Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!zhahai From: zhahai@nbires.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: commitment Message-ID: <183@nbires.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Jun-83 02:46:00 EDT Article-I.D.: nbires.183 Posted: Tue Jun 21 02:46:00 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jun-83 03:28:35 EDT Lines: 48 One of the more suble balancing acts I've experienced is between commitment and freedom in a relationship. At one level, You HAVE to be in it for your own sake, because it is good for you, not because of the other person. Ie: no martyrs. But on another, you need to focus somewhat more on giving than on getting (assuming the other person does also). Put another way, my foremost commitment must be to myself. I absolutely do not believe in promising what my future selves will do, in limiting my future choices to do what seems right then. If a relationship does not enhance me, I must leave it. YET, I have a great deal of commitment to keeping a relationship alive and well. I won't promise to never leave, but I can promise to try very hard to work things out, to take the risks, to be willing to really care. Thus, much of conventional marriage has always seemed a mental trap to me. There is in this culture some idea that by binding oneself tightly to another by hard to break legal and social bonds, one can guarantee a secure future of not being alone. That seems illusory, as the divorce statistics and the perhaps even greater number of couples who make each other miserable show. I feel that only when both partners are freely able to leave (financially included), and are kept together ONLY because they want to be together, are they in a good position to be honestly committed (actually, I'm overstating the strength of my feelings on this, to get the point across). I expect that somebody at some keyboard is thinking that this means I really am just afraid to make a commitment. Actually, I have been in a permanent (in orientation, not contract), committed, close relationship with a MOPS for about 7 years now, and I predict for the rest of our lives. I plan to try to keep it nourishing for both of us that long. Luckily, co (sic) has a very compatable attitude. We have not sought the blessing of the state (ie: formal marriage), as it has been irrelevant - but we may if practicality favors it sometime. I guess that makes me not really single, but I thought you might be interested in what makes one relationship work well - living commitments only, no dead ones Disclaimers: I speak for myself - others may want/need other forms of security or relationships. By the way, we handled the surname problem (whose name to use, or hyphenate, etc.) by choosing a joint middle name to represent our union, and both adopting it legally. If we were going to have kids, we would (maybe) give them that surname - since they would be products of the union, not of my great**n grandfather or of cos great**n grandfather. Sure, it loses the "family name" tradition, but that represents only 1/2**n of your true prognitors anyway. (pick n generations). Needless to say, we won't change names if we wed. Zhahai Stewart (allegra, ucbvax)!nbires!zhahai