fantasy, a tempting thought, perhaps. This is not a problem unless she acts on it.
And what prevents her from doing so? Her committment to her husband and her marriage and the recognition of what she risks by cheating for the sake of satisfying some foolish "desire" .

The reason that we articulate our moral and ethic position to our SO is to make an explicit( and implicit ) promise that we will NOT act on our impulses should temptation present itself.

 

[dannyegg4575]

Have you ever made a commitment to pay off your mortgage? How about a car? how much stress do these commitments (slash burdens) place on you? All because you want to own these things right?

You might disagree because these are material things. But think about the amount of stress it places on the people involved. You might say, “ah! But think of the fruit at the end of it all!” Well, how hard is it to get there? Do you not impose a lot of stress on yourself as well the people involved?

"The marriage documents we signed said that we have to be together "til death do us part!"

The problem arises when you are bound by something. Whenever you’re bound by anything, you want to be set free. Nobody likes to be tied down. You’ll end up suffocating whatever it is you’re holding onto. I say a commitment is equivalent to ownership because it feels that way. People naturally reject being “owned” in a free world. This is what some people know as “the marriage trap”. People feel trapped in a marriage/commitment. Especially when it comes to controlling husbands or nagging wives…

whenever you want to own something, do you not let it own you? Your mental well being? your state of mind? Think of your child. do you own it? many people sure think so. look how hard it is for them to raise the child because of this kind of thinking. sure, the child comes through the woman but it doesn't really belong to her. Seriously. it doesn't. it is a being, all on its own.

Desire is a double edged sword.

Your married friend surely has an unmet "desire" to have sex with another man outside her marriage.. SO what ? She, like many women and men, is experiencing a fantasy, a tempting thought, perhaps. This is not a problem unless she acts on it.
And what prevents her from doing so? Her committment to her husband and her marriage and the recognition of what she risks by cheating for the sake of satisfying some foolish "desire" .

The reason that we articulate our moral and ethic position to our SO is to make an explicit( and implicit ) promise that we will NOT act on our impulses should temptation present itself.

Exactly. But it is also the reason why people feel trapped. The moment you are forced not to eat the forbidden fruit, you will naturally want to try that fruit. Nobody wants to be forced to do anything outside of their own freewill. This went on since the written of the bible thousands of years ago.

My friend of course felt that it was wrong because of the “commitment” she made to the man. Which is a very honorable thing to do. I too agree. But what we’re saying here is beyond commitment… What I’m saying is that two people are “choosing” to be together and freely being together without any piece of paper to tie them down. And that’s exactly what I’m trying to find out by staying with this site. With the hopes of learning from you guys in how to stay together and forever BE together once you’ve found that special someone. Without coercion, without cat and mouse game playing, without fear. You can really really let your guard down and come home comfortably to someone you can trust to be with you “til death do you part.” That is the day i can give up my jerk-dom and give her everything, my heart, my soul, my life. That’s what I hope you guys can help me answer.

 

[jophil28]

The problem arises when you are bound by something. Whenever you’re bound by anything, you want to be set free. Nobody likes to be tied down. You’ll end up suffocating whatever it is you’re holding onto. I say a commitment is equivalent to ownership because it feels that way.
...whenever you want to own something, do you not let it own you?

THis whining crap sounds like some hippy drippy eastern mystic stuff that was popular in the '70s . It reminds me of some "wisdom" that was printed on a poster that I had stuck on the inside of my toilet door in '78.

Dude, get a grip.
We all need to make various committments , give undertakings, make and keep promises and so on.. Yes, it sometimes feels restrictive and we often resent its burden but that is what being an adult REQUIRES of us.

Contrast this with the mindset of a child. Instant gratification, a deep dislike of rules, an intolerance of what other expect of him, an avoidance of the frustration of not getting their own way, an unwillingness to give undertakings or keep those which he gave...
It sounds somewhat similar to what you are proposing..

Welcome BTW... you have a ways to go it seems.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

There's a popular saying amongst some SS members here that goes,..

"Anything you cannot say 'No' to makes you it's slave."

I happen to agree with this, however, by this definition, does not commitment make you a 'slave' by default? If by the circumstances of a commitment you cannot, figuratively, say "no" to the that (or due to that) commitment, are you not then a slave?

Take marriage out of the equation; if I'm in a committed LTR with a GF and over the course of that relationship I realize that she's not what I'm looking for (for any number of reasons), even though she's 100% faithfully committed to me and the LTR, should I then break that commitment? If I do, am I then being unethical for having broken that commitment? Should the commitment to my own personal well being and future happiness be compromised by another commitment? What's the moral obligation; neglect myself in favor of a bad commitment or to the principle of commitment itself?

As I stated above, my take is that commitment 'should' be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one's own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable trade. This is unfortunately rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years after depending upon circumstance.

So what I'm getting at is where do you draw the line? If I have one life to live and one precious lifetime to do it in, what is more important; a commitment to oneself in learning and securing the best options for a lifetime or being committed to the principle of self-sacrificing commitment?

We tell freshmen AFCs here all the time to dedicate themselves to self-improvement - to seek out and accomplish what's best for them - in other words, to uncompromisingly commit themselves to their own cause in as positive a manner as possible. I'd argue that genuine desire is a necessary precursor to this, but in advocating this self-concerned improvement, are we not then doing them a disservice if their moral duty ought to be focused on the principle of commitment, even when that commitment is (or becomes) deleterious to their commitment to a positive self? Should we not hold AFCs in the highest respect when they selflessly sacrifice their futures due to their devoted commitment to a ONEitis girl who'll never reciprocate (much less reward) that commitment? Maybe they've got it right, you can't doubt their (albeit misguided) dedication to their emotional commitments.

As I've stated in many prior threads, it's very easy to make ethical judgements when your options are right & wrong, but they're very difficult when they're right vs. right or wrong vs. wrong. It'd be pretty ƒucked up of Christopher Reeves' wife to have bailed out on him after he became paralyzed - that's an easy call. But what about the husband who was sold a bill of goods prior to marriage that his wife bait & switched him on? Is he obligated to stick by her in spite of a deception for commitment's sake? Would it be less an offense if she we're only a live in GF who never cheated on him, but made him miserable?

 

[poster_guy03]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv........

....... But what about the husband who was sold a bill of goods prior to marriage that his wife bait & switched him on? Is he obligated to stick by her in spite of a deception for commitment's sake?

From the perspectives of contracts, misrepresentation can be grounds for rendering a contract null and void. From an ethical and moral perspective, not a "legal" perspective (I suspect many here don't believe the law is about enforcing ethics and morals anyway), most folks would say no he is not..... For many, by the time the bait and switch is "on", so much is invested (emotionally, financially, etc.) that their own personal relative value system negates any action they may take to either enforce the "contract" or to abandon the "agreement". They have lost their individual identity.

 

[reset]

We tell freshmen AFCs here all the time to dedicate themselves to self-improvement - to seek out and accomplish what's best for them - in other words, to uncompromisingly commit themselves to their own cause in as positive a manner as possible. I'd argue that genuine desire is a necessary precursor to this, but in advocating this self-concerned improvement, are we not then doing them a disservice if their moral duty ought to be focused on the principle of commitment, even when that commitment is (or becomes) deleterious to their commitment to a positive self? Should we not hold AFCs in the highest respect when they selflessly sacrifice their futures due to their devoted commitment to a ONEitis girl who'll never reciprocate (much less reward) that commitment? Maybe they've got it right, you can't doubt their (albeit misguided) dedication to their emotional commitments.

I think that up until reading this post, I believed that being in a committed relationship no matter the circumstances, was a virtue in itself. Why, I wasn't sure. Thats just "how it's supposed to be".

Now that I am wanting to start with Plate Theory, I had feelings that if I was able to really date multiple women, that would somehow make me a bad person, or shallow. It's possible that was holding me back.

Shaming myself, for wanting to explore my own natural, healthy desires to enjoy all sorts of women.... and at the same time, thinking that I was a "bad guy" for that desire.

"I don't want those girls to think I'm only after one thing. I want her to to think of me as relationship material."

Shaming myself, to myself, all based on the assumption that my natural desires were mean and selfish.

A girl doesn't want to be in a relationship with a man who desires her sexually? Of course she does.

Nice to have a limit to living a happy life be destroyed.

 

[Nutz]

I think that up until reading this post, I believed that being in a committed relationship no matter the circumstances, was a virtue in itself. Why, I wasn't sure. Thats just "how it's supposed to be".

Now that I am wanting to start with Plate Theory, I had feelings that if I was able to really date multiple women, that would somehow make me a bad person, or shallow. It's possible that was holding me back.

Shaming myself, for wanting to explore my own natural, healthy desires to enjoy all sorts of women.... and at the same time, thinking that I was a "bad guy" for that desire.

"I don't want those girls to think I'm only after one thing. I want her to to think of me as relationship material."

Shaming myself, to myself, all based on the assumption that my natural desires were mean and selfish.

A girl doesn't want to be in a relationship with a man who desires her sexually? Of course she does.

Nice to have a limit to living a happy life be destroyed.

Very well spoken. I too had to go through that phase and it's nice, and fun in its own right, to juggle multiple women. 3 nights and 3 different women for me and I'm only getting started

 

[Die Hard]

In the end we're all looking for unconditional love/acceptance from one person. As AFC's we think we can get that unconditional love/acceptance from a girl by giving her everything we have, totally surrendering ourselves to her emotionally, so that she will do the same... But she doesn't . We need it too much, we are trying too hard. So we have to learn how to control this deep desire and we learn to control it by becoming DJ's. Go fukk em all, treat them like sl*ts, tell them you love them while you'll tell the same thing to the other girl you visit a few hours later... You'll do exactly the opposite of acting on your deep desire for unconditional love/acceptance and in doing so, learn to get control over that desire. Once you've learned this, you'll be able to sort of "regulate" this desire. I think after this, it's safe to commit yourself to one person (although it has to be the right person! She herself should have reached a similar degree of being able to "regulate" her desire for unconditional love/acceptance). You'll both be able to take your foot off the break and allow yourself to be weak and vulnerable towards the other and share moments of real intimacy (not meaning sex) with each other (it's these moments that will fulfill your desire for unconditional love/acceptance). But you'll also be able to snap out of that moment once it's over, put your foot back on the break, so to speak. You will be able to do this because you've learned how to do this when you were becoming a DJ. If you hadn't learned this, there would only be three possible outcomes:

1. You can't get the desire under control but she does, therefor she'll own you and lose interest in oyu and you'll be running behind her to constantly get your desire for unconditional love/acceptance fulfilled.
2. It'll be the other way around. You'll be able to control it but she doesn't, therefor she's not interesting enough to be committed to and you'll just keep DJ'ing, she'll be just a plate.
3.You both don't know how to put the foot on the break and both lose yourself in the struggle for each other's unconditional love/acceptance. You'll both try to melt together forever and turn each other crazy. Like two porcupines walking in the freezing cold, looking for each other's body warmth but hurting each other with their stings when they get too close...

The only way for us be really commited to a woman, as in a marriage, and for it to WORK, is this:

* You have to learn to control your desire for unconditional love/acceptance so you can regulate it
* You do that by DJ'ing
* You find a woman who is also able to control that desire and regulate it
* You commit to each other and are able to fulfill that deep desire each human being has inside: to be unconditionally loved/accepted by one person. You'll share your lives, you'll literally help each other through the struggles of daily life and you'll stay committed to each other because you know you have this mutual ability to fullfill each other's deep desire for undonctional love/acceptance. You don't actively fullfill that desire all the time, but you'll have those special moments of intimacy now and then at which you're fulfilling that desire for each other. You know that it's mutual and you know that it's sincere and that's what makes you stay with each other in the end.

I'm kinda thinking out loud here, so I'm not sure myself if this is the truth but it seems to make sense. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Tazman]

I don't think there is such a thing as "unconditional" love/acceptance. I also don't see being in a committed relationship with one woman as an ultimate goal. My thing is, if it happens, it happens, but I definitely don't put any effort into looking for it specifically.

Women truly are a compliment to my life, not the purpose of it.

 

[Nutz]

And what prevents her from doing so? Her committment to her husband and her marriage and the recognition of what she risks by cheating for the sake of satisfying some foolish "desire"

Never underestimate the female ability to backwards rationalize a reason for breaking her commitment. So long as the end result is her feeling good about herself she'll have no qualms about whatever justification she uses.

 

[jophil28]

Never underestimate the female ability to backwards rationalize a reason for breaking her commitment. So long as the end result is her feeling good about herself she'll have no qualms about whatever justification she uses.

Year after year, I am leaning more and more towards this view of some women.
Lets hope ( and perhaps seek some evidence to the contrary ) that this rather negative evalution is not universal - however I suspect that you are more correct than not.

So what do we men do about that apart from avoiding marriage?

 

[window]

Far too many men slowly slip into this arrangement in order to "keep the peace", which is really a euphemism for "keep the pussie".

Great words, great thread...

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Bump

 

[_E_]

If there is one thing that seems clear to me in this thread, it is disagreement (with anecdotal substantiation) amongst which LTR component is of greatest significance: passion (physical desire and longingness), intimacy (empathetic closeness and mutual high esteem), or commitment (conscious decisions and mutually inclusive habitual routines). What seems most likely to me is that a successful and complete LTR requires all three.

When any relationship is extreme in its lack of two other components, it is obvious a consummate LTR does not exist. Extreme desire without intimacy or commitment can be booty calls, ONS, friends with benefits. Extreme intimacy without desire or commitment can be "friends" that are never more. Extreme commitment without desire or intimacy can be reliably persistent, yet devoid of any well-formed pair bond in physical or emotional domain, such as in the relationship of a nun with God or a mother with a son (whom neither physically long for each other nor share or understand the other's feelings on much of anything).

A stereotypical problem seems to be one in the concept and circumstance of an AFC being particularly prone to one-itus while also seeking an eventual intimate relationship through the genesis of a friendship. Although they may possess qualities contributory to a mature LTR, there is a lack in their basic attractiveness that would distinguish them between friend and boyfriend in the first place. And so, some conventional wisdom encourages them to cast off their comfortable skin of chumpiness, to cast off notions of commitment and emotional bonding. While this may lead to greater initial success in relationships, I wonder if the same advice (taken on rules, rather than principle) would become, in other ways, a detriment to the maintenance and further development of mature relationships.

I would think that the greatest challenge in a chronologically mature LTR is in the simultaneous propagation of physical passion and emotional intimacy, since the uplift of one can often be counterproductive to the uplift of the other. Where infidelity can be indicative of a lack of ideal passion within an LTR, the same could be said for "emotional cheating" and lack of intimacy. A pair mate, presumably the female, might spend more time with and feel closer with a best friend.

In terms of successful LTR persistence, my opinion would be that the general focus should be on how to keep both passion and intimacy present. As empathy does not strictly require actually being the same or similar person as the other, I think it a worthwhile and practical goal to promote both ingredients (and because neither seem to conflict nearly as radically with commitment).

 

[iwanttofight]

the same hole gets boring lol

 

[twentee]

so quit hitting it so often. She'll want some, and so will you, after a week or so, Don't wear it out, for yourself or her.