Pacts with the devil

Post Reply New Topic

I see most people around me have made some "pact with the devil", at least one, in order to lead the lives they lead. Is this an NT thing, I wonder, since it's so alien to me???

By "pact with the devil" I mean paying a high price in terms of genuineness, caring, being true to oneself, and the like.

Examples of people I know well:

1. Sue has a comfortable economic level, a group of friends at her level, a husband of many years, 3 lovely kids, a nice house, 2 cars, a dog, trips allover the world, etc. Pact with the devil: Sue allows her husband to dictate who she may relate to and care about and who she may not. She's only allowed to relate to people whom her husband considers beneficial for HIM. Her parents and sister had to go, for example.

2. Tom is a renowned doctor, he's well-educated, has a family who love him and are proud of him, a comfortable lifestyle, friends and a community who hold him in high regard and esteem. He was the only one of the siblings who got an education, paid by their father, and that because he was the only sibling who agreed to severe contact with their (poor) mother when the parents divorced and the father demanded it. Tom didn't visit his mother even in her death bed. His father had promised him a wonderful position at the main hospital a couple months before.

3. Laila has a rich, loving husband and her in-laws adore her, take care of their kids when the couple travel abroad, etc. Laila is an office clerk. She had a promising dancing career, which she abandoned because her husband (back then boyfriend)'s parents didn't agree to him marrying a dancer, and had started influencing him against her.

I think that everyone is confronted with difficult choices, and they sometimes sacrifice the things they want for things they need. They sometimes do one thing they don't like (maybe even 'wrong' on one level) to get something else. Sometimes it is because they are weak. Sometimes because they are selfish. Sometimes they settle into those choices so slowly that they aren't fully aware of it.

It's like being given a choice of 2 candidates, and neither one is perfect. You pick one based on an overall package, but on some issues you might be choosing someone you disagree with. You just disagree with that person less than the alternative.

Personally, I don't understand any of your points. As I cannot really grasp what "being true to oneself" or "being yourself" means, as I find it illogical and perhaps tautological (one is always, by definition, oneself), I'm probably not the best person to answer to your question.

Still I looked at your examples anyway. In all 3 examples you present people that, as it seems, made a very good choice. They gained wealth, a good grade of security and not only spread their genes through several kids, but made sure that they have good starting conditions, too. I can not find anything wrong with that. It is quite an achievement.
You do not seem to disagree so far, but continue that they all paid a price for that that seems to be very bad, perhaps even worse than the gain.

Sue gave up relationships that were unimportant. Her gain shows that she did not suffer significantly. I understand that I have virtually no worth or empathy for other people, unless I gain something from them. So I'm not in a good position to argue that not having something I can not experience anyway is bad. Still, it is silly to regret a good choice. If I play poker, I play to win and I'm happy about every good card I gain and every bad I lose, even if I may have liked it anyway.

Tom and Laila made a similar decision: they bonded with influential people and gave up on those without much power or bad ideas. Whenever you buy something, you choose the product that gives you the most value for the least amount of money. Why not when choosing a relationship? Makes perfect sense to me.

Even if you make the case that they may not end up as happy as they possibly could, I do not find it convincing. Being happy without money and without security is possible, of course, but very hard. The opposite is a lot easier. Not being able to do what you want seems a lot worse than being bored. A lot. But even if they were happier otherwise, that does not matter. I find it logical that progress and survival are primary goals for most humans. Happiness only barely influences those two. So why consider it in one's decisions? Also, I'd rather have my ancestors store up on wealth, a good organisation and healthy genes than being happy artists that can not withstand any disaster, if you excuse the dramatic exaggeration.

-Stefan

whoa,those situations also include a sacrifice of freedom. dumping a promising career cos your boyfriends parents didn't like it, not seeing your parents or sister as your partner won't let u, or not seeing your mother on her deathbed cos your father won't let u.

how unfair, how could u sacrifice your family or a promising career just cos of your partner?
How could anyone control another person that way? seems awful to me.

"Sue allows her husband to dictate who she may relate to and care about and who she may not. She's only allowed to relate to people whom her husband considers beneficial for HIM. Her parents and sister had to go, for example."

Why the hell does she allow that?

"Tom is a renowned doctor, he's well-educated, has a family who love him and are proud of him, a comfortable lifestyle, friends and a community who hold him in high regard and esteem. He was the only one of the siblings who got an education, paid by their father, and that because he was the only sibling who agreed to severe contact with their (poor) mother when the parents divorced and the father demanded it. Tom didn't visit his mother even in her death bed. His father had promised him a wonderful position at the main hospital a couple months before."

Perhaps Tom didn't want to visit his mother. Perhaps he didn't like her any more than his father did.

"Laila has a rich, loving husband and her in-laws adore her, take care of their kids when the couple travel abroad, etc. Laila is an office clerk. She had a promising dancing career, which she abandoned because her husband (back then boyfriend)'s parents didn't agree to him marrying a dancer, and had started influencing him against her."

That sounds like, excuse me, crap. If Laila had a promising career she should have, would have, told the whole lot to piss up a rope. Now she's an office clerk? Naw that doesn't make any sense.
I'm pretty sure that, for the most part, people do what they want. It's just that most people aren't very imaginative about how they chose to live their lives.
Mundane complacency is a club that is always looking for new members, and people are lining up to join.

I never understood people like this. Sacrificing your independence, integrity, and self-respect for money that you don't need makes absolutely no sense.

Consider Sue. Why does she allow her husband to control her like that? Apparently, she's afraid that if she did, her husband would leave her and she'd lose her affluent lifestyle. So what? I bet she could make enough money on her own to keep a roof over her head, food on her table, etc. so why doesn't she tell him to piss off? She's sacrificing things she needs (independence, self-respect, integrity) for things she doesn't (foreign vacations, an ostentatious home, etc.) She is an idiot, plain and simple.

Consider Tom. Is it really right to assume that his mother was such a horrible person? If that's true, then why was Tom the only one who took the father up on his little deal? If Tom had any honor, he would have told his father off in no uncertain terms, worked his way through college, and succeeded on his own. What, was the prospect of having to actually earn his way in the world rather than just getting everything handed to him that daunting a prospect? Not only does he have no honor, but he is a coward as well.

Consider Laila. Why didn't her then-boyfriend stand up to his parents, and inform them of the facts of the matter -- i.e. that this is his life, whom he marries is his choice, and that they need to butt out? What a worthless excuse of a man! Why did she marry him, when he's clearly a cowardly little boy who not only lets his parents run his life, but sees nothing wrong with them running hers, as well? Oh well, at least they're well-matched... both of them are spineless weasels.

I think this kind of thing may eventually cause the people involved a lot of guilt/stress.

I can't really explain the term 'being true to yourself', it's more a feeling you get when you do something for short-term gain that goes against your conscience, or what you really feel is right. That's the only way I can describe it. It's a personal thing between you and yourself, and it doesn't matter how the world sees it. It's your own personal intergrity, and if you go against it for too long, you suffer.