the invention of "we've committed to be monogamous but we haven't committed to stay together forever" is weird and tbh contractually sus
Exclusivity without a commitment to stay together
12 tweets · February 2024 · 777 likes · 32 retweets · read on Twitter
like implicitly it's "I won't have sex with anybody else while we're still together, but I could break up with you then have sex with someone else and that wouldn't be cheating, but don't worry I won't, but of course we're not ACTUALLY committed for life yet don't be ridiculous"
this prompted by reading the Eliezer "trading up" thing again. the reason it sounds weird (besides exact %s) is because of an equivocation between "committed relationship" as in "committed to exclusivity" and "committed to stay with you"
if death doesn't do you part, a breakup will! either you've actually committed TO STAY TOGETHER (vaguely implicit in eg a bf/gf who move in together but usually totally unstated) or you have no such commitment, which imo IMPLIES you're open to finding someone better
this is based on an assumption I make, that maybe others don't but it seems sort of obvious, which is that most people would be stoked to get married if they trusted that they'd found the best match they were likely to find
and even if I'm wrong (in general or in your case) then I guess like, if you actually think you'd never want to commit to anybody forever... ...then it's a matter of integrity to ensure your current partner knows that and isn't assuming otherwise.
anyway, I guess it's not really surprising that people gravitate towards this weird attractor in the context of being a new weird species with sex-related pair-bonding instincts plus birth control
I find myself second guessing my top tweet because idk, a company can make demands while you're there but then not after you leave, that's a fine contract but I do feel like romantically-emotionally, ppl do be implicitly promising each other forever while explicitly not doing so
as also evidenced by the fact that people in non-marriage not-committed-for-life romantic relationships totally DO feel betrayed if their partner leaves for someone else! not merely sad, etc, but betrayed
hmmm I bet the implicit promise to be together forever is something that's happening on an unconscious handshake level
guessing these ersatz romantic promises are largely about filling attachment holes, which are the sorts of things that ARE supposed to be filled forever, not temporarily (insert long tangent about carrying Mother's Love with you forever in your heart)
so many relationship problems are caused by the accidental porting of courting norms to marriages and marriage norms to courtship VIA the brand-new messy invention of "dating indefinitely but not forever"