RE: Realism in promises (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

DesFIP -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 3:44:18 AM)

I don't think that people in a healthy, satisfying relationship whose needs are being met will suddenly wake up and say "I have fallen out of love". I think that love can be built deeper and stronger as long as you keep doing what your partner needs, and he/she keeps doing for you what you need.

So if you are committed to being caring, to not using casual cruelties, to being respectful, etc I doubt your partner will suddenly say they have stopped loving you unless all along they weren't honest with you and/or themselves about what they need.



chainedgirl -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 3:48:06 AM)

To my mind its not the promises you make that matter, its the communication.  Lack of communication will kill a relationship every time.  Not just to let your partner know where you are going and when you'll be back, but to actually explain to each other what you understand the words to mean, like commitment, promise, live, monogamous, house duties, religion, Master/Dominant, submissive/slave, contractual agreement, hard limit and the miriad words and phrases we use every day.  People assume everyone else has the same understanding of what those words mean so never bother to explain them.  Yet, failing to do so can lead to some real heartache.  Take 24/7 for example.  Most peole I know take it to me we live together as a de facto D/s couple, shairing D/s and vanilla moments.  Yet, I've come across some who think it means your role as Dom/me-sub is switched on 24/7.  They don't get that their submissive may need down time to sit on the couch and cuddle, to have some alone time.  Its when you fail to explore these concepts and especially as you both start to change as people, that the rift starts to happen.



T1981 -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 4:36:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

So if you are committed to being caring, to not using casual cruelties, to being respectful, etc I doubt your partner will suddenly say they have stopped loving you unless all along they weren't honest with you and/or themselves about what they need.


Cheers to that. I'm almost a little embarressed to admit, but I'm one of those people that took the "forever" vow and have had an easy time keeping it. However, my husband and I waited TEN YEARS before we actually got married - we wanted to make sure that we were compatible, that we knew how to live with each other, and that we knew each other well enough to know how the other works.

We're smart enough to know that things could change, but neither of us see it changing anytime soon. Honesty, open-mindedness, and willingness are key if you are in the right relationship with the right person.



marie2 -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 5:08:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


So if you are committed to being caring, to not using casual cruelties, to being respectful, etc I doubt your partner will suddenly say they have stopped loving you unless all along they weren't honest with you and/or themselves about what they need.


I agree that being caring and respectful can go a long way towards keeping the relationship on the right track and increasing the odds of it's endurance. However, as the decades roll by, sometimes what we "need" changes, and the other person isn't able or willing to fulfill those changing and evolving needs, even if we've been honest about those needs.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 6:21:21 AM)

quote:

I am wildly traumatized by the idea of significant relationships being transitory. Of course, one could get all philosophical and speak of time as relative blah, blah, blah but, seriously, were I to think that a truly partnered relationship was time-limited, I would not be in it; I wouldn't consider it a spousal or truly partnered relationship. I am not judging the validity of transitory relationships for others if that is their choosing, I am viscerally and emotionally reacting to the idea of lack of permanence.
I hold love with the utmost gravity and also with the most bright joy and awe and once I grow to love someone, were they to go away, a piece of myself is gone. That is an agony I'd prefer to avoid as much as possible; my preference is to love permanently and deeply.


I think that this is a  misconception of what it is that creates permanence in a relationship -- that it is an unenforceable promise, which really has no 'bite' since we are incapable of knowing the future and are -literally- IMO, swearing a false oath which we cannot assure can be followed through on, that makes a relationship 'permanent', rather than the work between the participants that gives a relationship its 'holding power'. It seems to me that there is a profound flaw in the concept that we are doomed to spend the rest of our lives without committed relationships if we won't give a promise that has no substance to start out the relationship.

To me, what makes a relationship committed is the -ongoing-, moment-to-moment nurturing of that relationship. It isn't some promise that has no way of being enforced... it is the continuing will of the participants, who come into the relationship with the understanding that each moment that they share is precious, will never be repeated in the entire universe, and that it is the abiding desire to nurture what they have created that makes a 'relationship'.

I've found, in my own experiences, that sometimes we ignore the small signs of incompatibility early in relationships, perhaps with the thought that if we can just get the other person or people involved to "promise" that they'll hang in forever, those incompatibilities will somehow magically fade away. Then, we are surprised... shocked, even... when time passes and the incompatibilities become more pronounced rather than fading away, and resentment starts creeping silently into the corners of the relationship, where it waits like a silent thief, waiting to steal any brief joy of reprieve.

If it is the day-to-day work of sustaining a relationship that makes it strong, then why not just -do it- without the unenforceable vow?



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 6:47:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

I don't think that people in a healthy, satisfying relationship whose needs are being met will suddenly wake up and say "I have fallen out of love". I think that love can be built deeper and stronger as long as you keep doing what your partner needs, and he/she keeps doing for you what you need.

So if you are committed to being caring, to not using casual cruelties, to being respectful, etc I doubt your partner will suddenly say they have stopped loving you unless all along they weren't honest with you and/or themselves about what they need.


I agree with you on this, Des... which, to me, begs the question of why people feel it necessary to make a verbal or written promise of 'forever' that is, in itself, unenforceable, and, because of that, is, at least to me, a form of deceit.

I believe it is possible to commit to a relationship and not have to make a single promise that is not within one's purview to agree to. Here's an example of what I mean... how would people here feel if the vows below (a spur-of-the-moment venture, so forgive me if I've missed a few points) were used instead of the promises of forever and "unto death"?

"I am committed to the health and well-being of our relationship. I will strive to cherish you, and to revel in your growth, my growth, and the growth of our communion. I am ready to put in the work that I know it will take for the health of what we are trying to create here, and I am ready to step into this challenge with you, and explore the joy, adventure, love, and ecstasy of our union, for as long as love may last and our togetherness is mutually beneficial to one another.

I am prepared to be both flexible, and strong, and to treat our union as being at least as important as either of our individual self-interests in making decisions that will affect our family. I am prepared to meet the responsibilities of a shared life, including (if we should choose to do so) the responsibilities involved in the shaping of new lives from our communion and the teaching and caring for those beings shaped from our love. I am both willing and able to shoulder my share of the common well being of our family, on a physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and community level.

I know that our life will not always be easy, and that some times will be difficult enough to shake us individually and collectively. When those times come, I will do my best to keep communication open, and to give us the best opportunity possible to come through the struggles with minimal damage to the essence of our selves and our communion. as well as any being we have created through our communion. I will strive to remember the precious nature of our shared history, and the beauty of our journey together, and to respect your inherent dignity, even when anger or misunderstanding clouds the path... and even if, behind that fog, the road on which we travel diverges and we must walk our separate ways. "



feydeplume -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 6:53:49 AM)

There is much to be learned from long term vows of other faiths (since most of America is raised with the "love, honor, cherish, and obey til death do us part" propaganda) and as we are talking about here, that is not something that MOST can even hope to attain. It is a vow that sets us up for failure daily.

Just an example of a more realistic long term vow (edited for brevity and to make a point)

do you pledge to help each other to develop your hearts and minds, cultivating compassion, generosity, ethics, patience, enthusiasm, concentration and wisdom as you age and undergo the various ups and downs of life and to transform them into the path of love, compassion, joy and equanimity?

Understanding that just as we are a mystery to ourselves, each other person is also a mystery to us. Do you pledge to seek to understand yourselves, each other, and all living beings, to examine your own minds continually and to regard all the mysteries of life with curiosity and joy?

Do you pledge to preserve and enrich your affection for each other, and to share it with all beings? To take the loving feelings you have for one another and your vision of each other's potential and inner beauty as an example and rather than spiraling inwards and becoming self absorbed, to radiate this love outwards to all beings?

When it comes time to part, do you pledge to look back at your time together with joy--joy that you met and shared what you have--and acceptance that we cannot hold on to anything forever?

Those are vows that a person or people can strive to actually achieve and possibly really live day to day, without hypocrisy or guilt.



missturbation -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 7:04:19 AM)

I never make a promise there is a possibility i will not be able to keep. Therefore i never make a promise!



QueenIsis -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 7:39:25 AM)

I'm now going through my second divorce and it's for the best (he's a drug addict), but I do still love my ex-to-be, just as I do still love every ex- that I've EVER told I would love forever. Just because we are not together does not negate the love I have for them. So I actually have kept my "love" promises.



agirl -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 8:20:13 AM)

When I was young and tied the knot with my hubby, I freely admit that the *vows and promises* were just some formality we said at the time TO be married. Neither of us paid much attention to what we were saying , it was just something you said, all part of the service/ceremony...it was the *thing to do*.

No-one's ever berated me for leaving him and I didn't berate myself , either. I had no pangs of guilt about breaking the *vows and promises*...the tragedy would be if we'd stuck it out BECAUSE of them when it was clear it was spelling out a lifetime of discontent. We were simply not compatible and it would have been unmitigating stupidity to have been hung-up on stuff we'd said years beforehand.

Having trotted many more miles down the road I know that wanting the security of *forever* isn't attainable by making *vows and promises* of that nature. It's not always comfortable to realise and accept that something that makes you incredibly happy might end, but there it is; the reality is it can, could and might.

I'm a bit like Lucky......I  don't make promises and tend to want to qualify them if I do with the same phrases. But to be frank, few people ASK me to promise anything...if I say I'll do something , then I'll jolly well try to, and if I don't manage it due to *circumstances beyond my control*, then it's just too bad. I also forget to do things I've said I'd do. It's not a big deal, I'm fairly scatterbrained, people don't get all huffy about it because they know me and I obviously follow though enough for them to have asked me in the first place...lol

I don't think being realistic necessarily means that people enter into relationships with the idea it is GOING to end, I imagine they enter them with the hope it will continue as it is at the present time.

Having had to live-on despite loving someone I know it's not nice and the thought of my relationship with M ending isn't a pleasant one at all but I still have to bear in mind that no matter how much I want or love another person, it's no guarentee I'll get *forever.

agirl




lovingpet -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 8:47:09 AM)

Relational commitments are sterner stuff than a contract, a business arrangement, or any other such thing that is enacted upon cold, nonliving entities.  I have feelings as does my partner.  Some of this sounds incredibly cold (not speaking to any particular post).  If I am not content. If I find another path.  If I feel trapped.  If I am being hurt.  There is something common to all of this.  "I".  Where's the we? 

Sometimes commitment to another is inconvenient.  Sometimes it is unfulfilling for an undeterminable period of time.  Sometimes it is hard.  Sometimes it actually means that real and deep wounding occurs.  I bear up under these things and keep my end.  I cannot make such a decision for my partner, but have to trust that those words were not void and carried meaning for him/her as well.  Regardless of another's decision, I chose to love, care, and be there for that person for a lifetime and beyond and I will do so and their decision has no bearing on that.  If we come out the other side together (as a couple), then there is a time when difficulties pass, comfort increases again, we fill each other to overflowing once again, it all comes easy, and we begin to help each other heal from those dark times.  It is a very long view.  It goes against instant gratification.  It is commitment.

lovingpet 



agirl -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 9:05:09 AM)

I appreciate the notion of commitment but when people have got to the *I*, the *we* is already taking a back-seat. There often is no longer a *we* by then.

Moving on from a long term relationship, especially, isn't a fun project but is often the best all round.

I know people that have parted as a *we* too. They just recognised, together, that it was the best thing to do and the relationship changed to one of friendship. When people stay , it's not always for the *commitment* alone .....the benefit, whether it be their idea of honour etc..outweighs the cost.

agirl





CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 9:11:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

Relational commitments are sterner stuff than a contract, a business arrangement, or any other such thing that is enacted upon cold, nonliving entities.  I have feelings as does my partner.  Some of this sounds incredibly cold (not speaking to any particular post).  If I am not content. If I find another path.  If I feel trapped.  If I am being hurt.  There is something common to all of this.  "I".  Where's the we? 

Sometimes commitment to another is inconvenient.  Sometimes it is unfulfilling for an undeterminable period of time.  Sometimes it is hard.  Sometimes it actually means that real and deep wounding occurs.  I bear up under these things and keep my end.  I cannot make such a decision for my partner, but have to trust that those words were not void and carried meaning for him/her as well.  Regardless of another's decision, I chose to love, care, and be there for that person for a lifetime and beyond and I will do so and their decision has no bearing on that.  If we come out the other side together (as a couple), then there is a time when difficulties pass, comfort increases again, we fill each other to overflowing once again, it all comes easy, and we begin to help each other heal from those dark times.  It is a very long view.  It goes against instant gratification.  It is commitment.

lovingpet 


Again, I agree, but this somewhat misses the point of my question. My question wasn't "do you keep your promises?" or "Should the relationship be more important than either individual?" It was more along the lines of "Why make a promise of something one has no control over, essentially starting a relationship by speaking a contextual lie, since it is the actions over time that make the real difference, and the "promise" isn't even something one has any control over to be able to promise? Why use contextually meaningless terms like "always", "forever", "never", since they don't add anything except a false sense of security and "forever" can only be determined in retrospect, once one has reached the end of one's life?

I concur that, in looking at someone's situation, xhe may be abiding by the terms of hir promises -in this moment-, but neither xhe nor I can know what will happen a moment, a day, or 20 years from now... so why lie and pretend that we can by making promises about something we can't know we can fulfill?



agirl -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 9:15:14 AM)

Security, hope, good intentions and being in lurve.......would be a few reasons that spring to mind.

agirl



lovingpet -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 9:36:23 AM)

I believe the people involved DO have control over this AND it is a basic need to have some sense of security (we all know that any number of terrible things can happen at any moment, but if we lived based on that, we would be quite miserable and waiting for the other shoe to drop).  This is not about benefits versus liabilities.  That is not why I have a person in my life.  Sometimes a person I love is a "benefit"  other times I can almost seriously call them "liabilities".  That has nothing to do with my commitment to them.  That has more to do with keeping my word.  Everything from telling my little one, "I'll get you a piece of candy after lunch." to "I am with you, not until death do us part.  I simply and freely am." 

It is the little choices we make along the way that bring about the end of a relationship.  I keep a secret.  You are away most of the time.  I live one life.  You live another.  This is how people grow apart.  It is a slow eroding.  I understand self discovery and that sometimes a partner may not be able to fill that need.  The loving choice is to keep on with all the good things and be open to ways to meet those things that fall outside of the capability of the partner.  It is a strong bond that knows it cannot be the everything of another person.  Relationships don't have to erode.  They can flourish and grow.  It is in the care and attention the people are willing to put in.  The bottom line is, the vow is meaningless only if it is uttered meaninglessly.  Is the verbal vow enforceable?  Not in the drag you to court and enact aforementioned penalties (excepting prenuptual agreements).  Look at the pain expressed on this very thread.  There is a price to be paid.  There is fallout.  There is a certain sadness that forever is somehow a fairy tale.

I have to revise a previous statement on this thread.  I did NOT lose my forever when my husband died.  I lost his mortal body.  My love and all the life and good of our relationship will never be forgotten.  And today..... I celebrate.

lovingpet 



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 10:22:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl

Security, hope, good intentions and being in lurve.......would be a few reasons that spring to mind.

agirl



As most of you can see, I am really struggling with much of this concept... see, to me, it would seem that, as soon as I realized that the promises were nothing more than mouth-words built on mutual delusion... that they had no capacity for substance aside from the good intentions of the speaker (which could only be proven out in some misty, unreadable future), I would begin to question those "good intentions", because it would be very clear to me that any 'security' supposedly offered by those phrases was a Trojan Horse... a creation of polite lies, meant to get the speaker through the gates of my life... meant to soothe another person into a sense of hope built upon vapor and uncertainty.

To me, "love" doesn't intentionally build a life based on a fantasy, instead of on solid, realistic expectations and above-average amounts of interpersonal communication. "Infatuation" does things like that... and 'insecurity', where those kinds of false promises are spoken to convince someone that something is more real than it is... "manipulation" does things like that, in order to play on anothers' emotions and tie them to a situation that is unhealthy and built on a foundation of falsehoods and untenable promises. But "love", at least as I understand it, depends on honesty, so it -can't- start out with a promise that both sides know is nothing more than air over the lips and which can provide nothing more than an illusion of security. The same goes for trust... the inferred "foundation" of good BDSM, D/s, M/s, and/or K/s relationships -can't- start out based on a fallacy... and since it has already been shown that a promise of 'forever', 'always', or 'never' can only be determined to be true in retrospect, how can trust be built on nothing more than polite words and unenforceable promises?

Perhaps I'll never understand.



agirl -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 11:28:58 AM)

Trust in what?

I trust in what I know. I don't have the security of declarations of love ( hasn't been said to me in almost a decade) I don't have any promises of any continuance of our relationship together. I haven't made any promises either.

Maybe the difference is that I'm not *looking* for ways that I'm being deceived.  Neither one of us is making false promises or saying ANYTHING other than ......... *I want to be here.*

I don't think love is based on honesty....it's a *feeling* people have. It's not *based* on anything I put a lot of creedence in.

Everyone has to choose where they lay their confidence in a person.....there isn't a vow written that'll convince me of someone's steadfastness.....only THEY can do that by their actions, their sincerity, their consistancy..... all things that I have to get out and decipher on my own.

agirl



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 11:59:55 AM)

quote:

I don't think love is based on honesty....it's a *feeling* people have. It's not *based* on anything I put a lot of creedence in.

Everyone has to choose where they lay their confidence in a person.....there isn't a vow written that'll convince me of someone's steadfastness.....only THEY can do that by their actions, their sincerity, their consistancy..... all things that I have to get out and decipher on my own.


*chuckles* See, now, I'd be running my own thread off-topic, but I really enjoy philosophical discussions about vague concepts like "love" and "trust".

I think we're actually saying sort of the same thing. The things that people -say- their relationships are based on can't be the actual foundations of the relationship, because they are, as Valentine Michael Smith so aptly noted, "slippery"... concepts that are not founded in action or history, per se, but upon vague, unmeasurable, constantly variable ideas that are not even consistent in all of the individuals in relation to one another... ("love" means this to her, and that to him... "trust" means X to this person, and Y to that -- and the decision over whether trust has been 'broken' can be even more arbitrary and subjective). Even the "success" or "failure" of a relationship is a subjective evaluation: I was in a 13 year marriage. My ex-inlaws and my father, based on the premise that, to -them- a divorce means the relationship -failed-, see that marriage as a 'failure'. To me, the divorce was a recognition that my ex and I had done all that we were meant to do in relation to one another, so we moved on with no bitterness and no animosity... success.

It's the same with the promises. While people may say that their relationship is based on certain vows, like, say, the "Master", who says that this girl is "everything he ever wanted", and he'll "never" leave her, and will keep her as "his for always", and the slave girl who says that she will "always" be there, and serve the Master in "any way that he commands", and will "never" question his judgement or place her wants above his expectations... in reality, these phrases, and the attempt to base a combined existence on them, are based on a mutual deception -- a false, shared delusion that either of them has the power to -know-, without a shadow of a doubt, that the other person is both able and willing to keep hir word when even the person speaking it can't know.Sometimes, even delusions manage to develop into something solid, and so some relationships out of the huge mass of interactions out there, do manage to work out -- but for the most part, basing interaction on a complex construction of mutual lies, manipulations, and delusions doesn't work out all that well for most folks that I've seen -- and often end up tying them to situations that they'd be much better off distancing themselves from.



LadyPact -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 1:23:52 PM)

Two other people have touched on this and it is My general reply to the question.

Some people do throw around terms such as always, forever, or never without putting much thought into them.  They are often said at the spur of the moment when emotions are running high and our logical side isn't especially the part of ourselves that we are concentrating on.  Love can, and does, do funny things to people.

I realize this post was based on the concept of romantic love.  However, I can't help but think of it in another way, too.  In My life, I happen to be acquainted with a small person.  She is only about three feet tall.  I've only known her the three years that she's been around on this planet, but I couldn't be convinced by anyone that the love I have for her isn't the "until death do we part" kind.

On romantic, 'in love,' and other types of love that the post is focused on, I think you have to look at the person who is saying it in the first place.  "Love" isn't a word I tend to use unless I have evaluated My feelings toward the person I'm using it about.  I generally do not stop loving people that I have that emotion for.  I'm not saying that relationships have never ended, or that we haven't found that it has been best that we go our separate ways, but  it didn't mean that I stopped loving them.  There have even been a few times in My life where I've been known to say, "I love you, but I don't like you very much right now."

It may not be very realistic to expect relationships to be able to live up to "until death do us part."  People do grow, they do change, and because of this the relationships they are involved in change.  While the kind of love one person has for another can change as well, I can honestly say that there's never been anyone in My life that I've loved that doesn't have a place in My heart.



Prinsexx -> RE: Realism in promises (2/10/2009 2:56:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW


I am curious to hear from people who make or have made these kinds of promises -- who promise "forever", and "always",

Yes I am one of those people. In August of last year. I signed a contract written in my own blood. It was a contract that stated I was owned property of..... at the time of making my mark I made it in all good faith that it would be for life.
I have also married...in law twice in my life...and also as a promise again made in the form of a contract I married a third time. Again I made this promise in good faith.
But that's exactly what it was...it was made in faith and what I mean by faith is that I made the agreement to the vest of my ability at that time given the evidence I had... especially the evidence that the other party would keep their side of the bargain. In fact in good faith that we could both keep our sides of the bargain.
Faith is like that... faith in the unseen, faith which allows for change surely? Faith as opposed to a belief in dogma, things set in stone.
Of curse a part of me always will remain in relationship with those I have left, or who have left me, a part of me stays forever with those I have asked to be released from. I have stated before that relationships never end... they just change form. Even after death I believe this to be true. After all those we have loved and cared for remain with us always as memories... like invisible ripples in a stream.... unseen but still resounding long after the pebble has sunk without trace. History is not just the buildings and the artifacts that remain behind.
All I have ever hoped for is that the form that remains stays as healthy memories rather than as toxic costs.In the long term we always get what we bargained for. So here I am again



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02