Committment...what is it and how much does it cost?

[CZBZ]

What is Love?

Robert Sternberg's Theory of Love

Dear all,


Since we've been talking about relationships ending, I've been wondering about this thing called Commitment. How soon in a relationship do we push for commitment and what do we hope to achieve by insisting on a declaration of commitment? Marriage? Fidelity? Financial support? Love, life-long or eternal? What does commitment mean in the day and age of disposable relationships? Throwing away the old and finding the 'real self' in the new has diminished values like commitment.

It seems as though the principle of 'commitment' has degraded to a Machiavellian value; in other words, as long as the relationship is working for me, great. As soon as the relationship requires more giving than getting, or my partner is making me 'feel' bad about my grandiose self, or perhaps my partner reflects poorly on the image I want to portray, 'commitment' means nothing.

It there's one thing where commitment seems to be gaining ground, it's commitment to serving the self and a hedonistic desire to feel 'good'. I kinda think intimate relationships are supposed to make us feel 'bad' in order to bring up hidden or repressed issues that need to be aired out and cleansed. If we are 'committed' to someone as a prioritized value, then feeling 'bad' won't mean running away from them (or ourselves).

I know this is treacherous waters to tread when most of us were 'committed' to a relationship even when we ought not have been; but hopefully y'all can understand where I'm coming from.

We say that there are no guarantees love will be reciprocated. We say living with uncertainty is a basic requirement of modern day life. We say love is not an entitlement, it cannot be forced and yet, how does a person go about building a relationships without commitment? There's freedom in knowing we can trust a partner to keep his word...that we don't have to be measuring, calculating, judging or questioning whether WE are meeting a partner's needs, or they ours.

Commitment to me, alleviates fear of 'dependence', the concern that dependency in any form is ultimately dangerous.

Relationships today are subject to microscopic scrutiny: is this person providing fulfillment and depth for my self-development...or should I be moving on to MY next level of growth with a different partner?

It's like we can't even take marital partnership for granted anymore.   I liked taking my marriage for granted. It allowed me to stop worrying, judging and questioning whether or not "I" was in the right relationship for "My" self-actualization. The 21st century focus on the self is so extreme, it makes me wonder if there is such a thing as 'commitment'? Will we be exchanging partners throughout our lives, like mentors to "Our" self-development?

It feels like people are becoming increasingly distrusting of one another (and relationships), unwilling to commit to anything, and refining self-sufficiency to a pathology.


Hugs,
CZ
 

[Flower]

CZ,

Ok, your words prodded me to do some more explaining:

[b]It seems as though the principle of 'commitment' has degraded to a Machiavellian value; in other words, as long as the relationship is working for me, great. As soon as the relationship requires more giving than getting, or my partner is making me 'feel' bad about my grandiose self, or perhaps my partner reflects poorly on the image I want to portray, 'commitment' means nothing. [/b]

At some point, the relationship has to work for you. If your partner continously ridicules you, always wants it his way, consistently diminishes your contributions to the relationship and disregards your core values, unless one is a saint, there has to be some sort of "getting" from the relationship. Relationships aren't about feeling bad about oneself unless there is some
sort of religious atonement complex from being in that relationship.

The ticket to narcissism is that with narcissists they continually want to "feel good" and with any partner who defines her or his boundaries, the narcissist goes off to find that "ideal" person who they believe will continually make them feel good.

Commitment does not mean as much as it did years ago due to value changes in society (generally speaking) and media's hype of what relationships should be. I will also add that the internet hasn't helped either with a narcissistic mindset of "I'll be with that person until someone better comes along."  What does better actually mean? Good looking? Lots of bucks?
I remember coworker N picking his potential partners based on the amount of possessions they had, as in "a house."

On a certain level there is stuff that mid-lifers with new partners have to deal with, as I noted in a previous post, but luckily, I don't have to deal with that.  With relationships, there is the highs and lows, but not the crashes usually associated with a narcissistic partner.  Committment, fine, but I don't want to deal with that kind of sh*t at the end of the day. The only sh*t I want is the end of my shovel for my gardens.

Hug, Flower



 

[CZBZ]

Thanks for writing, Flower. I look forward to seeing pictures of your gardens.  You've been shoveling a lot of *stuff* the past few years.

I'm blowing off a little steam maybe while also questioning what 'commitment' meant and means to me. I suppose one of the important factors in being able to commit to someone is the capacity for 'attachment'.

If bonding is hindered because of emotional problems (narcissism, for example), then 'commitment' is only an intellectual concept, not an affective one. If ya can't bond to other people, commitment is pretty much meaningless.

That makes it very hard for a bonder to separate from a partner, especially if s/he values 'commitment' as a value/principle. I know from my own experience that 'commitment' encouraged me to support a partner through thick and thin and ONLY when he broke his commitment to fidelity, did I seriously consider divorce. So commitment can be healthy or unhealthy, or maybe both!


Hugs,
CZ

[eyes_up]

"So commitment can be healthy or unhealthy, or maybe both!" ~ CZ

Well, exactly or what one commits to my be unhealthy. It took my mother the straw of infidelity to finally be able to allow herself to break commitment but the issue at hand - abuse - was alive and flourishing long before the actual straw that broke the commitment. Long before they were married really. For some reason or another most of my fathers behaviors were tolerable & acceptable accept for one.

Her inability to call on what was not healthy for herself and her children was not roused enough to take action  and it required the OW came along to get the ball rolling. I was happy about the OW because I no longer had to live w/ my father. I was saved.

At some point my mother said she was thankful for OW in that she could have spent the rest of her days committed to a sick man.

I am not understanding where values come into play in terms of commitment but if ones values are being squashed in order to maintain commitment something is hay wire. Cognitive dissonance or something near it.

The only reason I gather in understanding my mothers actions is because she wasn't and still isn't clear on what abuse is. She relates to abuse as being sexual as in molestation or rape. She doesn't have the information on other forms. For that ... the way she processes & experiences is confined only what she views as abuse and not the entire picture.

eyes

[honeybearII]

I think what is really confusing for ME, is that if a marriage is not abusive, if, on the whole, things seem pretty good between two people, if there are years of history with a person and children and maybe even grandchildren, what trumps the commitment to each other to CONTINUE in that marriage?  I understand the frustrations in a long-term relationship, and I even get the whole midlife crisis thing, but I guess what throws me is when a man OR a woman will simply walk away from all that shared life and decide, at 50-something or even 60-something, that some 30-year old bimbo or some boy-toy is worth giving up financial assets, reputation, even the love and respect of their children for what is, in essence, a physical attraction that will in all likelihood dissipate in a couple of years anyway.

WHY do they not see that as our lives spin out, the only things that really matter are family, good and deep friendships, and the love of our children and grandchildren????  Where is the commitment to sustain a relationship that is a model for the younger families and give them hope that their own trials and tribulations are ephemeral and can be worked through??? 

Maybe I am just a Pollyanna at heart, but even though things at the end were bad with my exNH, I also know that if he had been willing to get help we probably could have had a good marriage.  But I am not really even talking about living with someone with narcissism here, because that is a whole different ball game on many levels.  I am talking about so many good men (and women) who just......walk away.  Do they ever regret it in their heart of hearts?  Do they ever face the reality that they left a perfectly good marriage and children for some fly-by-night romance that, like all "romances", cool off over a period of time - JUST EXACTLY LIKE THAT FIRST MARRIAGE????

Honey

[eyes_up]

Isn't it OK to change? Isn't it OK to live one part of life with one partner and then another part with another? Why does it have to be ... till death do us part? Why is the plan so strict i terms of relationship and meaning. Why is the greatest meaning put on a single life long relationship?

Just wondering.

Why can't people be normal if they change and other parts change and then different issues are addressed? What if it was normal to have 3 15 year relationships or 2 20 year relationships or what ever. Why is it all about life long commitment? Why? Why is it this one thing that determines a person loyalty and ability to be intimate?

Why does a choice made at the age of 20 have to be the choice made at 40 or 50 ? I mean people can be complex. Who is to say what part of the individual will come up later? I always thing of being human as an on going process of growth. Seeds that sprout at 21 are not the same seeds that sprout at 43 or 35. Asides from children on person, one partner is not the every thing. No one person can saitisfy all the potential growth. Every one is different. I am not talking about marrying a narcissist but having a relationship with a healthy person and then another healthy person as life and growing directions change. Is this a bad thing? If it is, Why?

eyes

[honeybearII]

Really good thoughts, eyes, and something to think about. 

It isn't that I don't understand that a relationship with one person may not meet all our needs, but I guess my point is that when you have invested 25, 35, or more years into a family structure, that really goes beyond the simple issue of one man and one woman.  There is an extended unit that then includes children, grandchildren, in-laws, and all the flotsam and jetsam of having made a life together.  It just seems incredibly stupid for someone to believe that dumping all that and believing a "new and improved" version of a relationship will suddenly make them feel younger, more attractive, more whatever.  I just see SO MUCH of this kind of thing and it doesn't seem to me that after the initial honeymoon period with a new wife(or husband) that the person has anything better than what he dumped.  And in the meantime he/she has left devastated friends, family, and a whole host of people who loved him.

I guess, for me, commitment means understanding that there is something bigger than our own "feelings" which can go up and down and around in cycles and are really not to be trusted when it comes to overwhelming emotions.  It means thinking less about individual (and passing) flare-ups of passion and desire and always keeping in mind that over time ALL relationships settle into passivity, and is it really worth the loss of respect and love from your own children and your own family to pursue something so wispy as The Great Love Affair. 

My parents were married 62 years.  They met at 17 and married at 18 and while I knew there were periods of conflict and marital discord, they stuck it out.  In the end, and somewhere in their 60s, they re-discovered each other and re-discovered the comfort of having family around them as my dad went through cancer and eventual death, and my mom now is in the throes of Alzheimer's.  They made a commitment to each other in 1941 and while sometimes they BOTH talked about leaving, they stuck it out and I, as a daughter, am incredibly grateful for what they showed me about love, commitment, and how it all comes back to enclose us in a cocoon of love when the end of life comes and the only things left of any value are the children and friends and relationships that we have invested in over many, many years. It is that kind of commitment that brings the rewards, I think.
Honey

[Litha]

The only approach that has really resonated with me over the years is  Dr Willard Harley's

He believes that courtship should be very selfish, tolerance for conflict should be very low. In theory, people are on their best behaviour at the beginning of a relationship -- so when issues come up you should assume they will only get worse over time. He recommends that single people not be afraid to end relationships when the red flags fly, and not to waste time trying to 'work things out' with a boyfriend/girlfriend. Just move on and look for someone who consistently meets your most important emotional needs.

But when you have found someone who meets your needs consistently, and you are ready to commit to marriage, the selfishness should end at the altar. Both spouses should commit to understanding and meeting the OTHER spouse's emotional needs. Both spouses should commit to complete honesty and openness with each other about EVERYTHING. And both spouses should commit to what he calls 'The Policy of Joint Agreement (POJA)'

Basically the POJA means you don't come home one night and announce that you just quit your job so you can get rich selling Mary Kay, and he doesn't come home one night and announce that you are all moving to the other side of the planet so he can pursue his career. No life altering decisions can be made in isolation, both spouses must agree ENTHUSIASTICALLY (compromise is not an option, both spouses must be thrilled with the solution or no action is taken). This extends to finances as well, the wife can't go on a  $5000 credit card spending spree at Macy's and the husband can't just come home with a new snowmobile (unless he has talked it over with the wife and they are both thrilled with the idea).

If one spouse decides not to honor their commitment, and they stop caring for their spouse's emotional needs, or start lying to cover up POJA violations, then the injured spouse no longer has to honor their commitment either and is free to divorce (though Dr Harley would encourage them to make every effort to repair the relationship).

This makes sense to me, but our culture seems to turn this very sensible approach upside down. New love is romanticized as true love, so we are willing to make all kinds of compromises early on to get that ring on our finger. We bend over backwards to meet our new love's emotional needs. Then when the rosy glow fades, we are willing to toss away the faded relationship and look for a shiny new one again. Silliness!

[honeybearII]

Litha, I really like your response.  What a SENSIBLE approach, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.  I realized, as I was ending my marriage and in therapy, that I had been living a very one-sided existence with exNH.  I knew, deep down, that he would do whatever he wanted to do regardless of my unhappiness over his choices.  He did it repeatedly throughout our marriage, even though he gave lip service to listening to me and my concerns. 

Honey

[eyes_up]

"It just seems incredibly stupid for someone to believe that dumping all that and believing a "new and improved" version of a relationship will suddenly make them feel younger, more attractive, more whatever. " ~ Honey

Honey, With in the structure you describe above it is obvious why one would question "Why ?" would some one be so foolish to think only of himself or herself and not act on the behalf of the entire tribe.

This does represents a destructive behavior that is not remedied by a new younger version. Really SAD for all involved that Dad or Mom never really got a chance to grow up and become more than an age identified individual or really a product of over ego identification. So, with all of the family for all those years , the person never really grew up.

I think what I am pointing out is something that is not about the traditional matrimonial opposite.
but , for the record , the traditional matrimonial opposite , when the man or the woman are shaking in their shoes and seeing all they haven't done and all they wanted to do and put off and so called sacrificed for children and family etc, for what ever years or the mere fact that they stepped into traditional roles to discover that it isn't to their liking as in their partner.

I think what I am pointing at in general is the fact that divorce is legal. Consider behaviors and conditions before divorce was legal and when separation and divorce were seen as unsightly and condemnable.

Some folks have a high priority for the tribe or family ... the entire genetic background. I think humans do tend to ... on the whole ... create tribes in all cultures. Some go so far as the entire community. So it is human to pair and remain loyal to the tribe.

Yet I wouldn't go so far as to say every single person who breaks out of the tribe does so on the basis of age accept that if life is growing shorter and aspects of the self have been hidden an unexpressed and experienced a person can get to the point where breaking out of the tribe or the family seems necessary in order to grow.

I am distinguishing the difference of growth here from classic narcissistic tendency to entertain the ego.

I am the kind of person who looks at both sides of coin for each. meaning there is a shadow side and a light side for both. The aspect of human nature to remain the same has its strength and weaknesses as does the apsect of human nature that steps towards change. Both are happening at all times and one of both is either on the up swing with the other begging to differ.

The pendulum swings from family values, tribe stability to individual choice which affords changes.
One holds on to the old system and the other seeks new inventions. Both are a part of the human experience both can be creative and destructive.

When humans were hunters, they were individual and as soon as they became farmers and set in one place, things became all about the entire community.

It seems to me that both experiences are with in the human design. The Individual and  collective are a part of the whole. This is looking at it from even a broader perspective then  my family or my tribe but rather the human condition or  human behavior. Some people seem to hit up the marker of individual while others do not. Some people do not get that major draw to go individual while others are very in tune to the collective.

Community produces structure and root and individual produces change.

I figure if a spouse waits to leave until the children are born that it is far better then taking off when the kids are younger. I have spoken with many different women all coming from different points of view. some want to keep family together and some leave because they are done taking care of children and husband and want the individual experience. to me, both are good choices so long as one is doing what aligns with their energy.

 Sacrifice is an interesting word here. I am assuming we are talking about sacrificing the individual experience for the collective experience ... but if one aligns with the steadfast and rootedness of family rather than the individual hunter.. this is not a sacrifice for that person.

Humans are incredibly resilient. We can all function both as individual and as tribe. I say we need both. An issue that I do see and this is a generalization is that females are raised and adopt the rooted side of the whole and males are raised and given the freedom of the hunter. Now this is general because I know some very rooted men and to know myself is to know an energy that tends to be more individual but includes both sides. I do require stability and regulated conditions.

Why I am bring this up is because it is out of balance. This is my  thought and opinion.  But who am I to be in the position of deciding what is balance. I know not the ways of mother nature. My human brain can not really assess all of her patterns. They are far too complex and vast.

Personally I regulate my energy from individual to community. both are important and both serve different sides to a whole value system.

eyes

PS... When I write this I am not taking into consideration a narcissist personality disorder. If we are talking about why a narcissist leaves the family behind to see new booty... that is different
That has nothing to do with self development. It is a disorder and a destructive one at that.

So if the question is... why does a narcissist leave the entier family / community to check into a mini mart well, DUH!
  

[CZBZ]

"Isn't it OK to change? Isn't it OK to live one part of life with one partner and then another part with another? Why does it have to be ... till death do us part? Why is the plan so strict in terms of relationship and meaning. Why is the greatest meaning put on a single life long relationship?

...Why can't people be normal if they change and other parts change and then different issues are addressed? What if it was normal to have 3 15 year relationships or 2 20 year relationships or what ever. Why is it all about life long commitment? Why? Why is it this one thing that determines a person loyalty and ability to be intimate?

Why does a choice made at the age of 20 have to be the choice made at 40 or 50 ? I mean people can be complex. Who is to say what part of the individual will come up later? I always thing of being human as an on going process of growth. Seeds that sprout at 21 are not the same seeds that sprout at 43 or 35. Asides from children on person, one partner is not the every thing. No one person can saitisfy all the potential growth. Every one is different. I am not talking about marrying a narcissist but having a relationship with a healthy person and then another healthy person as life and growing directions change. Is this a bad thing? If it is, Why?" ~Eyes_Up



There ya go again, Eyes...making me 'think' hard. I'll grab my bottle of Excedrin and get back to you.  

This is a huge topic, far beyond my ability to address. I can tell you what 'I' think but remember, I'm an old-school sort of woman who is sees children as guide-posts towards stabilizing adult behavior.  What impact does my behavior have on 'the children'? Is changing partners to fit my 'development' better for 'the children' and if not, what can I do to meet my emotional needs without abusing theirs? Does longevity with one partner create a better (safer) world for our kids and if so, how do adults GROW WITH a partner so we clean up our own messes rather than forcing our children to work through our problems themselves?

When I say 'kids', it's not a personal definition---it's universal, meaning All Kids, even my kids' kids and Honey's kids' kids, seven generations in the future, like native Americans are quoted as having used as a guide in making tribal decisions. Seeing further than the end of our own noses is how we get outside a selfish perspective and also recognize the impact we WILL HAVE on generations to come.

Having children encouraged me to think beyond the 'self' and consider their welfare as a higher priority. It kept me focused, working on myself and yes, perhaps idealizing my partner's contributions and commitment to the marriage. At the time (and we spoke of this frequently as a couple), I assumed our principles and values were in sync. The problem with a narcissistic partner however, is that YOU don't really know what they are thinking or what they are (or will be) doing. They say whatever is appropriate to meet their needs and the situation at hand. In the end, as is always the case with people, we Do what we believe...our actions tell the tale. That's not restricted to narcissists, though---most of us have a hard time defining what we believe, much less live up to our ideals and values.  

In my belief system, a single individual has a huge impact on the world 'yet to be'. We may feel anonymous, unimportant, run-of-the-mill, lost in a sea of billions; but indeed, the choices we make determine the kind of world our children inherit. And when I'm a senior citizen, you won't see me sporting a bumper sticker saying "I'm spending my children's inheritance."  

The argument underlying baby boomers midlife divorces is that people used to die much earlier than we will. A twenty year or thirty year relationship and it's all over. Now we are living to be eighty years old which means 'switching partners' twice or even thrice can be considered normal. It's a silly argument though my X used it to justify seeking another person with whom he was more compatible and basically, he got what he wanted.    Still, I believe to this day that longevity with a partner IS the way to actualize the self. If you are in a secure relationship, you are free to focus on developing your own talents rather than 'working on the relationship' the way young couples do. There's something about the principle of commitment that holds us steady when we might feel like running the other direction. If people can stick it out though, face teh uncertainty and yes, the utter disgust of seeing the same partner laying on the other side of the bed, the focus RETURNS to the self and maturation.

As long as people 'use' another person to meet their emotional needs at different stages of life, it rings of 'objectification and exploitation' to me. Not to mention the legacy we hand our children which may look like this: as soon as the other person fails to meet your needs, look elsewhere (anywhere other than 'the self'). That's a terrible legacy to hand the younger generation because right when they begin to introspect and ask themselves "why" they are with this horribly hideous person on the other side of the bed, their thoughts won't lead to deeper introspection but will be directed towards externalizing the discomfort and finding another partner. Am I making sense?? What I do know is that my marriage (albeit problematic) forced me to examine myself and grow beyond 'my needs' and put other people's needs on a par (if not higher) than my own.

This process I'm trying very hard to describe is applicable to all long-term relationships, even friendships. If we bolt at the first sign of discomfort, we lose the opportunity to dig a little deeper and see what's going on in ourselves.

I fear that our 'individuated' society lack the skills to maintain long-term relationships which hinders self-development in the long haul and effects our children in very 'narcissistic ways'. in other words, their distrust leads to narcissistic preoccupation and self-serving relationships.

There is something very lovely about taking a relationship for granted. I actually gained a lot by trusting my partner even though HE wasn't trustworthy. I grew up over the years...and began to value my influence as a mother (and that extends to 'caretaker') as having higher value than personal discomfort.

This is really hard to explain. My values are embedded so deep in myself, it's almost impossible to put them into words. Please feel free to question anything I've written...you always get me to dig deep which helps me understand myself a little better!  


Hugs,
CZ
 

[CZBZ]

Thank you for the link to Harley's site, Litha!

I wonder if the 'narcissistic' society we have created will need more direction on How To Create a Loving Relationship? Everything is so temporary, so immediate, so gratifying without delay that our tolerance for delaying gratification is limited. When it takes my computer longer than thirty seconds to boot up, I complain! Everything is so nano-second-i-want-it-now that i wonder if we have the skills to develop long-term and long-lasting relationships? Why not just switch one person for another rather than working on the self and allowing them time to work on themselves?

Relational coaches need to set up shop on every neighborhood corner these days in order to keep up with the divorce attorneys.

Though we talk about narcissistic relationships on this forum and how to separate from people who are emotionally unavailable (or abusive), the real tragedy is all those otherwise-normal relationships that could be salvaged if people had the skills or knowledge of how to do that. This of course, gets back to 'our' impact on our children when we teach them to trade in partners according to their 'needs'....they lack the skills, the trust in continuity to create safe relationships, too. And on it goes.

For people in unhealthy relationships though, getting out is never simple. Oftentimes, we don't even realize our needs aren't being met.  The people who attach, the ones who mature in their role as caretakers, are usually reluctant to leave. Not because we like being mistreated but because we are at war with internalized values and see a much bigger picture than the individual self. 

Though I do not believe even Harley could have saved my marriage, I do believe that understanding how to create a loving relationship (in specific ways), will bring up serious problems in the unhealthy relationship.


Hugs,
CZ

[Litha]

CZ, when I started dating ex-N, I told him about Dr. Harley and encouraged him to use some of tools on that website to identify and understand what his most important emotional needs might be. After I explained the concepts to him, he became very reluctant to pursue it. I realize now that he had absolutely no interest in learning about or taking into consideration my emotional needs. NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER!!! That was a huge red flag that I ignored.

when the man or the woman are shaking in their shoes and seeing all they haven't done and all they wanted to do and put off and so called sacrificed for children and family etc, for what ever years or the mere fact that they stepped into traditional roles to discover that it isn't to their liking as in their partner.

In the context of Dr Harley's theories, the partner who is "shaking" should be totally honest with their spouse about what they are going through. Then both spouses could work together to determine the best course of action. The shaking spouse might suggest that she spend 6 months in Italy working on her novel, the not-so-shaking spouse might suggest she take a class in creative writing instead. They would continue brainstorming until they found a solution that both of them were thrilled about: leave the kids with grandma while they live together on a Greek island for a month. Suddenly they are both re-energized, excited about the trip, can't keep their hands off each other, can't stop talking about the trip, etc.

The problem is that people hide feelings they fear might be considered inappropriate by their spouse. They are living a lie, so the negative feelings fester until the only possible solution seems to be "run for your life." Then the spouse left behind is willing to make all kinds of compromises to restore the relationship, and everyone is miserable.

Of course, the narcissist doesn't care that anyone else is miserable. There's no cure for that.

[CZBZ]

Here's the confusion, Litha. We can talk to a narcissist and listen to their words, sharing our deepest values which they profess to appreciate and even share. We can have intense conversations about the importance of 'family' or 'community' and the struggle we have retaining a 'self' without being 'selfish'. We can even feel as though the conversations have enlightened and strengthened the relationship.

We will, in other words, feel "in sync" with the narcissist.

The narcissist also feels 'in sync' with us because s/he said it, therefore s/he is it and the relationship is not threatened with difference.

Everyone starts with ideals (cognitive) and slowly incorporates behavior that Integrates those ideals. When we don't live UP to our ideals, we feel terrible about ourselves...we feel sorrow and maybe guilt and then we pull ourselves up by the bootstraps, forgive ourselves and try again. We know our 'values' by how out-of-sync we feel with ourselves when our behavior contradicts professed ideals. It's an emotional angst that leads to healthy integration of values, principles and ideals without expecting perfection.

The narcissist may give lip service to ideals and values and even believe he or she is committed to the same goals as a primary partner. The problem is that narcissists lack an emotional correlate to ideals, values and principles that are communal. This has been proven numerous times in studies on narcissists versus non-narcissists. Narcissists do not feel 'terrible about themselves' (lowered self-esteem) for having betrayed communal values because in fact, they value personal independence and agency more than moral or community responsibility.

I don't think most narcissists even know that about themselves (though some do. some narcissists are consciously exploitive). When the choice is between 'serving the greater good/communal' and 'serving the self/agency', that's when narcissists AND partners discover the vast discrepancy between professed ideals and internalized ideals.

The common problem most of us have is projecting how terrible we would feel were we to betray our community and put our selfish needs above moral responsibility. Well, yes...most people do feel bad about that and their remorse leads to changed behavior and 'maturation'. But narcissists do NOT feel bad, their inability to feel deep emotions and attachment to other people means they are comfortable being selfish, pig-headed and irresponsible. Narcissists generally do not suffer the kind of pain WE would suffer, were we to do the anti-social, anti-communal things they do (all in service of the self!). In other words, being independent is their highest value. They really are committed to themselves.  

There are several research articles in our 'Narcissism' section of the forum discussing narcissist's low-value on Communal traits and high-value on Agency. You can do a search by clicking on the spider web icon above and specify the Narcissism board to retrieve articles discussing 'communal versus agentic'. I linked two below which came up first on my search.

Hugs,
CZ




"Previous studies have shown that narcissists' conscious self-views are not uniformly positive. Narcissists see themselves as being above average in areas such as status, dominance and intelligence (what are referred to as agentic domains), but not in areas such as kindness, morality, and emotional intimacy (what are referred to as communal domains)." ~ http://www.webofnarcissism.com/forums/index.php/topic,5314.msg8322.html#msg8322


"This approach to interpersonal relationships is well illustrated in narcissists' romantic relationships. Narcissists are attracted to admiring and highly positive individuals who will enhance the narcissists' sense of self-worth either directly via praise or indirectly via identification (e.g., a "trophy spouse"). Narcissists are less attracted to caring individuals (Campbell, 1999) . Once in a romantic relationship, a similar self-serving pattern can be observed. Relative to nonnarcissists, narcissists report less commitment in ongoing romantic relationships. This is largely a result of narcissists' increased attention to alternative dating partners (Campbell & Foster, 2001). Likewise, narcissists' love styles reflect greater game-playing and more selfishness (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2001).

"...To summarize, we anticipate that narcissists will have positive self-views in domains reflecting agency (e.g., extraversion, openness, intellectance). In contrast, narcissists will not report inflated self-views in domains reflecting a communal orientation (e.g., agreeableness, conscientiousness, and morality). This pattern will be evident in narcissists' romantic relationships. Specifically, they are likely to rate themselves as better than their romantic partners." ~http://www.webofnarcissism.com/forums/index.php/topic,6581.msg17633.html#msg17633

[eyes_up]

"I fear that our 'individuated' society lack the skills to maintain long-term relationships which hinders self-development in the long haul and effects our children in very 'narcissistic ways'. in other words, their distrust leads to narcissistic preoccupation and self-serving relationships." ~ CZ

CZ, I would not consider our society individuated in the least. Individuation doesn't include neglect abuse and denial of community responsibility. Narcissism does. We have a narcissistic society not an intelligent form of individuation. There is a huge difference.

eyes

[CZBZ]

I get your point, Eyes. Individuated or individual or independent, what I was trying to say was 'self-sufficient' perhaps? Or maybe Agentic? What I mean is 'each person out for him or herself'...


hugs,
CZ

p.s. This is opening a can-of-worms maybe but there seems to be a fear of Interdependence that might be the unfortunate result of 'co-dependence' (which is definitely NOT the same thing)...

[eyes_up]

"What I mean is 'each person out for him or herself'..." CZ

That is what I am thinking. What it seems we are talking about is narcissism meaning the extreme form of one taking care of them selves with out the attention and empathy towards others.

Aside from the narcissistic side of all this there are different situations that would lead a mate to leaving a family or divorcing a spouse or even for both parties to separate. There is no guarantee that two people will grow together no more then there is a guarantee that two people will not grow together. In fact the odds to me are that people do grow differently at different times in a life time.

I'll bet there are plenty of people who remained in a marriage using all kinds of energy to make it work and really something had changed. I am bringing this up because this whole divorce thing isn't all about a man going through crisis and going out and getting a new woman and a new sports car.

Being individuated does not mean one is no longer interdependent. I am going to see if I can get a real good definition for the process so that it doesn't get hung on the same old coat hanger as independent and is slurred with separation.

 Just to make sure I am clear about where I am coming from...

I do believe a two parent family (w/child-children) is definitely the best . It is even better if the entire community-culture is involved with its young. Female and male roles have been changing and this has a ripple affect. The ripple affect has to do with new conditions and new challenges.

Men power seat as the head of the house hold is no longer a viable format.

Women no longer have to remain in destructive and unhealthy relationships.

Back when women were home makers and men were bread winners the roles were defined and every thing was adjusted around those roles. Not that this has changed there is a new combination.

The change over is huge since the old style is still in the underground and operating on an unconscious level.

This doesn't have to be a huge can of worms. Just define what we are talking about. Is it narcissistic men leaving the tribe? Is it about the general narcissistic attitudes of the day?
Am i to be making a blanket statement that all divorces are created by the same bug and that it is an epidemic? Maybe it is a natural course due to the change in power... women making money and being able to be self sufficient? Men do lose power with in this relatively new condition.

I am just putting this out there. I don't have exact answers but it would help me to know what we are aiming at on this thread. What is on your mind exactly or are you getting to that?

For me, I would not change the way things are today for the way they were yesterday. I would not want to not have the choice as to who I marry , if I marry and if I decide to breed. I like that it is a choice now and not  automatic and uniform standard.

Figuring that the main issue is male power. Men are not happy about giving up the rules which they created (patriarchy) which served them. Patriarchy shifts and then becomes defiant.

but I can not quite put a finger on what the point is. I mean before divorced was legalized women wore straight jackets. When I read a history book that is just what I read "his story". so where is it and when is it and how is it ?

the ability to leave a partner due to a new choice in partner or a choice to not settle for abuse. They come together. Back in the day mean had a mistress while the woman/wife was at home tending to children. is that the way it should be because that is the way it was. Old fashioned style before divorce was legal.

I would never want to go back to the conditions where women were trapped in marriages to men who did what they are doing today but not having the rights to do any thing other then rely on a mans pay check and status. That to me is demise of all the female babies that grow up and grow up to what? Slavery? No Thanks and I do not have roMANtic ideas about marriage. Romance and intimacy and relationship are not dependent on marriage although children are dependent on care takers who can take care of them and meet their needs how ever that may happen, what ever the form.

eyes


 

 
 

[talia]

This has been a thought provoking thread. I don't think that what commitment means to me has changed over the years. What has changed for me is that I don't trust or have much faith in other people's(mostly members of the opposite sex)ability to commit. I had thought and still do to some extent believe that the success of a relationship is dependent on both party's understanding,definition and agreement upon the meaning of what that commitment is. And even then, do the parties have the skills, tools, knowledge, etc....to actually honor the commitment. No matter how well intended the individuals might be they just may not have the "know how" to get through tough times. I certainly didn't in my 20's, but I was willing to continue working, willing to continue learning, but my partner wasn't commited...even though I thought we were in agreement on what commitment meant to us as a couple. Therein lies, in part, my lack of trust today.

Because of the high divorce rate in this society I went searching for some answers and came across this PDF file that I will share excerpts from because it touches on so many of the points brought up by everyone who commented. Because there are less and less examples of commited relationships for young people to model and learn from so I don't see the divorce rate declining. Certainly,my own experience reflects that having no models of my own as a child. And I truly regret not being able to provide my own daughter with an example of a healthy committed relationship.....

While this article addresses divorces in Canada I don't think the culture is so different than ours here in the US. I think that it reflects the US/western cultures as well and is relevant.

In this, the 3rd edition of Divorce: Facts, Causes and
Consequences, Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert of York University points out that divorce is a complex phenomenon,
involving multiple interlocking factors operating within an evolving social, cultural and legal context. Drawing
on the latest statistics available, Dr. Ambert first addresses the most frequently asked questions about divorce, and
along the way, helps us to understand what the statistics on divorce tell us, and as important, what they do not tell
us. Dr. Ambert also reviews a large research literature to help us better understand the variety of factors that have
been associated with divorce trends over the past 50 years, and to reflect on the varied consequences that divorce
and separation may have, in the lives of those involved, and by extension, for the societies in which they take place.

to be con't.

[talia]

excerpts from above article:

For Canada, there are no estimates of the number of children who experience multiple parental divorces.
In the U.S., 15% of all children will see their custodial parent divorce more than once before age 18; and
nearly 50% of children in divorced families see their parent divorce again. The research indicates that
such multiple familial transitions correlate with declining well-being in children and an increase in behavioral
problems (Fomby and Cherlin, 2007).
As well, many children who live in cohabitational families experience the dissolution of their parents’
union. Although no official statistics exist, we know that such children are more likely to experience a
parental separation than children whose parents are married.

Are remarriages as stable as first marriages?

No. Although remarriages are as happy as first marriages, controlling for the number of years married,
remarriages after a divorce have a higher rate of dissolution, probably 10% higher (Glossop, 2002). But
remarriages that endure often outlast a first marriage. In the U.S., remarriages that are preceded by cohabitation
are even less stable (Xu et al., 2006).
Why are remarriages less stable? First, remarriages include persons who have already proven that they
can divorce; they may be more accepting of divorce as a solution and more ready to have recourse to
it a second time. Second, spouses in remarriages may be less willing to compromise and may become
disenchanted more rapidly. Third, there are fewer norms that guide these relationships, making it more
difficult for the spouses to feel secure within their respective roles. Fourth, the structure itself of remarriage
is a more complex one when children are brought in along with ex-spouses and ex-in-laws. Indeed,
remarriages without children from previous unions or only with children born to the union have a rate
of divorce equivalent to that of first marriages (Glossop, 2002).

Cultural factors

1. Divorce rates were already inching upwardly in the 19th century as a result of secularization trends,
the liberalization of norms concerning individual choice, and the lessening of religious influence.
The religious aspect is now largely missing in the institution of marriage: this is often referred to as
the desacralization of marriage. For many, marriage has become an individual choice rather than
a covenant before God and this change has contributed to the acceptance of its temporal nature
(Cherlin, 2004).

2. These socio-cultural trends later came to influence the passage of more liberal divorce laws. In turn,
easier divorce laws, such as those promulgated in 1968 and 1985, are followed by an increase in divorce
(see Table 2). Such laws signal the normalization of divorce: divorce lost its stigma and became
more socially acceptable. These cultural and legal factors have made it easier for people to be less
attached to marriage as an institution and consequently to turn to divorce as a solution.

3. The trends toward individualism that began two centuries ago have resulted in an emphasis on rights
rather than duties. When individualism is coupled with an ideology of gratification, particularly
sexual and psychological, where people are encouraged to be “happy” and “fulfilled,” it follows that the
spouses’ mentality about their marriage is affected. Marriage is less likely to be seen as an institution
centered on mutual responsibilities and is more likely to be based on the pursuit of happiness, fulfillment,
and companionship. More is demanded of marriage in terms of personal gratification. As Amato
(2007:309) put it, in individualistic marriages, spouses view the marriage as valuable as long as it meets
their needs for personal growth and self-actualization. “If the marital relationship no longer meets
these needs, then spouses feel justified in jettisoning the relationship to seek out new partners who better
meet these needs”.

4. As a consequence of these trends, Canadians and most Westerners have developed a lower threshold
of tolerance when their marriage does not meet with their expectations for personal fulfillment. All
things considered, while more is expected of marriage, couples are also less tolerant about its challenges
and less willing to shoulder the sacrifices it may require. On the other hand, however, this
also means that women are more likely to leave abusive relationships that would otherwise have kept
them captive 40 years ago.


Personal reasons for divorcing

The personal reasons or explanations that people give for their divorce, such as alcoholism, domestic violence, infidelity, “didn’t get along,” “no longer loved each other” and “money problems” actually flow
from the socio-cultural and demographic factors discussed earlier. For instance, without an emphasis
on individualism and gratification, people would not divorce as often because they “fell out of love.”
In countries where marriage is embedded within a context of family solidarity, these reasons would be
considered frivolous. In a society where divorce is more difficult to obtain and less acceptable, or where
marriage may represent the only legitimate means of forming and maintaining a family or obtaining
economic security, only reasons such as abuse and abandonment are tolerated. Therefore, before people
decide to divorce on particular grounds, a social and cultural climate has to exist that offers a legitimate
framework for their reasons.

Furthermore, personal grounds for divorce such as fighting, alcoholism, violence, tend to be mentioned
more by couples with some of the demographic characteristics discussed earlier, such as youthful marriages,
parental divorce, multiple prior cohabitations, and poverty. Thus, cultural and demographic factors
related to divorce “push” people into divorce via their own interpersonal mechanisms. It is interesting
to note that domestic violence as one of the reasons for divorce is less frequently mentioned than in
the past in Canada and in other Western countries such as Holland (de Graaf and Kalmijn, 2006). This
finding is consistent with studies showing a decline in conjugal violence between 1993 and 2004 (Laroche,
2007; Statistics Canada, 2006).

Conclusions:

Divorce is necessary in any society. This said, divorce and remarriage are adult institutions. That is,
they were intended to separate couples who could no longer live together and to allow ex-spouses to repartner.
However, these institutions are not always in the best interest of children. And, as seen earlier,
divorce is not necessarily a positive experience for adults either.

Studies also indicate that a sizeable proportion of marriages that end in divorce were actually quite “salvageable,”
even happy, and that many of these ex-spouses are no better off after (Ambert, 1989). It seems that
there may be two types of divorce: those resulting from a truly unhappy marriage and those resulting from
a weak commitment to marriage (Amato and Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Ambert, 1989). After 30 years of
studying divorce, I have come to conclude that, although divorce is necessary, some divorces are avoidable
and unnecessary; the same remark certainly applies to serious cohabitational unions that dissolve.
In light of this, couples who marry or who live together should be encouraged to face the inevitability of
ups and downs in relationships—and I am not referring here to severe conflict, which afflicts far fewer
couples than in the past. Connidis (2003) remarks that relationships are changed after divorce and have
to be re-negotiated over the years. The effects are felt across several generations within a family.

It is often said that the family has become an outdated institution: High rates of divorce, cohabitation,
and births to solo mothers are often used to justify this statement. Is this true? No. As is documented
elsewhere (Ambert, 2005a), families fulfill more functions now than was the case 50 years ago. What is
also true is that conjugal dissolution (marriage + cohabitation) complicates and burdens family life but
does not destroy it. As a result, the capacity of many such families to provide for the care and socialization
of children as well as for help across generations is diminished.

[Julia]

 I remember  how hard it was trying to make a simple decision with NH, let alone talk about my dreams or real needs.  He would listen to my ideas with staring indifference. He would scarcely say what he thought and all but make me come up with an idea that he could reluctantly agree to. In the end any decision involved me switching my wants and desires to try to meet his while he pretended that the idea, (in his mind a poor idea), was actually what I wanted.

I remember trying to go forward with excitement... after all I had bent over backwards to try to think of something he wanted, but in the end there was no joy whatsoever. In fact, I would feel obliged to do all the hard work to try to help us BOTH have any fun at all as he was busy POUTING and feeling envious of everybody else. So it was up to me to make connections, plan everything, do the hard work to get details taken care of, and take care of the kids as well of course. And he would pout, criticize, and generally let me know that if I was only doing a better job he would have fun, love me, not be so embarrassed.  

It is hard to go back into those memories. It really sucks to remember but then again it gives me another opportunity to forgive myself.

 My truth, my understanding of relationship is that in marriage or deep friendships, each person is a witness to the others life. A person who watches, understands, and deeply cares about the others individual life.  Certainly not a perfect support, none of us can pull that off. We get irritated, we get impatient, we want different things than our partners and friends. But hopefully, most of the time, we listen to our significant others and think of THEM, rather than US as they speak to us. We hear their pain, rejoice in their joy, rather than feel that their pain reflects badly on us or their joy makes us feel envious and less worthy.

I wonder if I am asking to much. I admit that this is an ideal, and yet I hope that something like this could exist. In my ideal, instead of demanding things of each other, each person tries to GIVE things to each other, services and small concessions that they know will please the other. Good friends do this all the time. Why not married couples? In that way, we could spend our time being thankfull and pleased with our beloved rather than feeling uncared for.

Starting to blather.....

Julia

[eyes_up]

Julia, I like how you express what friendship/relationship means or the way you experience connection.

I figure relationship includes variables of exchange and give and take. Pretty simple to me yet every one gives and takes differently but that is another topic. We all share differently and similarly. That sort of thing is under the heading of relationship styles.

A relationship with a narcissist is not what I consider a full relationship . It is a relationship with a disorder as in how do I deal with a personality that is disordered. It really isn't about give and take and mutual care. There is no relationship growth nor personal growth just survival that is if one is dependent on a narcissist for his/her bread and butter. Really it takes everything and more just to remain steady and still - forget growth.

I get the sense that todays friendships are built on what one is presently doing and where they are at. Maybe that is the way it always has been. Seems reasonable. so the same would be true for romantic relationships which means that if places change or interest vary there is a weakening of the commitment. Not sure about this being a bad or good thing just that it seems to work this way.

I know some relationships last weeks other months or years and so on and so fourth. I think a true friend comes 1 or if lucky 2 in a life time and it may not be a spouse.

But, Ya , on the whole people are not looking to create meaningful and lasting relationships unless it means they are a client paying money. That seems to be more important then the intimate relationship. But I can not be sure. How do I know what is happening with all people.

The age of information is taking over right now. Which means it is not the age of intimacy. Knowledge is not intimate it is rational.

Yet it still seem that marriage is being romanticized when really it is a major choice of living which i figures includes children as in marriage is for children. That seems pretty basic.

Actually i think personal growth is real important but what people are calling personal growth is not what I call personal growth. Personal growth doesn't mean throw out what isn't easy ... not to me any way. It means deal with what is and grow up to do so. That would be my personal definition.

Yet there is something to be said for knowing when what isn't easy is actually not budging.

I remained with narc the first because he was constantly challenging me on my ability to not just throw away a relationship as if I was that self centered all or nothing sort of self developing individual. I really got caught in by that. I started to see myself as being selfish and the more I adjusted to this the more I kept allowing stuff to happen that wasn't healthy.

Got really confused. Felt horrible thinking I wasn't able to tolerate better. It was a head twister since I had quite  experienced this before. The pressure to make a relationship happen. Narc the 2nd worked on the same line. I was still determined to work with what is until of course I realized what IS was extremely narcissistic and it wasn't me being the jerk.

eyes

[LDW]

~I remained with narc the first because he was constantly challenging me on my ability to not just throw away a relationship as if I was that self centered all or nothing sort of self developing individual. I really got caught in by that. I started to see myself as being selfish and the more I adjusted to this the more I kept allowing stuff to happen that wasn't healthy. ~

Eyes, did we date the same man?

Wow...

[CZBZ]

One thing i can say about 'commitment' and the narcissistic relationship is that the narcissist sees a partner's capacity for commitment as an opportunity to serve him or herself. Without knowing there is such a thing as a liarhead manipulator who says one thing and does another, we will see commitment when there isn't any. Not the kind of commitment we are willing to give, that is.

This is a great article...



Hugs,
CZ

What Is Commitment in Relationships?


By David Steele

The question of when a relationship is committed is a source of much confusion and debate. We live in a time when the marriage rate is going down, the co-habitation rate is going up, and the majority of first-born children are now born to unmarried parents.

In this article I hope to shed some light on this question to facilitate your work with couples and individuals challenged by different perceptions of the status of their relationships.


COMMITMENT VS. PROMISE

I recently had a conversation with a woman who told me she had just broken off a "committed" relationship. A few questions later I learned that she had been dating this person for a year, they were not living together, and the reason she broke it off is that he "cheated."

We talked about pre-committed vs. committed relationships, and she agreed that it was a pre-committed relationship, but insisted that they had made a "commitment" to each other.

OK, things are getting clearer. On the one hand is the status of the relationship- pre-committed vs. committed, and on the other hand are commitments made within the relationship. Macro vs. micro. Two different things, right?

In our conversation, it occurred to me to make a distinction between a "Commitment" vs. a "Promise." They made a promise to each other within the context of a relationship that was not committed. That distinction seemed to help her make more sense of things.

When I asked the RCI coaches for feedback on the "commitment vs. promise" distinction, most felt that it was just semantics and there is not much of a difference. The general consensus was that when you make a promise you are making a commitment.

Well, I agree that it is a question of semantics, and here is my definition of terms:


PROMISE: Verbally stated future intention to perform a specific act.

- I promise to pick up your dry cleaning and not forget this time - I promise to be exclusive in our relationship


COMMITMENT: Both a FACT demonstrated by behavior, and an ATTITUDE consisting of thoughts and beliefs.

- I am committed to keeping my promises - I am committed to our relationship


In short, a promise is something you say, and a commitment is something you do. A promise is situation-specific. A commitment is contextual.

A promise is a small commitment. If a potential partner doesn't keep promises, I would question their ability to keep commitments, as they are definitely related.



CONFUSION ABOUT COMMITMENT

Whether or not you agree with my semantics, the distinction I made between a commitment and a promise was helpful for the above conversation.

The larger picture though, is that I see a lot of confusion about the status of today's relationships. Some years ago when I coined the term "pre-commitment" to describe couples that were exclusive but not yet committed, it was a helpful distinction, but the question remains- "What is commitment?"

When you are married, it is clear you are in a committed relationship. Your commitment is a legal contract and a publicly witnessed FACT. However, it is common for couples in trouble for one or both partners to have an uncommitted ATTITUDE.

I have talked with many unmarried people, as the woman above, who have described themselves in "committed relationships." They clearly have the attitude, but often have nothing but verbal promises (and sometimes not even that!) to demonstrate that the relationship is committed.


IN MY OPINION, YOU ARE -NOT- IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP IF:


1. Your partner is not aware your relationship is committed

2. You are wondering if this relationship is committed

3. You and your partner have differences of opinion about the status of your relationship

4. Your family and friends have different perceptions about the status of your relationship

5. You and your partner have not acted to explicitly formalize your commitment in some way

6. You are relying on verbal promises without a significant track record of them being kept

A commitment is explicit and unambiguous. A commitment is a formal event of some kind between two people. A commitment is something you DO over time. A real commitment is usually legally enforceable and there are consequences for breaking it.

And, for a relationship to be truly committed, there are no exits- mentally, emotionally, or physically. When the going gets rough, you make it work.


CONTINUUM OF COMMITMENT

Commitment is not a light switch that goes from "off" to "on." When building a relationship with someone, the level of commitment gradually increases.

Then you have all the shades of gray. Living together, dating exclusively for more than a year, even engaged to be married, that might look and feel like commitment, but is it really?


FACT VS. ATTITUDE

Commitment in a relationship is complicated in that it takes two people, and it requires an alignment of FACT (events, actions) and ATTITUDE (thoughts, beliefs) for both of them.

It is common to be committed in fact (e.g. "married") but not in attitude (e.g. "I'm not sure this is the right relationship for me").

It is also common to be pre-committed in fact (e.g. dating exclusively) and committed in attitude (e.g. "This is 'The One!' ").

In my work with couples I have found that the most important variable determining their future success is their level of commitment to the relationship.

In my experience, when couples are committed in fact, but not in attitude, their prognosis is poor.

Then, there are the pre-committed couples that generally fall into two categories-


UNCONSCIOUS- typically following the "mini-marriage" model of trying the relationship out, acting committed without actually making the commitment. A disconnect of fact and attitude.

CONSCIOUS- aware that they are not yet committed, usually have commitment as a goal, asking themselves "Is this the right relationship for me? Should I make a commitment?" An alignment of fact and attitude.



CONCLUSION

So, when is a relationship committed?

-- When there is an alignment of fact and attitude.

What creates the "fact" of commitment?

I propose these three criterion:


CRITERIA #1: Promises made to each other about the permanent nature of the relationship that are kept

CRITERIA #2: Explicit, formal, public declaration

CRITERIA #3: Unambiguous to partners and others

In today's world, if all three of the above are met, I would say it is a committed relationship, whether legally married or not.

I sincerely hope this article helps address the common questions about commitment that arise in relationship coaching. There are no pat answers or prescriptions, but it is my hope that these ideas and concepts will help you have productive conversations with your clients that are caught in the gray areas to support them to make effective relationship choices.



Copyright 2006 David Steele

David Steele, MA, LMFT is founder of Relationship Coaching Institute and author of "Conscious Dating: Finding the Love of Your Life in Today's World." http://www.consciousdating.com Visit http://www.consciousrelationshipresources.com for access to free live tele-seminars, audio programs, e-programs, and more for couples and singles who want to find and have a successful conscious relationship.

[RB22]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days.... I was committed to my marriage.  I thought he was... but this brought up some issues with our anniversaries.... he would inform me that he was renewing our contract...sort of a 50,000  mile check up on the car.... he would keep me around for another year.  I always thought he was joking....apparently not.   

It makes me sad that I didn't see this stuff when it was happening...

[CZBZ]

"I have been thinking about this for a couple of days.... I was committed to my marriage.  I thought he was... but this brought up some issues with our anniversaries.... he would inform me that he was renewing our contract...sort of a 50,000  mile check up on the car.... he would keep me around for another year.  I always thought he was joking....apparently not.  

It makes me sad that I didn't see this stuff when it was happening..."



DITTO! Same thing happened to me, RB22!! I never realized he was thinking about 'ending' the relationship, though. IN hindsight, it's fairly obvious that he was looking elsewhere for a companion but let me tell you, he never said so. AND, he did things that confused me.

Yes, I was concerned when he suggested we have an annual review of our marriage and decide whether it was worth it to stay together or not but while he was saying something that set my intuition on fire, he was singing love songs. Talking about our retirement together. Professing more dedication and commitment to the marriage than I ever heard my parents say. ha! The confusion was, once again, "saying one thing and doing another." The cognitive dissonance resulting from that is probably why I dismissed my intuition that something was 'wrong' and believed what i wanted to see instead. You could believe one or the other but the two combined together didn't make sense.

Are these guys reading the same book or have they confused Business Management Skills with Intimate relationships? Maybe being a narcissist and having a machiavellian attitude (without emotional connections or communal values) makes it very hard to determine whether or not the relationship is working For them. It's always about them.

what's creepy and no, I resist admitting this to myself is that he 'managed me' on his way out the door.

Gee, I was so Committed I almost had to 'be committed'.  


Hugs,
CZ