What I would like to dwell upon though, is the C word - commitment. Apparently, this is what most if not all of the audience can agree on. It seems commitment is a key if not requisite ingredient to a successful domestic partnership regardless of its form be it married, de facto, or whatever trendy liaison terms are being bandied around these days. I have no argument with this proposition.
I too have no problem with the notion that commitment in this context broadly refers to the state of being bound emotionally to a person. If you can look past the ignorant view that emotional commitment is a sole exclusive of (legally) married relationships, you will soon notice what remain unsaid in the program, at least not explicitly, is that commitment is also an obligation, a responsibility, or promise that restricts the freedom of action on the part of the entities who undertake the commitment.
One couple in the show has been married for sixty-five years, no mean feat, and when asked what makes their marriage lasted, they utter the C word - commitment. They are also adamant neither party in the marriage has strayed during the married years, not even once. Okay. Not knowing them personally I have to take their word for it.
The question therefore is in the case when this commitment is broken or breached, does it mark the immediate termination of the relationship or is there a strike-(fill in your own number)-then-you-are-out mechanism that accords the continuance of the relationship? And if commitment is such a critical criteria for relationships, do we need to forge out a crystal-clear and legal-speak definition before embarking on a relationship? Do we need to renew this commitment and if so, how often during the course of the relationship? Questions, questions . . .
As for me, it is quite straightforward: When you next have your breakfast of eggs and bacon, remember - the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. Ditto commitment in relationship. Otherwise you are just involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment