3 ms·

I believe that this is a concerning side effect of the increasing inability for people to communicate and to trust others. A contract is just to re-enforce an

by monksy 9y ago

I believe that this is a concerning side effect of the increasing inability for people to communicate and to trust others. A contract is just to re-enforce an insecurity on both parties in a relationship. I'm all for discussing things even in that great detail to avoid conflict before hand. But a contract seems excessive and will probably be thrown away anyways. [Soapbox] I'm convinced that most people are completely disconnected to others, and lack the skills to meet new people, handle rejection, and come down from overly high expectations. Just seems like narcissism and the lack of flexibility.

maxander 9y ago
What exactly is the important difference between "discussing things in great detail to avoid conflict" and "having a contract"? When problems come up, is a contract more likely to be disregarded because it is written down? Is half an hour on a laptop an "excessive" cost? I don't understand your argument in the slightest. It may, of course, be true that a contract is only a good idea due to insufficient communication and trust. But, for this to be an increasing problem presupposes that people were ever better communicators and trust-ers than we are today; I think it more likely that people of previous eras were simply better at doing without. Before a couple generations ago, romantic love was a radical idea and nearly all relationship decisions were resolved by deferring to the male's preference. Such simpler times certainly don't require complicated contracts, but these days we're likely to think that that kind of relationship is missing something important.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Note that we did have contracts in the past. Marriage was a contractual relationship--quite a specific one, with the law defining many sorts of obligations--long before it was recast in modern ideas of romantic love.
rayiner 9y ago
People weren't able to better intuit the private minds of others back in the day. Instead, what's changed is that expectations used to be externally (socially, legally) imposed in the past, and now they are not. What was the expectation regarding marriage? You were going to get married before you had sex. What was the expectation regarding kids? You were going to have kids soon after you got married. What was the expectation regarding monogamy (see the author's point)? Not being monogamous was not an option. What should you do with your extra time/money? You didn't have any so it was a moot point. All that is up for negotiation now. The contract just makes that explicit instead of pretending that all those points of agreement can be achieved without formal discussion.
- monksy 9y ago
  That's one of the great things about traditional gender roles. It's well defined about what's expected of you in the relationship and addressing the other person's needs becomes easier. (Rather than mixing the two and neglecting based only on what you don't want to do.. which is going on today)
  - danbolt 9y ago
    That's certainly true about traditional roles, but I think they ultimately do a disservice to people that don't feel comfortable with them. It strikes me as an unnecessary restriction, and I'm optimistic that people can be socially and emotionally responsible without having to follow a script they don't like, although I'll admit it might take some more existential grit and communication.
    - monksy 9y ago
      I used to agree with you. However, I don't anymore. I think they're better if they're understood about what is expected on each side, and negotiation is based off of each exception. Completely ignoring them and making up things as you go along leads you to have the same issues before that the roles solved.
      - danbolt 9y ago
        Right. If you run on assumptions with what you think is true, or that you just assume you both don't need to communicate, then things will probably be really toxic! That's not really what I hoped to express though. Or, I don't mean to say that we can ignore responsibility and just "do what feels good" until it doesn't. Would it be possible to discuss or figure out what's expected on each side without using existing gender roles? I don't think it's an excuse to be neglectful, but I feel like putting people into boxes by default so you have to do less emotional legwork seems a bit dogmatic. I can imagine a lot of same-sex couples have to define their relationships without existing guides, and I wish that was more of the norm for the rest of us.
  - 9y ago
dragonwriter 9y ago
> A contract is just to re-enforce an insecurity on both parties in a relationship. A true, enforceable legal contract, yes. A written agreement that is called a “contract” that isn't focussed on being a basis for litigation in the event of failure can, however, serve as a mechanism for clear and unambiguous communication, which is needed alongside trust in a relationship.
- monksy 9y ago
  Instead of litigation, it becomes a conflict in the relationship and it would be used to trap someone into a situation they may not want to be in. (yes, they can walk away.. but the reason for resolving the relationship would stil be the cause of: "I agreed to something, and then changed my mind")

by monksy 9y ago

maxander 9y ago

What exactly is the important difference between "discussing things in great detail to avoid conflict" and "having a contract"? When problems come up, is a contract more likely to be disregarded because it is written down? Is half an hour on a laptop an "excessive" cost? I don't understand your argument in the slightest. It may, of course, be true that a contract is only a good idea due to insufficient communication and trust. But, for this to be an increasing problem presupposes that people were ever better communicators and trust-ers than we are today; I think it more likely that people of previous eras were simply better at doing without. Before a couple generations ago, romantic love was a radical idea and nearly all relationship decisions were resolved by deferring to the male's preference. Such simpler times certainly don't require complicated contracts, but these days we're likely to think that that kind of relationship is missing something important.

rayiner 9y ago
Note that we did have contracts in the past. Marriage was a contractual relationship--quite a specific one, with the law defining many sorts of obligations--long before it was recast in modern ideas of romantic love.

rayiner 9y ago

People weren't able to better intuit the private minds of others back in the day. Instead, what's changed is that expectations used to be externally (socially, legally) imposed in the past, and now they are not. What was the expectation regarding marriage? You were going to get married before you had sex. What was the expectation regarding kids? You were going to have kids soon after you got married. What was the expectation regarding monogamy (see the author's point)? Not being monogamous was not an option. What should you do with your extra time/money? You didn't have any so it was a moot point. All that is up for negotiation now. The contract just makes that explicit instead of pretending that all those points of agreement can be achieved without formal discussion.

monksy 9y ago
That's one of the great things about traditional gender roles. It's well defined about what's expected of you in the relationship and addressing the other person's needs becomes easier. (Rather than mixing the two and neglecting based only on what you don't want to do.. which is going on today)
- danbolt 9y ago
  That's certainly true about traditional roles, but I think they ultimately do a disservice to people that don't feel comfortable with them. It strikes me as an unnecessary restriction, and I'm optimistic that people can be socially and emotionally responsible without having to follow a script they don't like, although I'll admit it might take some more existential grit and communication.
  - monksy 9y ago
    I used to agree with you. However, I don't anymore. I think they're better if they're understood about what is expected on each side, and negotiation is based off of each exception. Completely ignoring them and making up things as you go along leads you to have the same issues before that the roles solved.
    - danbolt 9y ago
      Right. If you run on assumptions with what you think is true, or that you just assume you both don't need to communicate, then things will probably be really toxic! That's not really what I hoped to express though. Or, I don't mean to say that we can ignore responsibility and just "do what feels good" until it doesn't. Would it be possible to discuss or figure out what's expected on each side without using existing gender roles? I don't think it's an excuse to be neglectful, but I feel like putting people into boxes by default so you have to do less emotional legwork seems a bit dogmatic. I can imagine a lot of same-sex couples have to define their relationships without existing guides, and I wish that was more of the norm for the rest of us.
- 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> A contract is just to re-enforce an insecurity on both parties in a relationship. A true, enforceable legal contract, yes. A written agreement that is called a “contract” that isn't focussed on being a basis for litigation in the event of failure can, however, serve as a mechanism for clear and unambiguous communication, which is needed alongside trust in a relationship.

monksy 9y ago
Instead of litigation, it becomes a conflict in the relationship and it would be used to trap someone into a situation they may not want to be in. (yes, they can walk away.. but the reason for resolving the relationship would stil be the cause of: "I agreed to something, and then changed my mind")