Marriage

[Edwardo Piet]

I like what you say Evie. I think your twisting the term 'commitment' to mean something it isn't. You're viewing it as something negative and unwanted. Sure, the pieve of paper is meaningless. A Commitment is what love is all about. Love without commitment isn't love I'd suggest.

"Women aren't religious" - I was referring to Giff's post on the popularity of church weddings. I think women are drawn to religious ceremony because it's seen as the only alternative to non commitment. And as I think non commitment is anti women, religion offers the opposite.

I meant women don't want church weddings because they are religious necessarily. Happy?

That you're "not big on commitment" makes you anti women IMO. Anti responsibility. Pro permed haired 80 yr old swingers who wear lots of gold LOL

What are you on about? If i'm anti-'commitment' that makes me anti-women?

Well I'm NOT anti women so....

Stereotyping fr0d0? What if the woman doesn't want 'commitment' either?

No what I'm referring to is people staying together because they genuinely love each other without having to make some kind of 'big promise' or 'commitment' because they love each other enough that they don't have to do that. It's considered to be superficial and dare I say...unworthy.

I have no idea what you are on about mr.strawmen. Thinking 'commitment' is superficial bullshit because it takes the meaning OUT of the relationship has got nothing to do with being 'anti responsibility', 'anti women', etc. You're making that up.

I am very loyal. And if I meet someone who feels the same way, who doesn't feel they need 'commitment', or 'to commit' (i.e: holding on instead of letting go) to stay together...I think that shows the love is stronger not weaker...

I see commitment as 'holding on' instead of 'letting go'. Now some people might need it because they are afraid of losing each other. But I don't think love is really about 'commitment' because I think that's a form of attachment and like I said, it's like 'holding on' and I think love is more about being free and letting go.

I don't need to make a 'commitment' because I trust myself and I trust that the other person (if we love each other enough) will be loyal because we love and care about each other so much...we wouldn't need to make a 'commitment' because Love is stronger than that...

If people truly love each other they don't have to 'kid themselves' by 'holding on' with 'commitment'...

With love it's not about 'commitment' for me because that's a form of attachment, 'holding on' instead of 'letting go'....if the love is natural, genuine and free then fear of losing each other, attachment and 'commitment' will not be as strong as the genuine love and respect for each other and how much the couple truly cares about each other.

I have no idea where you got the 'anti woman' 'anti responsibility' thing from....have I said anything of the sort?

I am talking about having a MORE meaningful lasting relationship....

...BECAUSE - if you truly and naturally love each other enough why would you have to make a 'commitment'? Why would you fear that you had to do that as if if you don't it's less special or you won't stay together as long?

If you truly trust and love each other enough then surely that's enough? And if it's genuine it will stay, if it's not it will go. Either way it's true to the relationship and to the love.

Where the fuck does all the 'anti women' thing come from? For a start that is stereotyping (arguably sexist) because I said nothing sexist whatsoever and as I said...to suggest that being 'anti commitment' is 'anti women' is stereotyping women as ALL 'pro commitment' AND BESIDES...if you're against what someone (or some group) stands for that wouldn't make you specifically anti THEM anyway!!

But no I am not remotely anti-women or anti-responsibility. I want a genuine, loving long-lasting relationship if I can find one but I want it to REALLY BE genuine.

And I think if a relationship is really genuine you wouldn't have to 'make a commitment' to stay together...if the feelings and love and caring is really strong enough then it will just be natural. One wouldn't have to make 'commitment' or 'marriage' because that would be superficial and unworthy....

Because if the love is really strong and genuine, if you really care about each other you DON'T need 'commitment' and if it ISN'T why would you wanna fake it?

I want a loving long-lasting relationship as I have said: if I can find one but I want it to REALLY BE genuine.

EvF

[Giff]

What are you on about? If i'm anti-'commitment' that makes me anti-women?

Well I'm NOT anti women so....

Agree with you EvF, why should it be 'anti women'? A strange statement from you Fr0d0

[Kyuuketsuki]

I like what you say Evie. I think your twisting the term 'commitment' to mean something it isn't. You're viewing it as something negative and unwanted. Sure, the pieve of paper is meaningless. A Commitment is what love is all about. Love without commitment isn't love I'd suggest.

I agree, well mostly ... the piece of paper is [empirically] meaningless, as is the ring and the ceremony but they are symbols of a promise made (of the love) between two people and therefore acquire meaning because of it. There is no way that I can definitively claim that the love between a married couple is greater than that between an unmarried couple living together but I'd suggest that having made the commitment, having agreed to be legally bonded, you elevate that relationship in some undefinable manner. It's about love as you say, it is (or should be IMO) about promising to try if that love fails or falters, it is (again or should be) about striving for something better together than can be achieved being on one's own and at the risk of invoking the NTS there are some who can't appreciate that unless they actually make (and fully buy into) that commitment.

Can you love without commitment? I'm not sure ... I suppose there might be some twisted version of "love" that lacks it but is that truly love? I'm not even sure I really know what love is ... I mean I do, at least I think I do, but I'd find it very hard to define (and end up with a definition that works for everyone).

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Can you love without commitment? I'm not sure ... I suppose there might be some twisted version of "love" that lacks it but is that truly love? I'm not even sure I really know what love is ... I mean I do, at least I think I do, but I'd find it very hard to define (and end up with a definition that works for everyone).

Kyu

Well I think the commitment is 'twisted' (as you put it) or unworthy...because it's like putting some icing on cake when the cake is really nice in itself to me and the icing is way too sweet and 'sickly' (as at least us brits put it?).

If you love someone...shouldn't that be enough? If you really do why would you have to 'make a commitment' as if you're scared of losing each other?

I do NOT think love is about attachment I think people will naturally be attached as in stay together if they truly love each other...I think love is about 'letting go' and not 'holding on'.

I don' t think you need to TRY and attach yourself by DELIBERATELY making a 'commitment' - surely if you really love each other...you can just love each other...

I don't understand how you say that you don't see how their can be 'true' love without 'commitment'?

If you love each other you love each other. If you genuinely love each other then isn't that enough and won't it last?

When it comes down to it aren't all the 'promises' superficial?

Perhaps people who really love each other are more likely TO make promises because that's often how love is expressed BUT....if they can love each other and show their love WITHOUT manufacturing some 'promise' then surely that shows greater strength?

Because people can promise and get married and make a commitment and REALLY love each other genuinely and STILL end up breaking up and getting divorce...

I just mean...at the end of the day isn't how two people actually care about each other that matters and not deliberately set up promises and things such as 'commitment' and 'marriage'.

When it comes down to it isn't it really about how much people love each other and...care FOR and ABOUT each other? Isn't the rest just unnecessary icing on the cake that you wouldn't really need unless you are scared of losing each other or something like that?

And I think fear of losing each other is attachment and 'holding on' as I have said. I think love isn't really about being scared of losing each other (although people who DO love each other can't help feeling that way sometimes of course)...it's the GOOD feelings they feel about each other and no matter what happens they'll always care about each other, with or without each other.

It's more about feeling compassion for each other (Love) than needing each other ('commitment') for me and IMO...

Well that's how I feel and how I see it...I guess we just share different view points...I know what love is for absolute certain though

Perhaps it's just a different interpretation of the same thing...perhaps we show/express it in different ways...perhaps both. I dunno.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well quite obviously Ev I disagree

I got 25 years of marriage and I DO believe it shows greater commitment and, regardless of whether it is "necessary" or not, I DO believe that is a good thing.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

I DO agree that it's different with kids however...sometimes perhaps it's best to stay in a relationship 'just for the kids' (I'm not referring to you Kyu I just mean whatever...I just mean keeping families together is important as I think you've said before and I of course agree).

But the thing is I think it's kind of artifical because what's the point in a 'commitment' that can still be easily broken? On the outside it might LOOK strong...but on the inside...if people wanna break up they're gonna break up...and if they don't really love each other (or might no longer in future) why would they wanna tie themselves down in an unloving relationship?

I mean the thing is...there are people who GENUINELY DO love each other for YEARS but they STILL break up despite the fact they promised to stay together forever...so if they could break up anyway...isn't the commitment kind of artficial?

And if you really genuinely love each other for long enough, and it still stays strong WHY would you NEED 'commitment'?

I also think it would be arrogant for me to expect to stay together with someone FOREVER (at least early on, I mean if we've already been together 10 years then perhaps that's a different story but STILL - long relationships can still die)....BECAUSE there are people (as I said) who DO genuinely love each other for YEARS and they STILL break up/get divorced...I'm not arrogant enough to think I'd be a special case...

Sure I can feel true love...but so have others and some of them have broke up anyway...I'm just being realistic lol...I'm not gonna treat myself as a special case...if I feel extremely strong true love - I'm not gonna think it's necessarily stronger that OTHER people who have ALSO felt extremely strong true love....

So I think I'm just being realistic lol.

I think if you are making a 'commitment' but you can still leave anyway if you wish (as so can they) - and if it gets bad enough (and why would you want to stay in a bad relationship anyway if it's no longer going well) - that's kind of like having a key that you use to lock things that are too precious for even YOU to touch in a room...and you PROMISE not to touch them....BUT - still keeping the key in case you change your mind LOL!

If you could change your mind and unlock the door anyway...why keep the key? It seems artificial.

If anyone thinks the analogy fails then I'd be interested to hear your input lol

I think often commitment is a by-product of LOVE for people...not the other way around...I think commitment ITSELF is just like the unnecessary icing on the beautiful cake that's just a common by-product of the beautiful (and hopefully exquisite) cake.

EvF

EDIT:

That you're "not big on commitment" makes you anti women IMO.

Reading back I still think this is sexist stereotyping an narrow-minded. I said no such thing and it of course isn't as simple as that (and like I said it's sexist stereotyping anyway I think (or an oversimplification at the very least)).

I want a long lasting loving relationship with a woman...if I can have that with someone without manufacturing a 'commitment' then I think that's stronger TBH....

And if she only wants to stay with me if I 'get married' or whatever then I think that's very superficial and unworthy and if she can't love me without that then she doesn't love me enough...and I wouldn't expect her to do the same for me. I.e: If I only loved HER if we'd 'get married' or 'make a commitment to promise to stay together forever and ever' (which is just plain idealistic and a superfical by-product of something much greater IMHO) - I wouldn't expect her to stay with me if such superficial shit was really what was important to ME either...

If two people really love each other then I think that's enough and IF they're NOT going to stay together UNLESS they 'get married' or 'make a commitment' then I think they're swapping the real thing for a supeficial unworthy bullshit by-product of the real thing and it MIGHT just MIGHT go downhill from there..

But that's just how I see it. But that IS how I see it anyway; for what it's worth anyway.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

And my view is that if you can't be arsed to make the commitment then live apart ... simple!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

And my view is that I think if you care about each other you'll be happy with each other...

And what's the point of making a 'commitment' when you can leave anyway...? (regardless of how much you used to love each other, it still happens at least to some, why would you be a special case? Seems idealistic to me).

And if you DON'T love each other enough to stay so you just break the commitment anyway...isn't that less strong and substantial than staying together WITHOUT the commitment because you DO love each other/care about each other enough, etc? (and it just genuinely lasts long enough).

What's the point in a 'commitment' if the commitment can be broken? (It happens, regardless of the strength of the love, it still happens then sometimes too)

Seems kind of superfical to me to make a 'commitment' if it can be broken anyway... sounds to me kind of like superfical icing on the beautiful cake when the cake actually tastes better on it's own lol.

Why not just KEEP the cake and cut the bullshit icing? I think it's better on it's own LOL.

I think people often go after 'commitment' when love isn't enough for them anymore...they want more so they need some kind of superfical security blanket to keep the relationship going...

But if the relationship is not going so well anymore...why would you want to keep it going superficially?

I think that is sometimes what happens. Isn't love ENOUGH? Isn't caring ENOUGH? Why do you need to make a 'commitment' can't people just stay together because they Love and Care? Commitment seems more like fear, attachment to me. Love is more about compasion and letting go I think.

I think the attachment of commitment is a common by-product of the compassion of love. The 'Fear of losing' (the love) rather than the 'Joy of staying' (and keeping the love) IN ORDER to stay (and keep the love), etc. But maybe that's just me.

I don't think love is actually about attachment and I think commitment is actually a form of attachment. I think love is about compassion and I think compassion is actualylly a form of DEtachment (or 'letting go') in other words the opposite of attachment.

The LOVE of staying and keeping (compassion, DEtachnment, 'letting go') rather than the FEAR of going and losing (commitment, Attachment, 'holding on') - that is what I think love is about.

EvF

[chatpilot]

Considering the fact that the bible tends to look down on and degrade women,it's ironic how women in the majority are more devoted to religious beliefs and practices than men.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah. Perhaps it's fear because of how they've been treated over history, etc?

EvF