Is a lack of committed love wrong or just different?

Post Reply New Topic

Curious. It seems like there are a lot of men with this trait, or "commitment issues" as they say. But also plenty of women. As women become more liberated from traditionalism, it seems you see more and more women expressing thoughts like this too.

Why does there have to be right or wrong? The idea that there is one way to conduct relationships, or that "love" is an ideal for everyone, seems like a type of sexism imposed by some women on both men and women.

It may also tie into the "slut shaming" that some conservative women use to bully more progressive women. It also ties into the bashing of the PUA movement we see on this site. I used to think PUA was stupid, until I saw the content of some of the attacks against, which sound judgmental.

Last edited by Tyri0n on 13 May 2013, 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So long as both parties agree that the relationship won't be committed, I don't see a problem. Although, I would suggest that they be careful when it comes to STDs. Or STIs, if you want to call them that.

Commitmentphobe right here!

I can only speak of my case - but in my case, often it's a way, usually the only way to make sure the said person doesn't become more entitled than they already are, randomly heap expectations on me that I never agreed to, doesn't try to interfere or control my private life, don't take me for granted, and doesn't get crazy jealous / possessive or territorial than they already are. Most of the time, I've found it's the only way to keep those traits in check - is by not having any agreed "commitment" there.

Now, most people have those traits, so it's not as simple as "well just go and find someone not like that" because there would be very few people left.
But I have found that those are the main issues that cause relationships to fail, so at the moment, that is my way of keeping a handle on them.

If those issues weren't a problem them I probably wouldn't be avoiding commitment. But it takes a rare person with their head screwed on straight that won't get like that as soon as some kind of commitment is there.

And is the average marriage, which ends in divorce, committed?

There's no such thing as a committed type of relationship - there's just people who want to stay together and people who don't

I don't think I've ever felt anything other than lust Never "passionate love" or "committed love" or whatever else there is...

I wish there were more people here who understood loyalty.

I don't think it's about loyalty. I think some people are very loving & naturally have strong feelings for more than one person at a time. Society doesn't accept this kind of person & they try to be something they aren't, very often, to make someone they love happy, but it destroys them inside, because they aren't being honest.

It would really be beneficial to society as a whole for people to honestly consider who they are... what their sexual orientation really is.... & what their relationships needs really are... before they get in over their heads.

I know that there are disloyal people... but I also know many of these disloyal people tried to avoid marriage in the first place, but were nagged or threatened until they felt they had to. I know of some men whose wives got pregnant on purpose in rather conniving ways & then they felt they had to. Of course, I think it is better for someone to just buck up & say marriage isn't for them... but for some reason, people love someone & try to be someone they aren't.... & everyone gets hurt in the end.

Monogamy is wonderful for some people. But for others, it's like fitting into a very tight suit & being strangled at the same time. Loyalty is wonderful for many people... But being yourself... that's good for everybody. :)

I understand loyalty very well.
Usually I am very committed and loyal in terms of actions - I just avoid the verbal agreement and label that goes with it which makes it "official".
Being a commitmentphobe does not necessarily mean that someone isn't loyal.

Just different. As long as both people know what's going on, whatever they are happy with that they find fulfilling & mutually agree upon is the best thing to do.

I'm not sure if you are mainly referring to the lack of love or the lack of commitment. These are my thoughts, only, of course. Many people think differently & I don't hate them for it. :)

1. Lack of Commitment

If there is an emotional relationship, sometimes a lack of commitment is the only thing that keeps certain people from cheating & the only thing that makes them feel free & comfortable enough to HAVE feelings for others. I've seen lots of people have successful open or polyamorous relationships. If both (or all) people like the arrangement & both (or all) people are happy, & people are 100% honest, it seems to work out great.

I never like people pressuring others into commitments, because they will lose something... & that always happens. Some people have to decide, do I love this person more or a notion of commitment more? When they choose the commitment & make someone choose, they lose someone they love & are heartbroken.

I think part of loving someone is helping them to have what he/she needs in life & the kind of relationship that leads to his/her ultimate happiness... or sometimes a total lack of labels altogether, depending on the person.

B. Lack of Love

If the mention of the arguments about PUA's includes mine, you read me wrong. I don't judge people for having casual sex & never have. You don't know me well enough to assume anything beyond the truth, that I judge people, males & females, for following manipulative tactics in a way that deceives & therefore abuses others. There is an ocean of difference between the two.

Just because being casual isn't for me, doesn't meant that I don't think it's fine if it works for people.

This is a win-win if both parties understand & don't have feelings for each other. It keeps people from having to live a farce if they only want to have sex. It removes the temptation to act like a bf or gf when someone isn't one. Some people aren't romantic. They aren't wired that way. They don't need it. They don't want it. It may destabilize them. Who knows? There are tons of reasons someone might want to be single. It makes perfect sense if they find someone in the same situation who has the same needs to have some kind of mutually beneficial & consensual agreement.

--
When someone says that he/she wants love, then gives up & settles for casual sex, I do try to talk them into keeping the faith, but it is because they are naturally inclined to something more romantic & that typically it hurts anyone to be in a relationship that goes against their grain- whether it is a casual one OR a committed one.

If somebody always posted about how they were polyamorous, then said they had a bf or gf pressuring them into monogomy, I'd try to talk whoever that was into sticking with who they really are, too. Or, if someone is casual only & suddenly decides he wants to marry... I'd try to help this person think hard first, too!

--

So, why you keep talking about "slut-shaming," because I haven't heard anybody here call anybody a slut? You're the only person that keeps saying that. I've never heard ANY woman, conservative or otherwise call ANY OTHER woman a slut. I have heard men frequently call women sluts, though. I don't think women are as horrible to each other as you claim. It's strange that you are obsessed with this concept, when you are the only person (other than me) that I've noticed shaming anybody, namely religious people for their beliefs. I saw about your family & I had a fundamentalist preacher for a grandfather, so I get it, but that isn't apple's fault. =/ If you want people to respect your desire for casual sex is there any reason, people shouldn't respect his idea to marry a woman he truly loves in a church? Can't he be different instead of wrong, too?

I am guilty of "liar-shaming," yes, because lying (or even pulling the wool over someone's eyes) is a pretty horrible thing to do. It's antisocial. I feel I have a duty towards society to at least point it out when someone is doing something hurtful to themselves or others. I have to at least try. The higher the stakes, the worse lying is. But besides you or me, I didn't see anybody shaming anybody. And having sex didn't have to do with either case. People were really nice about it. And I didn't mean to shame YOU. or anybody on the site. I meant to shame PUA's. If you don't deceive anybody, I didn't actually shame you at all. I kind of figured if you were an Aspie, there was a good chance you were better & smarter than that, so I didn't actually lump you into a category of people who actually do that, since coming from me, that's kind of an insult.

ok... i really am going now. lol

Just different.
I only see it as wrong if you're pretending to be more committed than you actually are.

There is no wrong or right in relations. There are persons that are in relations, and these are they only ones who have to set up terms of wrong of right for their relationship. What use has a relationship with someone, that is "right" according to society, but that doesnt fulfill the partners needs? The involved persons have to talk about their deeds and needs and find out whats for them important to have in a relationship or not. And if their needs are to different, you shouldnt push on each other, but simply accept that one of both wouldnt be happy in the relationship, and so there is no sense to form a relationship. Its not important if the needs of that person are normal, the only important thing is that a relationship exists to make the involved people happy. (Anyway how many there are.) So if everyone involved agrees, there is no bad thing about having a three person relationship or an "open" relationship or whatever.

Loyalty does not mean that you always have to have sex with one person. Loyalty means that if you agreed with your partner to do so, that you have to act in the way you agree with him.

But there is no "normal" to relie on. You have to find out what you want to be normal in your relationship, by talking with the in the partnership involved people. So my partner watches pornos from now to then at the computer, when I am not at home. He isnt hiding it or anything, so I know it, he doesnt hide the homepages or whatever. I simply dont care for it, so for me he is simply horny, I am not at home, and to make it easier for him he is watching to women he dont know, he will never know, and that are actors showing a show anyway. So they are not real and what they show is not real, and I simply dont feel myself threatened by that in anyway. Its fantasy. So because noone feels hurted by that, it is normal for us and nobody thinks about it. While on the other side, a couple that are friends of us, the female part of them feels frightened very easy. So she is unsecure of herself and of the relationship, and feels herself threatened when her partners watches other woman. She thinks that him watching other women means that he might be generally interested in other women, "real" ones. ^^ And because a relationship means at least caring for the feelings of another person, it means that watching porn is not supposed to be normal in their relationship. Not because its about watching porn, but because its about respecting the needs of each other partner.

So stop caring about whats normal and how you should have a relationship, according to society. Because the only normality and rules for an relationship, that are important are the ones created by the involved peoples feelings and needs.

But this also means that there can be no pushing or forcing how someone shall act or not. Accept your own needs, but also accept those of your partners the way they are. And if your needs dont fit together then also accept that and end the relationships, instead of trying to push the partner to ignore his/her needs.

So if you say to youself, that you are not into that love thing and cant see yourself fitting into social expectation of relationships, there is no problem with it as long as you dont force that feelings of yours, to a person that doesnt agree with your feelings and needs. I understand you. When that whole teenagerstuff started I wanted to fit in and agreed into relationship stuff, but simply didnt feel it they way I was expected. So I did "like" my partners, but I was not expected to like them but to adore them, to love them, to praise the ground they are walking on, to agree in everything my partners says, because thats how people think that people in a fresh love feel inside them naturally. And I simply didnt feel that way, which lead to many disappointments. I was disappointed of myself because of not being able to feel as I should, my partners were disappointed...

Until I simply accepted my feelings they way they are, that there are boys I really like, that there are also ones that I had sexual interest in, but that there were simply none that I was interested to have an relationship with them that fitted into social standards. There is nothing bad about it, as long as you are honest with it and dont trick someone. If this is what you are interested in, then say so. And accept if people have other deeds, so dont try to convince them of your deeds, dont push on them, simply try to find people that agree with you, because of having the same needs on their own.

Nothing bad about it. Loyalty means to care for "the contract" you did with another person. Whats in that contract depends on you and your partner. If you dont want to be monogam, then dont agree with a person to have it as a part of your contract. And accept if a person says, that to be happy, she/he needs monogamy as part of the contract. Because other people have the same right to search for relation ship partner that fits to them, as you do.

So as example, I had no problems with one night stands, I had no problems with friends with benefits...but when I finally agree to an relationship, monogamy is for me part of that contract. That doesnt mean that relationships, where partners agree that they dont need monogamy as part of their relationships are wrong for me or anything. They are simply other people and have other needs, and as I need the stuff I need to be happy, they need the stuff they need to be happy. And being happy is whats having an relationship is about.

I would be loyal...in the event that I find anyone

It seems nowadays if you do want to be traditional, and marry, and stuff, it is hard to find a place in the modern world. I haven't had a girlfriend, but commitment phobia isn't an issue for me. If anything, I think it would be the opposite

The terms "conservative" and "shaming" applied to one vs. "progressive" applied to the other also sounds "shaming" to me.

I really do not care what others do as long as there was no pressure, coersion, both have equal choices (for example a millionaire goes shopping among starving factory girls) and are not taking advantage of the other one's desperation, loneliness or poverty; as long as both are in agreement and none are harmed by the arrangement.

If the person has been manipulated, coerced or in any way lied to, then it isn't about progressiveness or freedom it's about sexual playground for one of them.

Not all people are probably meant for commitment or loyalty. They just shouldn't match themselves with those who are.

As long as everyone agrees then it's ok. It's only a problem when one partner expects 1 thing and another expects the other.

Also, when doing something like this, you need to be prepared for the possibility of children and how you will raise them.

There's enough wrong with the world without throwing a lack of commitment into the mix.

Although I can certainly understand why there's a lack of commitment. If you got committed, and something happened, prepare to be reamed in court.

Is it fair to judge other people like that? I certainly wouldn't be in an uncommitted relationship, but that doesn't mean I think it is 100% wrong that other people want to. I am not lord of the universe, people can live their lives differently than mine without it being immoral.