Commitment in relationships

[Tabouli]

David:
> Perhaps I am pessimistic, but I think the best you can ever do is get 
someone who will be committed to you.  If you don't have that, things 
like an amenable character or intellectual compatibility are not 
worth very much.  If you do have it, then they might be nice, but my 
belief is that over time pretty well any two people who are partners 
will find things deeply rooted in their personalities that, when they 
come to light, will make them question very seriously whether their 
relationship is the biggest mistake they made in their lives.<

Allll right.  (Tabouli rolls up her sleeves).  I have heard this sort of view before, and in my experience its proponents call it "realistic" rather than pessimistic.

One of them was a Canadian man I met at a party.  30ish handsome schoolteacher, married, one child.  He said that after years of trying to find a woman perfectly suited to him and falling in love, he decided that this was a stupid Hollywood fantasy, and set about finding a pleasant, acceptable woman to commit to and settle down.  So he had.

One was a man who is a friend of mine, with long-term girlfriend who is pressuring him for marriage.  His views on partner selection are pure Meat Market Index.  He even said to me once that he "knows his market value" (direct quote), i.e. that he's not the best-looking or richest guy in the world, and that most people end up with someone of about the same market value as themselves.  There are, he says, no bargains.  He does, of course, have a mental list of desirable qualities, and sees dating as a kind of job interview to determine whether someone has them.  When I said yes, but don't you sometimes you meet someone who superficially has all the qualities you think you want but does absolutely nothing for you?  Nope, he said, never.  He doesn't believe in this 'chemistry' stuff - realistically, a relationship is a sort of business arrangement where you decide you're happy with what each other has to offer.  He also peacefully accepts the doctrine of the MMI, which is that men continue to appreciate into their 30s, whereas women start depreciating around 25, which make me wonder (albeit quietly and with mild guilt at the rather nasty things it implies) whether his "commitment phobia", and indeed, the supposedly rife commitment phobia among men, has something to do with wondering whether if he holds out he might be able to get someone who has more of the things on his list.

The third was a woman who is a friend of mine, and a young single mother.  Strong, intelligent, beautiful.  I have yet to meet the straight man (or, indeed, gay woman) who does not find her very attractive.  Nonetheless, a couple of years ago she was in deep despair, because No Man really wants to commit to a woman with another man's child.  Her view was that it's pointless expecting to find someone who suits you perfectly - the thing to do was find someone you got along with, make a commitment and make compromises and Work On It.  Her advice to me was to stop being so fussy and just commit to someone who I find reasonably attractive, get along with and who treats me well, to get over my intimacy phobia and learn how to be realistic about relationships.

These people are entitled to their views, but I don't share them.  If I was the wife of the Canadian man I would feel grossly insulted.  I don't think his marriage is about his wife at all - it's about *him* wanting to be in a married state and filling a vacancy with the first person to come along who seemed bearable.  If I was the girlfriend of my male friend, I would feel very insecure.  I'd feel like he'd gone shopping for a woman like a car, measuring me up against a checklist of desirable features and finding me a good deal on balance.  Nothing specific about me personally, you understand - his first loyalty is to his list.  If I had taken the advice of my female friend I guarantee it would have made me utterly miserable.  I have tried this sort of thing before (oh, maybe I'll *grow* to love him, I'm just being too fussy, I should give him a chance).  I have, indeed, had relationships with several men who, contrary to what women's magazines say, were falling over themselves wanting to "commit", despite the fact that there was no profound level of understanding or kinship between us.

There's no denying that commitment is important, or that a long-term relationship like a marriage is to a large degree a practical arrangement which involves practical things like managing finances together, perhaps raising children, living in the same space, etc.  All the same, I think a relationship should be first and foremost about a person, not a list, or a desire to commit to someone so as to secure a socially affirming marital status (I must marry before I hit X age or people will think I'm on the shelf: tell me, Cosmo, how do I bully my boyfriend into committing to me?), or a desire to have children.  If someone loves you for the unique things about you that make you who you are, that makes you irreplaceable to him.  If someone "loves" you for your MMI score, what's to stop him replacing you when your score goes down?

With due respect to David (who is no doubt simplifying), I think his views on commitment tell only part of the story.  For a start, the desire to commit absolutely has to be mutual.  As I learned when Italian gorilla started on about marriage on the second date (ick!), a relationship where only one person wants to commit is a recipe for trouble.  Then there's what I think is a fundamentally important question: what *motivates* people to do something as powerful as making a lifelong commitment?  Why commit to one person and not another?  I believe I could make a lifelong commitment to someone and all that entails, but this is not something I'd do lightly.  What would motivate me to make this step?

David:
> I think I must be a bit of a Dumbledorean -  suppose I am saying that 
your choices in the (inevitable) difficult times are what count, and 
the most important thing to assess in a potential partner is how you 
think they will choose: for you or for something else.<

I think this has part of the answer embedded in it - what does a partner need to be able to "choose for" his/her partner?  For me, the answer is mutual understanding and respect.  For mutual understanding to be forged, there need to be effective, trusting communication.  For this to happen, the "wavelengths" of the partners needs to be compatible enough to facilitate it.  How to identify this?  Well, amenable character, intellectual compatibility, similar tastes, etc. can be helpful, if not infallible clues, which is why they have appeal.

Respect is also fundamentally important, particularly in the difficult times David refers to.  If your partner's feelings become an issue, for example, and you respect and understand these feelings, it helps a lot with the difficult choices which may need to be made.  From what I've observed, a major source of problems in relationships is partners *not* respecting and understanding each other's feelings, and *not* being willing to choose in accordance with them.

Tabouli.

(I suspect there is a certain irony about Tabouli of the Tragic Track Record spouting wisdom on this subject, but ah well.  Perhaps I can salvage some qualifications by noting that I am a lifelong avid observer and mediator of relationships of all kinds, and have certain had plenty of first-hand experience of problems in relationships...)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]