I have nothing against practical monogamy save for this. You must free the ones you love before they can freely choose you.
It’s why insisting on lifetime guarantees of sole-possession is the worst possible way to soothe your jealousy or fear of abandonment.
If you can’t let go of that fear long enough to put someone else’s happiness first, it doesn’t matter how many oaths, contracts or incentives you use to fortify your conquest. You will never know what real trust feels like.
(Pre-edit: this became much longer than intended. You struck a chord in me it seems.)
You’ve articulated this so very well. It’s a lesson that took me many years to learn and comes with the prerequisite of respecting yourself and respecting your partner to such a degree that the relationship comes second for both of you. Each person’s first priority should be themselves. Both parties need to respect that to the point of accepting that staying together is not a given and is contingent on both parties being fully satisfied with the direction your lives together is heading.
The funny thing is that I’ve never felt more confident in my relationship since learning that. I used to think that’s putting the relationship second to yourself is antithetical to commitment but actually it’s the other way around. The only way to fully commit to a relationship is to make sure that maintaining it is a concious choice rather than an expectation or given.
The way my dad illustrated this lesson in my youth (and I took the advice but only recently learned the full meaning of it) is like this: life is a journey down a road with many crossroads. Should you find a partner, you walk together. If you hit a crossroad and can’t agree on a direction then thank each other for the lovely journey together but let them follow their own path. Find that partner that is going to the same destination and you’ll have found happiness in love.
He sounds like a wise person and I like his apt illustration.
For example, is the blessing of a traveling companion measured by the miles you share? Of course not. They had and will have their own adventures apart from yours. Pretending otherwise is immature. Claiming otherwise is delusion. Demanding otherwise is selfish. Yet many do.
The fact that immaturity, delusion and selfishness are common in relationships isn’t surprising (it’s common outside them too) but the way it’s still casually accepted as default in our culture is a pity. “Me or no one” exclusivity under “till death” contracts remain non-negotiable parameters for many who are blind to everything that coercion steals from them.
Thought experiment: let’s say Alice goes with Bob to his place after their date, implying she wants sex, but later she doesn’t feel like it. Is it OK for Bob to insist based on what she implied? That is, does he have her consent? But what if Alice was more explicit, or signed a written contract? OK but what if the contract just prevented Alice from leaving? What if it specified some incentive? What about just making him her only option?
This is at least approaching legal bounds, but that wasn’t the question. The question was does Bob have Alice’s consent. We can agree on one thing at least. Bob might have Alice’s consent. Unfortunately, he made it quite hard to ever be sure.
I have nothing against practical monogamy save for this. You must free the ones you love before they can freely choose you.
It’s why insisting on lifetime guarantees of sole-possession is the worst possible way to soothe your jealousy or fear of abandonment.
If you can’t let go of that fear long enough to put someone else’s happiness first, it doesn’t matter how many oaths, contracts or incentives you use to fortify your conquest. You will never know what real trust feels like.
(Pre-edit: this became much longer than intended. You struck a chord in me it seems.)
You’ve articulated this so very well. It’s a lesson that took me many years to learn and comes with the prerequisite of respecting yourself and respecting your partner to such a degree that the relationship comes second for both of you. Each person’s first priority should be themselves. Both parties need to respect that to the point of accepting that staying together is not a given and is contingent on both parties being fully satisfied with the direction your lives together is heading.
The funny thing is that I’ve never felt more confident in my relationship since learning that. I used to think that’s putting the relationship second to yourself is antithetical to commitment but actually it’s the other way around. The only way to fully commit to a relationship is to make sure that maintaining it is a concious choice rather than an expectation or given.
The way my dad illustrated this lesson in my youth (and I took the advice but only recently learned the full meaning of it) is like this: life is a journey down a road with many crossroads. Should you find a partner, you walk together. If you hit a crossroad and can’t agree on a direction then thank each other for the lovely journey together but let them follow their own path. Find that partner that is going to the same destination and you’ll have found happiness in love.
He sounds like a wise person and I like his apt illustration.
For example, is the blessing of a traveling companion measured by the miles you share? Of course not. They had and will have their own adventures apart from yours. Pretending otherwise is immature. Claiming otherwise is delusion. Demanding otherwise is selfish. Yet many do.
The fact that immaturity, delusion and selfishness are common in relationships isn’t surprising (it’s common outside them too) but the way it’s still casually accepted as default in our culture is a pity. “Me or no one” exclusivity under “till death” contracts remain non-negotiable parameters for many who are blind to everything that coercion steals from them.
Thought experiment: let’s say Alice goes with Bob to his place after their date, implying she wants sex, but later she doesn’t feel like it. Is it OK for Bob to insist based on what she implied? That is, does he have her consent? But what if Alice was more explicit, or signed a written contract? OK but what if the contract just prevented Alice from leaving? What if it specified some incentive? What about just making him her only option?
This is at least approaching legal bounds, but that wasn’t the question. The question was does Bob have Alice’s consent. We can agree on one thing at least. Bob might have Alice’s consent. Unfortunately, he made it quite hard to ever be sure.
Thank you for posting this. I’m on something of a journey myself, and needed this advice.