Marriage

[Edwardo Piet]

Good post Evie you kept it together there (don't mean to be condescending)

Thanks I try my best with the posting LOL

Condescending? Well don't apologise (if that IS what you're doing), not at all, feel entirely free (to me anyway, can't speak for others whatsoever of course).

Reproduction wins. Precisely. What was that study recently that modern humans are actually displaying evolutionary regression?

I think I heard something about such a study. Like DE-evolution are you referring to or something like that? I wasn't sure how strong it was though. May have kind of been borderline or a theory that wasn't particularly strong or something...I dunno. And partly - I forget.

Yup, good healthy Christian rationalising there! LOL

Lol

Natural is what happens naturally. It's not necessarily 'better' to an individual or indeed; not necessarily better to me personally. It's natural to do lots of things that we wouldn't do these days in modern life!!

Examples?

Ummm - well, by natural now I don't mean 'nature' because I believe EVERYTHING is natural in the sense we live in an entirely NATURAL (as opposed to supernatural) universe. I just mean like when someone says that in the stone age it was natural for people to be different to we are now, that that's the biologically natural way. That it's 'natural to crap your pants but that doesn't make it right' (not a very good example but I just want you to get what I mean) - in prehistory there were no laws and it was a lot more anarchic but that doesn't make that a good thing, etc.

And we naturally (as part of nature) have evolved to manipulate nature and manipulate ourselves to do UNnatural things.

Such as?!

Um, see above. I can't come up with many good examples I'm afraid but I just want you to get my drift.

Now, what's natural is often healthy and free. But not always - some things that are natural is frowned upon in modern times! (and has been for a lot longer than that). We as humans do a lot of UNnatural things that aren't always bad....

A lot of MEDICINE is unnatural. DENTISTRY is unnatural - but these things are good.

Really?!

Well (hard to detect the sarcasm again lol) - I mean natural as in the sense of what I talked about above (with my ATTEMPT at examples, etc) - I don't mean they aren't natural as in they're not part of the natural universe. Because I believe the natural universe is all there is, nature is all I know, etc. I.e.: I know of no evidence of the SUPERnatural.

Part of love IS trust yes. If you love someone you're more likely to trust them and I think if you trust them you're perhaps also more likely to love them...

You say there that you will trust, & then say you have a reason not to?

No I didn't say that. In the sense that I DO have a reason(/s) to trust but I don't know of a reason to trust ABSOLUTELY for I am agnostic about everything. But my trust can be as strong as I am certain that God and the FSM don't exist (so in a practical sense, 100% but I never claim absolute knowledge so I can't claim absolute trust. BECAUSE - it's possible for me to be wrong so I'm just being realistic).

What I meant was that love involves trust. It's an integral part. If you can't trust then you can't fully love.

I agree. But I don't need to trust anything absolutely. And that doesn't make my love any weaker than it makes my non-belief any weaker when I DISbelieve the FSM, God, etc if I felt they were ABSOLUTELY disproved. My disbelief is till practically 100% fucking strong. As my love and trust can be - it makes no practical (or remotely detectable) difference whatsoever - OTHER THAN simply having the added bonus of being more realistic Agnosticism is awesome - I will not claim ABSOLUTE knowledge or ABSOLUTE trust if I can't possibly realistically claim to know ABSOLUTELY such a thing or can't possibly realistically claim to know that I can ABSOLUTELY trust such a person.

Loving yourself is also important.

Of course. Personally more recently (i.e. this year at least) I no longer but other BEFORE me (on average) or AFTER me (on average). I treat myself like I would an outsider (in a biological sense at least, sometimes you get feelings BIOLOGICALLY that you can't necessarily control mentally 'of your own free will').

I treat myself equally to others, not greater, not less. BUT, if I feel I have done something wrong and I deserve the consequences I (at least temporarily) 'demote myself' lol. And the same for others. I think respect should be earnt. I respect everyone's common 'rights' in the first place though and treat someone with respect when I first meet them...BUT if they act very disrespectful or bad I demote them (at least somewhat) as I would myself if I were the same (at least temporarily).

So I treat self-love and love for others pretty much as one and the same now. I try and unite the two.

Yeah you're not perfect. Thing is accepting that you're not perfect and loving yourself 'despite' that is important.

. Indeed. And I've accepted this more and more over this past year. And this last few weeks I've felt brilliant and been doing great (I've also got steadily better over time in the last year or so, but this last few weeks particularly - I'm just so much more relaxed and 'at ease' - I'm doing good).

The only thing is PHYSICALLY I'm not doing so good but that's simply because I've got a pretty nasty cough and a bit of a bad cold since 2 days ago. Mentally I'm doing awesome though I'd say

In the mental health sense I mean at least. I'm not saying I'm (at least necessarily) particularly smart lol.

I can't think of this without thinking of my religious understanding. The Christian rationale about our inadequacies and how perfect love accepts and forgives that brings us closer to love. Sorry that's gonna throw you but I had to add it in.

Well, me and you (being British(?)) live in a 'Christian culture' so some of it is going to rub off on me. But you don't need to actually BELIEVE any of that stuff to pick any of it up of course. And many different cultures (and religions) have taught the same thing in different ways. I mean it all stems out of empathy and genuinely caring really..

Anyway, I myself agree with that way of living (the religion part taken out and just with that moral bit here) - I don't hold grudges. I forgive people. That is - I forgive people IF I've already blamed them. I don't forgive people when I can't because I never blamed them in the first place

To forgive you first have to blame. Forgiveness is good - but it would be better to not blame in the first place if you're going to forgive anyway yeah?

Funnily enough, kind of sounds like an analogy might work here...or at least some sort of semi- analogy lol.

To UNcommit from what's turned out to be a consistently unloving relationship you first have to commit. Commitment is good - but it would be better to not commit in the first place if there's a chance you could (perhaps quite easily, it's relatively common actually) 'break up' or divorce anyway.

: BUT you don't have to COMMIT to have a loving relationship. Just as you don't have to FORGIVE people to show that you're caring. You could always just not blame them in the first place - and I personally think that's better.

What's the point of blaming someone in the first place and then forgiving them if you could learn not to blame? What's the point of committing to someone in the first place and then breaking up (IF you DO break up I mean), UNcommitting if you could learn to just basically love the person? And love them whether they're with YOU or not?

If that makes any sense/helps you understand what I'm 'on about' lol?

I have a heart and I trust people and I have trust in myself. But I also have a brain and doubt people and have doubt in myself. I think both are valuable and both are healthy. I never trust anyone ABSOLUTELY that's true. But it's just the way I am - I wll never 'let go of my brain' (again :S). And I think that's a very good think.

Absolutely it'd be bad not to be realistic, not to have your eyes wide open. Again I think the words trust and love are interchangeable here.

Yeah, I think I pretty much agree. At least for arguments sake let's just say I do, not to get into any details there might be. They're too different words...but yeah, to love you need to trust.

Where did you get this warped IMHO idea that when people commit to each other they're doing it out of fear? That's completely arse about face IMO

Because they 'commit' because they want to 'stay' because they don't want to relationship 'to go' because they're attached. Now that's usually BECAUSE they love each other. But I think the fact that they feel this way because they love and care about here does not imply that they can't love and care about each other WITHOUT it. I think you can love and care about someone but still be detached from them and 'let go' of them (while them still being there PHYSICALLY and 'with you' emotionally).

And if you're not attached why would you commit? If you'd still be happy without them DESPITE how much you love them?

Perhaps my point is that I think that you can love someone enough so that you will love them EVEN IF they're not with YOU. So you don't need to commit, you can 'let go' you're not attached. You love them and feel for them, you'd prefer to be with them for the BOTH of you....BUT - you can still love them even if they're not with YOU (the hypothetical 'you' that is).

Yeah.. "care free and easy going" ..love is caring for another person - not being 'care free'.

Well. I care totally - perhaps it portrays what I mean better if I said WORRY free and easy going instead. In the sense that I don't worry about others WHEN - I know I can do nothing about it. Just like I don't constantly worry myself to death about all the horrible shit that goes on in the world, and all the suffering. DESPITE the fact I DO care deeply. I just don't worry when I know it does no good and I'd be better for myself AND OTHERS if I didn't worry about it.

Care free suggests someone avoiding commitment and responsibility.

What I mean is that I don't worry about people when they're beyond my control. And I know that a 'commitment' doesn't actually make any difference if the FEELINGS are the same. It might mean more to the OTHER person (because they see differently) but if they can love me WITHOUT it (as I do them) then I think that shows the love is stronger...and if we BOTH have that point of review - the relationship might actually have a chance of lasting LONGER! - It's just very uncommon that people quite have this attitude (in the same way) I think.

Now, I do not think that commitment implies responsibility. Perhaps responsibility often LEADS TO commitment....but I think if you're not 'committed' (or attached) then you have freedom to be MORE responsible.

Because if you're committed to a certain path or way or whatever for example....what do you do if the most responsible option goes AGAINST your 'commitment' and what (or who) you're attached to?

Do you stay committed even if in that case the option's LESS responsible? What if it's a BAD commitment? And if you DON'T stay committed then it wasn't exactly much of a committment was it? So why did you 'commit' (or attach yourself, cut-yourself off (however 'nice' it may be (or appear))) in the first place?

Such a person is scared to death of love, attachment and trust.

I'm certainly not SCARED of ANY of those things. I love love itself (but I'm not attached to it ) - and since you say that love is the opposite of fear......then I don't fear love but I 'love it' is perhaps the correct expression as opposed to fearing it! lol. I love love itself hehe.

Trust as I've said I agree with you is an important part of love. It's hard to love someone if you don't trust them.

Now, attachment. I do not see what's good about attachement. If you attach yourself then you're closing yourself off...it's like throwing away the key....BUT you can still UNattach yourself anyway!!

I mean....it's like locking away some items that 'mean a lot to you' but 'you don't need anymore' but you 'want to keep them in mint condition because they're very precious to you' and then throwing away they key.... - and then IF you DO change your mind....having to bash your way in to get the precious items when you could have just kept the key and unlocked it later when you change your mind....

Now throwing away the key may be a SIGN that you want to keep those 'precious items' in mint condition or whatever - that you really care about them so you don't want to spoil them in any way whatsoever or whatever....but you CAN just change your mind anyway it's just more difficult...

And if you can have the will to not get them back WITHOUT making it more difficult yourself by throwing away the key, attaching yourself, taking away your options and 'committing' to that decision - doesn't that show GREATER strength IF you CAN do that?

And like I said if you CAN just change your mind anyway you've just made it more difficult for yourself by committing and attaching, 'throwing away the key' - I think it's kind of superfical because it may be SAID to be a committment - but in reality it can be changed anyway and it would be cool if what's important to you could stay WITHOUT being attached, without 'throwing away the key' without committing.

Such a person would classically exist on short term relationships.

Commitment is a common way to show true love and long relationships often have 'commitment' 'attached' to them....

BUT I don't think it's the best. I think it's just a common way of showing it because most people DO LOVE the other person but they couldn't love them as much if they weren't with specficifically THEM for example. They are attached. Hence why they want/need 'commitment'.

I think it's possible and better to love without commitment and attachment. And to love someone FOR THEM with or without you. You'd really LOVE IT if they'd love YOU and be with YOU - but you still love them anyway regardless - that I think is stronger.

You love them and respect their decision to not be with you and you love and respect them even IF they don't love YOU.

You'd just love it if they WERE with you (obviously that would go without saying).

I think this that I speak of is stronger than attachment and commitment. I think it's compassion.

This seems like loving in the sense that a distant relative might love you. Without any attachment the things we trust other people for, daily practical things, wouldn't be possible. Love in the end creates families. Families are a trust group. Blood ties are strong. The binding glue is love.

You can trust without attachment.

I can trust people without being attached for example. I trust that they will help me and be loyal. But I'm not attached because if it turns out that I'm wrong I'm O.K with that.

Compassion suggests non attachment.

Indeed, I agree. That's why I think emotional attachment (or dependency) is a BAD thing (cos I'm all for compassion obviously).

I think it's better to have compassion for someone to be attached to them, or indeed - 'committed' to them. If you love someone and care about them (compassion) then isn't that enough? - You stay with them because of that?

To love outside yourself I think it helps to be confident and secure in your own loved status. If you're worried about your own relationships and need to focus on it because the trust has to be continually spontaneous, then surely your going to be far weaker when it comes to giving out love to others?

Of course. And if you can love without then you can love easier within too (at least in my experience).

Love on the inside helps the outside yes. And many say this. But in my experience it certainly goes both ways. If you love on the outside it also helps more within ( sometimes within is just like too close to reach in my experience. Sometimes I think you have to 'start' on the OUTside).

---

Had to DP lol:

I think quite often emotions attract opposite (or almost opposite) emotions that's the thing.

Hard to love someone without fearing for them for example and to still care deeply.

Nothing wrong with that though is there? If you love someone you also care about them. You're concerned for them. You don't want this?

I'm NOT suggesting that I don't want to care because I'd have to fear. I'm suggesting that it can be hard to care without fearing and worrying....but that it CAN be DONE.

I'm referring to 'Living together' as non commitment. Maybe incorrectly. It's a common phrase. That's what it appears to be to me, ie non commitment.

Well...if you can 'live together', deeply love each other, have a truly awesome long-lasting and meaningful relationship (and all the rest) WITHOUT commitment and being attached to each other - then I think that's pretty cool to say the least!!

Yes, sorry. That's entirely sarcastic.

Ok

EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

"BTW Did you know nearly all people living together state a desire to marry?"

Of course frodo that is how it is here in the states at least.Marriage is an institution that is ingrained in our earliest traditions.It's considered "the right thing to do" but in my case after 12 in a half years of marriage it turned out to be the biggest mistake of my life.But amidst all that shit I had to deal with I got two beautiful daughters out of it and that is something that made it all worth while.

Also,if you are married and staying in a marriage for the sake of the kids then you are in it for all the wrong reasons.I made that mistake too and in the long run it just does not work out.And depending on how it's handled it can be more damaging to the children than if you moved out of the home and still maintained a nice relationship with them.

Good post.I empathise.

I was also married for 12 years. She left. No kids,for which I'm exceedingly glad.

PS: Many Americans especially those who have spent little elsewhere, seem to think the rest of the world is or should be like the US. EG Marriage rates here have dropped significantly over the last generation,as the age at marriage has risen. I have never seen a claim that 'most' people living together want to get married.

The use of surveys to "prove" anything about the feelings or motivations of individuals,let alone large numbers of people is a notoriously problematic methodology on which to depend soley.

[Edwardo Piet]

Mostly @ Chatpilot.

Yes of course. There's also the fact that doing it 'just for the kids' can INDEED be worse...AT LEAST if only in the long run....

I mean if in the end you have to break up and divorce anyway; it's better for the kids it was done sooner or later really in a lot of cases.

BUT, it's not black or white still. There are cases when it MAY be best to stay in a n unloving relationship (temporarily anyway) because it would be the wrong time to break-up the relationship; that IF it was done then then it would screw the kids up and it's better to wait for another moment....perhaps when they're a bit older so the resulting stress of the breakup effects them less bad psychologically. And it's often worse for YOUNGER children when parents break-up I think (although perhaps not if they're VERY young - cos they might not even be old enough to remember then I guess - sad tho ).

But in the end staying together 'just for the kids' often leads to a break-up anyway (or if not it's still very sad a couple staying together for so long when they don't love each other, just 'tolerating' or whatever...at least until they 'grow up' anyway) - and sooner is often (perhaps not ALWAYS, but still..) better than later.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Reproduction wins. Precisely. What was that study recently that modern humans are actually displaying evolutionary regression?

I think I heard something about such a study. Like DE-evolution are you referring to or something like that? I wasn't sure how strong it was though. May have kind of been borderline or a theory that wasn't particularly strong or something...I dunno. And partly - I forget.

No there was this one guy who noticed the trend over very recent history.

No I didn't say that.

I made your two conflicting statements bold?

What I meant was that love involves trust. It's an integral part. If you can't trust then you can't fully love.

I agree. But I don't need to trust anything absolutely.

No one's asking for absolutes. You adhere to atheism, you state that's strong, but it isn't an absolute.

Good stuff


[quote=Evie]

I can't think of this without thinking of my religious understanding. The Christian rationale about our inadequacies and how perfect love accepts and forgives that brings us closer to love. Sorry that's gonna throw you but I had to add it in.

Well, me and you (being British(?))

Yep

Anyway, I myself agree with that way of living (the religion part taken out and just with that moral bit here) - I don't hold grudges. I forgive people. That is - I forgive people IF I've already blamed them. I don't forgive people when I can't because I never blamed them in the first place

To forgive you first have to blame. Forgiveness is good - but it would be better to not blame in the first place if you're going to forgive anyway yeah?

Blame suggests not necessarily guilty. I've worked in a blame culture and it's not nice. You have to watch your back as the innocent are fair game. Actual guilt of crime deserves punishment, and that's when forgiveness comes into play. You can even forgive yourself.

To UNcommit from what's turned out to be a consistently unloving relationship you first have to commit. Commitment is good - but it would be better to not commit in the first place if there's a chance you could (perhaps quite easily, it's relatively common actually) 'break up' or divorce anyway.

: BUT you don't have to COMMIT to have a loving relationship. Just as you don't have to FORGIVE people to show that you're caring. You could always just not blame them in the first place - and I personally think that's better.

What's the point of blaming someone in the first place and then forgiving them if you could learn not to blame? What's the point of committing to someone in the first place and then breaking up (IF you DO break up I mean), UNcommitting if you could learn to just basically love the person? And love them whether they're with YOU or not?

If that makes any sense/helps you understand what I'm 'on about' lol?

Tennyson: "It's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all"

You don't have to commit to have a loving relationship. You don't have to do anything. It's that you want to do it. It just happens. To not commit you'd have to go against what you wanted and stop yourself from committing. Deny your instinct.

Sour old spinsters talk about not trusting themselves to be hurt again. they shy away from commitment because they remember the pain of separation. What they're doing is preventing themselves from living and enjoying life.

I have a heart and I trust people and I have trust in myself. But I also have a brain and doubt people and have doubt in myself. I think both are valuable and both are healthy. I never trust anyone ABSOLUTELY that's true. But it's just the way I am - I wll never 'let go of my brain' (again :S). And I think that's a very good think.

Nothing wrong with realism and a level head. Love demands your brain sometimes!

And if you're not attached why would you commit? If you'd still be happy without them DESPITE how much you love them?

Perhaps my point is that I think that you can love someone enough so that you will love them EVEN IF they're not with YOU. So you don't need to commit, you can 'let go' you're not attached. You love them and feel for them, you'd prefer to be with them for the BOTH of you....BUT - you can still love them even if they're not with YOU (the hypothetical 'you' that is).

Love them enough to let them go. Yeah. Personally it isn't even an issue because the trust is a given. To trust to the extreme could also be a lack of caring. But I know what you're saying. The ultimate sacrifice would to be to let your love go. Nothing wrong with that, isn't it just another way of expressing love. This doesn't discount commitment though. You can't dismiss one with the other.

Now, attachment. I do not see what's good about attachement. If you attach yourself then you're closing yourself off...it's like throwing away the key....BUT you can still UNattach yourself anyway!!

Yep exactly... you throw away the key. You say 100% I'm in. You may be mistaken sure, things may go sour, who knows. You have to commit first though, or you'd never find out.

I mean....it's like locking away some items that 'mean a lot to you' but 'you don't need anymore' but you 'want to keep them in mint condition because they're very precious to you' and then throwing away they key.... - and then IF you DO change your mind....having to bash your way in to get the precious items when you could have just kept the key and unlocked it later when you change your mind....

No, that's the opposite of love. That's what the old spinster is doing. Locking away the key out of fear. It's the same the other way around. Both limit life.

And if you can have the will to not get them back WITHOUT making it more difficult yourself by throwing away the key, attaching yourself, taking away your options and 'committing' to that decision - doesn't that show GREATER strength IF you CAN do that?

No. You always have options. You have the choice to stay non committal on everything. Again, where is life?

I think this that I speak of is stronger than attachment and commitment. I think it's compassion.

Compassion is fine in it's place. Love is what your built for.

I think it's better to have compassion for someone to be attached to them, or indeed - 'committed' to them. If you love someone and care about them (compassion) then isn't that enough? - You stay with them because of that?

No way.

Well...if you can 'live together', deeply love each other, have a truly awesome long-lasting and meaningful relationship (and all the rest) WITHOUT commitment and being attached to each other - then I think that's pretty cool to say the least!!

You could look back on your relationship and say "WoW! Weren't we committed and attached"

[Edwardo Piet]

I like this thread

No I didn't say that.

I made your two conflicting statements bold?

And they don't conflict.

In the first one I say trust is important. In the second I say that I don't even trust MYSELF absolutely - they key word being absolutely. They don't conflict because I'm all FOR trust like I said in the first statement....I just don't trust ABSOLUTELY - and as I have read you say later in your post that I'm replying to here - you don't expect absolute trust. Well fine, I was just saying that even trust and love can be too absolute so that's why I don't commit. Because if commitment can never be known absolutely then no matter how certain you ARE that your 'commitment' will last forever - you could STILL break up and STILL UNcommit; or still get a divorce. So if you could be wrong because LOVE and TRUST are NOT absolute despite how they can feel that way - why commit yourself if you could love all the same without it and it's going to cause more difficulty UNcommitting if it DOES turn out that you're wrong? AND as I have said, if you can stay together and have at least a just as fantastic and long-lasting relationship WITHOUT committing - then doesn't that show you have less attachment and fear of losing each other and because the relationship is still fanastic, isn't that stronger?

If you can stay together with LESS doesn't that show that each other matters MORE? Because you don't need superficial bullshit to love each other? You don't need attachment, you don't need to commit, you just need each other?

Sure, you can WANT it.....but I think WHY would you want to commit if you can show your love for each other for just as long without feeling attached and simply appreciating each other to the MAX instead?

This is just how [ feel about it remember. If some people are happier committing then some people are happier committing! I mean duh! Fair enough! I just think that if you can love each other the same and for just as long WITHOUT commitment and attacment then that's even stronger - and perhaps love without a lot of the complications that go along with it (which I personally think stem from attachment with stems from fear. And that commitment is actually a form of attachment that is just a common way of expressing love. But love itself is where the actual Love IS - not commitment).

No one's asking for absolutes. You adhere to atheism, you state that's strong, but it isn't an absolute.

That's right

Good stuff

Ty lol

Well, me and you (being British(?))

Yep

I was pretty damn sure you were British. I read elsewhere on these forums I think (or at least some indications of it, sorry if I forget stuff :S).

Blame suggests not necessarily guilty. I've worked in a blame culture and it's not nice.

I agree. It sux.

You have to watch your back as the innocent are fair game. Actual guilt of crime deserves punishment, and that's when forgiveness comes into play. You can even forgive yourself.

I say that a person can be punished for a crime deservedly without having to blame them. Simply because they're fucking others up.

I would forgive myself in things....I have in perhaps 1 or two things but I can't remember what they were actually LOL - probably because I never really blame in the first place any more!

I tend to not forgive myself or others - because I can't because I never blame in the first place! You can only forgive someone if you blamed them in the first place - I think to not blame in the first place is better than to forgive afterwards...

Tennyson: "It's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all"

But it's even better to have loved and despite having lost them in the sense you're no longer in a relationship with them - to still feel like they're with you and that you haven't really lost them; and to still feel love with them despite the fact they're not actually with you - as if you never lost the love and you only lost them in the sense they're no longer with YOU.

Lol - I never thought I'd find myself 'sort of' arguing against that quote (or rather - around, to find something even better) in such a strange way .

While it IS better to loved and to have lost than to never have loved at all. I think it's better to lose the relationship but never lose the feeling - and not love someone less for simply not loving/liking you in particular any more.

Giving love for the sake of it without expecting it in return but still not being a pushover

You don't have to commit to have a loving relationship. You don't have to do anything.

Indeed.

It's that you want to do it.

depends on the person. And I'm saying that I simply think that if you CAN do without it then that's an indication of one more thing you don't need because it's superficial in comparison to Love itself. Love itself is what love is about IMO - commitment is a very common form of attachment that people express when they feel love - but that doesn't imply that if they can feel that love and be loyal and stay together, just as strong and for just as long WITHOUT it that it would be less than WITH it. I think commitment gets in the way because people commit because they're attached or they attach because they're committed. Wouldn't it be better to have the same TRUE love (not attachment IOW; Love) without it because you'd have more freedom because you're not committed because you're not attached?

I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that I think that attachment is a bad thing when it comes to love; and now what love's really about. And I think people commit because they're attached and attach because they're committed - I think commitment is a form of attachment and hence bad, because as I said - when it comes to love I think attachment is bad.

So I wonder, do you think

1. Attachment is part of (and/or a GOOD part of) love?

Or do you think

2.Attachment detracts from Love and it's better if people can be together and love each other WITHOUT feeling attached and yet still stay together just as long and the love being just as strong?

I atleast; personally think 2.

It just happens. To not commit you'd have to go against what you wanted and stop yourself from committing. Deny your instinct.

Not if you don't want commitment because you think love is ideally better off without it because it's a form of attachment and hence LESS free and MORE closed-off.

Sour old spinsters talk about not trusting themselves to be hurt again. they shy away from commitment because they remember the pain of separation. What they're doing is preventing themselves from living and enjoying life.

But shying away from commitment doesn't actually imply shying away from relationships you know? Nor does it imply that you will necessarily have a less LONG or meaningful relationship. It just means you're not planning a head for a 'commitment' - you could stay together for very long and have an excellent relationship simply because you love each other so much! You wouldn't HAVE to plan to stay forever when that could end up going wrong anyway! Besides, getting your hopes up could have a NEGATIVE effect. Idealistic thinking can lead to frustration.

Shy away because of remembering the pain of separation? Hm...sounds like UNcommitting after many years of commitment to me! If this hypothetical person had been in such a relationship without making a commitment (as it sounds most like what had happened by what you said) perhaps he wouldn't have felt so hurt afterwards! And who knows, perhaps if he hadn't expected such a commitment the relationship would have worked better? Maybe he was too attached (or committed ) so his partner UNattached (or uncommitted)?

Nothing wrong with realism and a level head. Love demands your brain sometimes!

Sometimes? I would THINK it would be always actually (based on what I think you mean that anyway) - but I don't claim to know that absolutely

I mean - the feeling of love comes from the brain doesn't it? So it always requires the brain...

And if you mean that a loving relationship requires thought - of course it does, you'd be dead without thought! If you mean intelligent thought, well, I'd say pretty much always because Love is pretty complicated! Emotional intelligence can be at least as demanding as intellectual intelligence I say.

---

Love them enough to let them go. Yeah. Personally it isn't even an issue because the trust is a given. To trust to the extreme could also be a lack of caring.

Perhaps it could yeah. That's why I don't ABSOLUTELY trust anything or anyone (including myself). And if someone is the sort of person to ABSOLUTELY trust then it sounds to me like that person is rather cocky or at least ignorant and overly idealistic. Such a person might be quite careless because it's harder to care if you let go of part of your brain. In this case it would be the part that you could be using to realise that you could be wrong!! You can't rationally ABSOLUTELY trust or know something because it could be wrong.

But I know what you're saying. The ultimate sacrifice would to be to let your love go. Nothing wrong with that, isn't it just another way of expressing love.

I agree. Although if you don't hold on in the first place you can still experience ALL the love but without the sadness of letting go

This doesn't discount commitment though. You can't dismiss one with the other.

Well you can't 'let go' and endure that sadness yet acceptance (the 'better to love and to have lost than to never have loved at all' thing) if you don't hold on in the first place! It's better to 'let go' and accept - to have loved and to have lost than to have never loved at all - than to not commit in the first place. But it's even better than to experience the same love and for just as long WITHOUT the commitment and attachment! If you lose the love THEN then it wouldn't feel as bad and you don't have to fear losing the person DURING either yet you still love them just as much!! You love them for them and not for them WITH YOU - if they're with you then that's just a bonus lol .

It's better to have loved and to have lost than to never to have loved at all, and if you lose your relationship but not your love for them despite the fact they're not with you specifically - then it never quite feels like you lost them - you still love them; but for them and not for them with you.

Yep exactly... you throw away the key. You say 100% I'm in. You may be mistaken sure, things may go sour, who knows. You have to commit first though, or you'd never find out.

OR you could close the door but keep it unlocked and keep the key. And show that you love the person so much that you CHOOSE to not unlock the door (and perhaps walk through it and 'leave them' might work here lol) rather than simply not being CAPABLE of doing so because you 'threw away the key' ( which is a form of self-sabotage arguably IMHO, regardless if it's done in love or in 'best intentions' I don't think it's part of love itself just because it's a common way of expressing it.). You love them so much that you can stay together and continuously CHOOSE not to abandon them rather than simply have committed so it is very difficult for you to even if you wanted to (in which case if you don't leave them it might actually be because you've made it hard FOR you to leave - so the fact you're not leaving is less of an indication that it's actually because of love. Whereas if you didn't commit in the first place but you're not leaving then that's much more likely to be out of LOVE that you're not leaving - because it's less difficult for you to leave if you wanted to! So it's not simply because of the problems it would cause IF you left!)

I mean....it's like locking away some items that 'mean a lot to you' but 'you don't need anymore' but you 'want to keep them in mint condition because they're very precious to you' and then throwing away they key.... - and then IF you DO change your mind....having to bash your way in to get the precious items when you could have just kept the key and unlocked it later when you change your mind....

No, that's the opposite of love. That's what the old spinster is doing. Locking away the key out of fear. It's the same the other way around. Both limit life.

Locking AWAY the key? Are you referring to KEEPING the key, like keeping it locked away safely with ANOTHER key as the lock? Or are you referring to what I said, THROWING AWAY the key?

Well, KEEPING the key, what's wrong with that? It means you have more of a choice. A choice to use it or to not use it. If you throw it away then you can only NOT use it (because you don't have it) so that's LESS choice.

And if you can have the will to not get them back WITHOUT making it more difficult yourself by throwing away the key, attaching yourself, taking away your options and 'committing' to that decision - doesn't that show GREATER strength IF you CAN do that?

No. You always have options. You have the choice to stay non committal on everything.

I do

Again, where is life?

Huh? Did I miss a meeting? Did you ask this question before? I didn't see it.

Compassion is fine in it's place. Love is what your built for.

Well compassion is when you care for people and you FEEL IT - right? Love contains this too...and/or other aspects of love.

I THINK genuine almost unbounded (or at least seemingly lol) compassion is the most profound aspect of love, I can't think of another aspect of love that's MORE profound, and probably not equal too either? Not right now at least anyway. Can you?

I think it's better to have compassion for someone to be attached to them, or indeed - 'committed' to them. If you love someone and care about them (compassion) then isn't that enough? - You stay with them because of that?

No way.

Lol. To each his own. I mean I think if there was a minimum standard it would be a hell of a lot of compassion, without commitment. Commitment without compassion on the other hand I think would be really shit. Committing to each other despite you don't feel any compassion for each other! And I personally think if it was simply the two things that could be in a relationship...I think compassion ALONE is better than compassion + commitment - if only because commitment means you're 'committed' so you might have you're hopes too high and have less of a focus on the present. And it's harder to leave an UNcompassionate relationship if you're 'committed' too. And you can love each other for just as long without commitment.

If you can love whilst being in the moment and STILL keep it going surely that's better than committing, planning ahead and thinking of the future and how it could go wrong (attachment) , or if not that how it WON'T go wrong and expecting it to NOT and then being in for a shock IF it does and you have to UNcommit (shock of detachment that comes after years of attachment).

Well...if you can 'live together', deeply love each other, have a truly awesome long-lasting and meaningful relationship (and all the rest) WITHOUT commitment and being attached to each other - then I think that's pretty cool to say the least!!

You could look back on your relationship and say "WoW! Weren't we committed and attached"

OR:

You could have never been attached but simply split up naturally, decided to, or decided it's for the best. You could still love each other all the same but decide it's best to not be in a relationship anymore. Or if you're partner has stopped loving you and left you then you can still love them back because you were never attached or committed so the detachment or uncommitting - didn't upset you so much that you stopped loving THEM, you just can no longer love them WITH you but you can still love them WITHOUT you - because ULTIMATELY you love them for them and not just for them with YOU.

And vice-versa. Hopefully (ideally I think) if it was the other way around they'd be the same way about you.

EvF

[chatpilot]

EvF staying together for the kids in a bad relationship is in my view a bad idea.I feel that if you have a strong bond with your children and maintain that bond no matter what that things will turn out alright.When you stay in a relationship that is just not working or is beyond repair then you are in essence sacrificing your life and your future happiness.It goes both ways since the wife or gf is doing the same thing.She wants to move on and you want to do the same but because of the kids you are willing to endure each other.Believe it or not kids can pretty much sense when things are not going good between mom and dad and that can have deliterious effects on them in the future and in their own relationships when they grow up.

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree with you but I think it's not entirely Black and White...

In SOME cases I can imagine it being better to postpone for when the kids (depending on their age) would be less distressed by the split up. For 'when the time is right', etc.

But yes, of course - staying in an unloving relationship in and of itself AT LEAST is NOT a good thing. AND in AT LEAST a LOT of cases (the majority I'd argue, yes) - splitting up sooner rather than later is better for the kids TOO. Because not only will living with their parents not loving each other any more be very tough - but their parents splitting up LATER after they're so used to their parents being together would probably be more distressing than if it happened sooner.

So I almost COMPLETELY agree with you...but I still think there must be SOME exceptions however rare....

But even with those exceptions of course. You CERTAINLY wouldn't want the unloving relationship to stay that way till the END! Who would want that!??! Just perhaps in SOME cases (however rare) a BIT later MAY be better if the 'time isn't right' earlier...

I guess I don't really believe in absolutes in many cases ( or all(?)) this being included. It's not ALL black and white I think at least.

EvF

[chatpilot]

You are right EvF it's is not all black and white there are many factors to consider and breaking up when children are in gthe middle is a big decision with long term effects on all parties involved.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah. Sorry for being pedantic I was just clarifying to see if you thought there were at least ANY exceptions at least EVER

Again sorry for the pedantry.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Excellent debate though Evie Rep++