4 ms·

> There is more than one kind of relationship! Trying to equate them all as relationships is a misdirection. Relationships with your friends, parents, children

> There is more than one kind of relationship! Trying to equate them all as relationships is a misdirection. Relationships with your friends, parents, children, and spouse are not going to be comparable ever. They each have their place. We are trying to flatten them out to how they make us feel. This is an obtuse hammer for an intricately shaped interior. Example: children are about the future, friendships are not commitments, parents are a compass, spouse is life insurance. (I am simplifying to make a point.) If you try to expect your spouse to give you the same feeling like your parents do or your children do, that’s a disaster. If you try to think of your spouse in the same way as your friend that’s a disaster too. Spouses require commitments. Friends require recognition. Children require care. Parents require service. Reality is that much of society has forgotten what a spouse is supposed to be and tries to reinterpret it as friendship. It’s the reason why we are so broken.

xracy 3y ago
> Example: children are about the future, friendships are not commitments, parents are a compass, spouse is life insurance. (I am simplifying to make a point.) If you're simplifying you're missing the point of this. But I suspect you're not just simplifying to make a point, but this is actually what you believe. Maybe you've never had a really close friendship that you've felt obligated to keep alive. That requires work to fix something about it. It's absolutely a commitment. You can make any level of commitment to anyone. It's not a sexual commitment, but for example how many people have you wronged if you sleep with a friend's spouse? It's not just your own spouse. You've also wronged your friend in that. And I can tell you, if you have children, that the fallout from that likely means you've wronged your children. The same act functionally affects all of those people in a similarly meaningful way. That makes them all reasonably commitments in the same way that you see marriage as a commitment. There are pieces of a friendship that you are agreeing to or the friendship will end. That makes it a much weaker contract, but also means it requires a lot more work to keep alive. Parents/family are the opposite of that. Because the contract of parenthood/family is so strong, it's a lot less work to keep that bond well. But you can absolutely fuck it up and cut people loose.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  > felt obligated to keep alive Back to the point made before, relationships are being defined as feelings like feeling obligated to keep it alive. You are kind of bottling the definition of relationships to just "feelings" and ignoring relationships formed with explicit terms, like marriages are made. Some relationships are defined by blood and some by a contract (like a marriage contract) and others by history. Some relationships are friendly. Some relationships are self-serving and when the needs are met or if they change, the relationship disappears. Virtually all non-blood relationships are bound by an implicit "trade". If the trade ceases, the relationship disappears. The rest of the points you made are lost on me. I don't know which direction you are going in. It might be etiquette and courtesy, which are governing principles of respect. And respect is also a form of trade.
  - xracy 3y ago
    Yeah, first off there's nothing special about "blood" relationships. It's just the people you grew up around, so you're more partial to those people, because time in = time out. My siblings and I aren't close because we're related. The proof of that is my parents and I aren't close. They rely too much on thinking they don't have to show up for the relationship because "they created/raised me." My siblings, friends and romantic relationships know I could end the relationship if I'm unhappy with it. They are all the same, and all invested in it. They don't think they deserve anything special from me. They know they have to earn it. I don't feel obligation to keep these relationships alive. I just do because I've gotten good things out of them in the past. If you think there's something special about the contract of marriage... I gotta tell you, that divorce is a thing. There is no difference between any of these. I can join or leave any of these relationships as I like, and I do for the same reasons. Maybe not the exact same reasons, but the same general reasons of "I'm getting less out than I am putting in".
    - nashashmi 3y ago
      Depending on the laws of the state you live in, divorce is not exactly a thing you can pick off a shelf. Sorry that your world is so deeply broken where blood relationships don’t mean anything to you. Family is family and that matters more than friendships. Even if you find greater acceptance in other social circles, family is always going to be different. Joining and leaving relationships isn’t the only kind of relationship that exist. Some are bonds that you cannot break. Some are contracts that you enter into. And some are transient and fleeting, like you described. Virtually all relationships are a trade. No trade means no relationship.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
> Trying to equate them all as relationships is a misdirection. Relationships with your friends, parents, children, and spouse are not going to be comparable ever. Certainly not with that attitude! I don't require commitment, therefore I am not interested in a spouse. Remember: I am not you.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  You are human. And humans are social creatures. Every human requires five social elements: Communication, Mentorship, Teamwork, Dependence, and Servitude. Commitment is just a framework holding some or all of the five elements.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    It's "a" framework, not "the" framework. Therein lies my entire point.
    - nashashmi 3y ago
      Your argument was, you are not me. But you are.
      - xracy 3y ago
        I'm so confused how this could be the case unless you're actually arguing with yourself across 2 different accounts. The alternative is definitely that you don't understand that people are different from you, which is pretty wild to me.
        nashashmi 3y ago
        Obviously the individual is unique. Nevertheless some common rules pervade across all individualisms. The OP tried to argue certain rules don’t apply to everyone because everyone is different. I think the OP is wrong on which rules don’t apply. Social creatures are social, and even if a person is an unsocial natural hermit, that person still must be a social creature. No form of individualism or uniqueness can take that away. The OP tried to argue he was different. We are the same.

xracy 3y ago

> Example: children are about the future, friendships are not commitments, parents are a compass, spouse is life insurance. (I am simplifying to make a point.) If you're simplifying you're missing the point of this. But I suspect you're not just simplifying to make a point, but this is actually what you believe. Maybe you've never had a really close friendship that you've felt obligated to keep alive. That requires work to fix something about it. It's absolutely a commitment. You can make any level of commitment to anyone. It's not a sexual commitment, but for example how many people have you wronged if you sleep with a friend's spouse? It's not just your own spouse. You've also wronged your friend in that. And I can tell you, if you have children, that the fallout from that likely means you've wronged your children. The same act functionally affects all of those people in a similarly meaningful way. That makes them all reasonably commitments in the same way that you see marriage as a commitment. There are pieces of a friendship that you are agreeing to or the friendship will end. That makes it a much weaker contract, but also means it requires a lot more work to keep alive. Parents/family are the opposite of that. Because the contract of parenthood/family is so strong, it's a lot less work to keep that bond well. But you can absolutely fuck it up and cut people loose.

nashashmi 3y ago
> felt obligated to keep alive Back to the point made before, relationships are being defined as feelings like feeling obligated to keep it alive. You are kind of bottling the definition of relationships to just "feelings" and ignoring relationships formed with explicit terms, like marriages are made. Some relationships are defined by blood and some by a contract (like a marriage contract) and others by history. Some relationships are friendly. Some relationships are self-serving and when the needs are met or if they change, the relationship disappears. Virtually all non-blood relationships are bound by an implicit "trade". If the trade ceases, the relationship disappears. The rest of the points you made are lost on me. I don't know which direction you are going in. It might be etiquette and courtesy, which are governing principles of respect. And respect is also a form of trade.
- xracy 3y ago
  Yeah, first off there's nothing special about "blood" relationships. It's just the people you grew up around, so you're more partial to those people, because time in = time out. My siblings and I aren't close because we're related. The proof of that is my parents and I aren't close. They rely too much on thinking they don't have to show up for the relationship because "they created/raised me." My siblings, friends and romantic relationships know I could end the relationship if I'm unhappy with it. They are all the same, and all invested in it. They don't think they deserve anything special from me. They know they have to earn it. I don't feel obligation to keep these relationships alive. I just do because I've gotten good things out of them in the past. If you think there's something special about the contract of marriage... I gotta tell you, that divorce is a thing. There is no difference between any of these. I can join or leave any of these relationships as I like, and I do for the same reasons. Maybe not the exact same reasons, but the same general reasons of "I'm getting less out than I am putting in".
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    Depending on the laws of the state you live in, divorce is not exactly a thing you can pick off a shelf. Sorry that your world is so deeply broken where blood relationships don’t mean anything to you. Family is family and that matters more than friendships. Even if you find greater acceptance in other social circles, family is always going to be different. Joining and leaving relationships isn’t the only kind of relationship that exist. Some are bonds that you cannot break. Some are contracts that you enter into. And some are transient and fleeting, like you described. Virtually all relationships are a trade. No trade means no relationship.

thomastjeffery 3y ago

> Trying to equate them all as relationships is a misdirection. Relationships with your friends, parents, children, and spouse are not going to be comparable ever. Certainly not with that attitude! I don't require commitment, therefore I am not interested in a spouse. Remember: I am not you.

nashashmi 3y ago
You are human. And humans are social creatures. Every human requires five social elements: Communication, Mentorship, Teamwork, Dependence, and Servitude. Commitment is just a framework holding some or all of the five elements.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  It's "a" framework, not "the" framework. Therein lies my entire point.
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    Your argument was, you are not me. But you are.
    - xracy 3y ago
      I'm so confused how this could be the case unless you're actually arguing with yourself across 2 different accounts. The alternative is definitely that you don't understand that people are different from you, which is pretty wild to me.
      - nashashmi 3y ago
        Obviously the individual is unique. Nevertheless some common rules pervade across all individualisms. The OP tried to argue certain rules don’t apply to everyone because everyone is different. I think the OP is wrong on which rules don’t apply. Social creatures are social, and even if a person is an unsocial natural hermit, that person still must be a social creature. No form of individualism or uniqueness can take that away. The OP tried to argue he was different. We are the same.