In some circles, there seems to be an attack on responsibility and accountability and commitment. Why do I say that? I say that because there are some places where people who are in committed relationships but who have desires outside those, are being encouraged to go-for-it and in essence, walk away from their vows, commitments and responsibilities.
One paradigm that really needs to change is the one in which adult people think that they should be able to have everything they want or fulfill every desire that they have and justify it under the banner "self-growth" or "self-work." That's the mentality of a toddler. Plain and simple.
I am a married woman; my vows were freely made . If later on I have a desire for another person, it is NOT ok to justify that and act on them just because doing so came from the fact that I changed over time. People get hurt if partners do that. Kids get hurt and they are innocents; it is not "growing as an individual" if we act on desires we KNOW will harm and hurt our partners and kids. It is irresponsible and downright selfish. It is not ok to say "but he loves me so he should let me do it to keep from hurting me." That statement applies the other way as well; "I love him so I won't act on these feelings because I don't want to hurt him."
Justifying indulging when you have a prior commitment; let's call it what it is: bullshitting yourself.
People in committed relationships have a responsibility to one another. They definitely have a responsibility to their children and they have a responsibility to themselves to live in integrity. If I make a vow and later want to renege on that then my word is worth nothing.
I am not saying the feelings are bad; they aren't. Feelings are just that; feelings. It is what we DO with them and about them that can be harmful or not. Expressing those feelings and being honest with your partner is a good thing. However, if your partner feels unhappy or would be deeply hurt if you acted on them, then don't act on them. Same goes for your kids but even more so. If you know your kids would be devastated if you stepped outside your commitments then why do that to them? The old argument that if Mom's happy everyone is doesn't apply here; psychologists have asked kids in different age ranges and they are not thinking about what their parents want but what they NEED. Kids NEED stability; changing things, especially when the partner doesn't want that change and would be hurt, is not good for kids (see Judith Wallerstein's studies).
In "Divorce Myths Uncovered" it says:
Cathy Meyer, who writes about marriage and family issues, suggests that the happy parent-happy children idea objectifies children. "Unhappy parents fail to understand that, though they may be unhappy, their children are probably quite content and don't care if their parents don't get along as long as their family is together. A child's happiness is not dependent on their parent's happiness. A child's happiness stems from routine, having a home, two parents, friends to play with, school activities to be involved in and being able to count on these things being constant day in and day out," Meyer writes. (http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/main/divorce-myths-uncovered-1045.shtml).
Time to grow up, people. If someone in a committed relationship chooses not to go outside their commitment, despite their desire to do so, their choice should be valued and praised, not discouraged.
One paradigm that really needs to change is the one in which adult people think that they should be able to have everything they want or fulfill every desire that they have and justify it under the banner "self-growth" or "self-work." That's the mentality of a toddler. Plain and simple.
I am a married woman; my vows were freely made . If later on I have a desire for another person, it is NOT ok to justify that and act on them just because doing so came from the fact that I changed over time. People get hurt if partners do that. Kids get hurt and they are innocents; it is not "growing as an individual" if we act on desires we KNOW will harm and hurt our partners and kids. It is irresponsible and downright selfish. It is not ok to say "but he loves me so he should let me do it to keep from hurting me." That statement applies the other way as well; "I love him so I won't act on these feelings because I don't want to hurt him."
Justifying indulging when you have a prior commitment; let's call it what it is: bullshitting yourself.
People in committed relationships have a responsibility to one another. They definitely have a responsibility to their children and they have a responsibility to themselves to live in integrity. If I make a vow and later want to renege on that then my word is worth nothing.
I am not saying the feelings are bad; they aren't. Feelings are just that; feelings. It is what we DO with them and about them that can be harmful or not. Expressing those feelings and being honest with your partner is a good thing. However, if your partner feels unhappy or would be deeply hurt if you acted on them, then don't act on them. Same goes for your kids but even more so. If you know your kids would be devastated if you stepped outside your commitments then why do that to them? The old argument that if Mom's happy everyone is doesn't apply here; psychologists have asked kids in different age ranges and they are not thinking about what their parents want but what they NEED. Kids NEED stability; changing things, especially when the partner doesn't want that change and would be hurt, is not good for kids (see Judith Wallerstein's studies).
In "Divorce Myths Uncovered" it says:
Cathy Meyer, who writes about marriage and family issues, suggests that the happy parent-happy children idea objectifies children. "Unhappy parents fail to understand that, though they may be unhappy, their children are probably quite content and don't care if their parents don't get along as long as their family is together. A child's happiness is not dependent on their parent's happiness. A child's happiness stems from routine, having a home, two parents, friends to play with, school activities to be involved in and being able to count on these things being constant day in and day out," Meyer writes. (http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/main/divorce-myths-uncovered-1045.shtml).
Time to grow up, people. If someone in a committed relationship chooses not to go outside their commitment, despite their desire to do so, their choice should be valued and praised, not discouraged.
4 comments:
Nobody should ever make a promise they have no idea if they can keep.
"Nobody should ever make a promise they have no idea if they can keep."
That would depend on the person making the promise. Some people make a promise because they intend to keep it no matter how they may change.
Not everyone has to have more than one love in life. Not everyone has to have more intimate partners in life. Not everyone has to commit to one person for life either. None of those is a need, written in stone. People are diverse so one size doesn't fit all.
The point is, if someone has made a vow, they should keep it. Saying they "had no idea" they could keep it isn't license to break it. Saying they want something more or that they have changed isn't the go-ahead for breaking it either.
Who are we if we are not the keepers of our word?
You can't speak for everyone. If you don't want to commit then don't. Don't say that "nobody should" have made a commitment or work to keep that commitment; even if doing that means not always getting what they want.
Wants are not needs. It is a child who cannot see the difference between the two.
Some people actually like making vows AND keeping them because of love. Some people do not fear commitment. Some people do not worry that they will change and want to break their vows and commitments. Promises and vows are perfect for some people. Saying that "nobody should" negates all the somebodys who are happily promised and commited and willing to give up some wants to make that work.
Obviously I did not make myself clear, I do apologize.
I meant, if a person does not know if they would be able to keep a promise, that means they shouldn't make one. I don't mean that people shouldn't make promises. I mean that a person should know him or herself well enough to know if they would be able to keep their word or not. Whilst many things about a person may change over the years, I suspect that fundamental thing probably does not change.
I do not mean to negate those who keep their word in the face of change. I mean to say that those who are ambivalent, or who enter into such contracts lightly, have no business making promises that the breaking of further down the line would cause immense psychological harm to those who trusted their word.
I think, Cassandra, that I was trying to agree with you, so I'm surprised that you're instantly on the defensive.
I am sorry I am defensive. I have been dealing with people lately who have been less than kind to me when I voice my thoughts and feelings. I misunderstood your original sentiment because it said "nobody should" which sounded like an absolute.
I also have been defensive because there seems to be a trend toward putting monogamous people down as though their being so is unnatural. I have had to defend my own monogamous choice too often of late.
I agree, people should be more aware when they make commitments. It would be very helpful if they were taught to be more aware when they go to school or during their formative years.
It would probably be a good thing if our society accepted people who don't want to commit instead of treating some of them like they are somehow abnormal for not wanting to do that. Not everyone is a commitment type just as not everyone is a free-spirit type.
Thanks for replying and for calling me on that defensiveness I have. I appreciate your candor.
Post a Comment