Misperceptions of others/how to be candid w/o turning ppl off?

[nycindie]

Well, all that still comes under how I view commitment -- an allegiance and promise between people who are aligned toward the same goals. If it's a life-long commitment, that's up to the people involved. But I think you can still be committed to someone with whom you are in a relationship, without that commitment necessarily meaning marriage or forever -- or even long-term. You can commit to supporting your partner(s) to be the best they can be, for example, without a time stamp on it.

[Tonberry]

Originally Posted by nycindie

You can commit to supporting your partner(s) to be the best they can be, for example, without a time stamp on it.

I agree, on the other hand it's a bit harder to explain it, I find. Because if there is no time stamp, it can sound like you'll run away whenever it stops being practical, you know what I mean? If you say "I'll be there for you, except at any point I might decide not to be anymore", it doesn't feel as strong a commitment, because it feels like you're simply agreeing to be there right now, while everything's going fine (or ok) and you might just go when something goes wrong.

Of course, you might even if you say you will, so that's beyond the point. Commitment isn't about telling someone you'll be there for them, it's about actually being there for them when needed. It's done through actions and not words.

[opalescent]

I think of committment as having varying levels. For example, the committment I have with Beloved is the type described by Tonberry and others - lifelong, work through problems, never give up on the relationship, even as it changes, etc.

But I can also see myself developing relationships with committments that are not so all-encompassing, or lifelong, or connected to goals. I tend to think of committments as an agreement between partner(s) that can vary in length, width, breadth. And a committment should be capable of evolving. A commitment for me is not automatically lifelong or 'never say die!' in terms of a relationship. But it is something I take very seriously, and I would even if it wasn't a forever kind of thing.

That old pesky definitions question again...

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by Tonberry

. . . if there is no time stamp, it can sound like you'll run away whenever it stops being practical, you know what I mean? If you say "I'll be there for you, except at any point I might decide not to be anymore" . . .

Well, see, the way you're putting it looks like the commitment is not being taken seriously and is belittled in some way if it isn't forever. Hogwash! If I commit to giving and nurturing my partner in the best way possible, to be there for them through thick and thin, and to always have their back, that would also include letting the relationship go if that was what was needed for the person to thrive and be healthy emotionally. I do not need them to be tethered to me for me to love, encourage, and support them. It's not about running away when it suits me but looking at how a relationship has evolved and seeing if there is a need to part company. If a relationship ends, it isn't necessarily a failure or lack of commitment -- it could be exactly what the relationship needed.

[redpepper]

We talked about this on the fb group I admin. For what its worth this is what I wrote about commitment

"Commitment comes with time, turmoil, and life lessons together," what Mark said, and "I myself want long term, happy, relationships, and if I'm going to have those things, it will be because of what I and my partners do to create those things, not because we've said we're going to create those things," what Matt said.

Commitment comes for me when I push through the hard stuff with someone and see to the other side a deeper understanding, respect and connection with another. People who are not willing to be emotionally open and honest with me don't generally make it in terms of my commitment to them, nor do people who I discover I just can't seem to connect with for whatever reason.

Commitment is not so much about partners as it is about individuals I love and am close to or have potential to be close to. The partnership part comes in when I completely trust them enough to let EVERYTHING go and believe that they won't leave me for it. I become very committed at that point for the long haul. Trust is huge for me, if that were to break I doubt I would be able to be committed.

[Tonberry]

Originally Posted by nycindie

Well, see, the way you're putting it looks like the commitment is not being taken seriously and is belittled in some way if it isn't forever. Hogwash! If I commit to giving and nurturing my partner in the best way possible, to be there for them through thick and thin, and to always have their back, that would also include letting the relationship go if that was what was needed for the person to thrive and be healthy emotionally. I do not need them to be tethered to me for me to love, encourage, and support them. It's not about running away when it suits me but looking at how a relationship has evolved and seeing if there is a need to part company. If a relationship ends, it isn't necessarily a failure or lack of commitment -- it could be exactly what the relationship needed.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I'm just saying it's harder to explain it when people say you're just thinking of keeping a door open to run away, although I guess you did it well (explaining it, I mean).

[MonoVCPHG]

Originally Posted by redpepper

Commitment comes for me when I push through the hard stuff with someone and see to the other side a deeper understanding, respect and connection with another.

I guess that makes us pretty committed hunh

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

I guess that makes us pretty committed hunh

oh ya baby, you got me for life!