TheDude wrote: * | Tue May 22, 2018 6:01 am |
To bring it around again, I think commitment stems from fear. In relationships, if I depend on marriage to keep my partner loyal, then I'm coming from the wrong place - I should've screened them before getting married.
If I'm the guy that having a women in my life is more like a cherry on top of an already good sundae, then I'm in a good position. If she stays or goes, I should be okay. If the girl in my life is 'my sundae' then I'm not in such a good position - as soon as she leaves I'm without ice cream.
Letting my mind wander...
Commitment is offered to try and elicit commitment from the other party.
To try and keep hold of the 'sundae'.
As you mention, this only makes sense if there is a fear of loss.
Why would you even think about it leaving, or losing it.. you would just enjoy it, its there..
If you do think about it leaving, and you knew you could not easily replace it, then fear could come into it.
Now, if you knew that when the sundae left, you could just grab another one, there would be no fear.
So the person imagines losing their sundae, which then causes the fear, then they try to negate that fear by eliciting commitment.
One way to do this is by offering their commitment, in the hope/expectation/fantasy that this will promote a reciprocal reaction. Hence solving the problem, or so it seems.
By offering a commitment you are admitting you are not in a place of abundance.
You are also telegraphing your fear of loss and hence value of the other.
TheDude wrote: * | Tue May 22, 2018 6:01 am |
If I'm the guy that having a women in my life is more like a cherry on top of an already good sundae, then I'm in a good position. If she stays or goes, I should be okay.
And you would have not a thought of offering commitment, there is no need.