Mart-deBlog

"Commitment issues", isn't that a stupid phrase? Someone supposedly has them or not. But I think more can be said about it. What kind of people are afraid of committing? Maybe, what is called a fear of committing is simply the result of lacking a romantic ideal to strive for, I mean, those who do not believe in the 'One Ideal Partner' cannot say that the partner is simply not the right persona and thus they have commitment issues instead. In such cases, commitment issues are the same as being critical and dismissing people as being faulty, the sense of having a relationship freaks out because deep-down the idea of spending an eternity with the partner is simply horrible. In the end, one might say that only the two factors "life" and "death" are capable of evoking the freak out. Spending an eternity with some people can feel like being DEATH, and the thoughts subconsciously resembles dying. This is when the other person (however interesting they may be) suck the life out of you for just a short moment. And, what you see so often, that if people have been lifeless for too long (i.e. in a mismatched relation), you don't even care anymore for being a zombie and they turn around their anxiety until leaving becomes the new death, they are like zombies who are afraid of being reborn. These do not dare to split up or divorce. But hopefully, we search for LIFE, for being with someone who vitalizes, activates and inspires. And who would call that an "issue?" Maybe that is why humor is so important in relationships, it is a sign of life. And as such committing to life doesn't even exist, you cannot commit to life, it is impossible to commit to something that moves and changes, since it is not a commitment. And that is why I think "committment issue" is essentially a stupid phrase, a right or wrong relationship is the only issue.

But there is more. There is something tragic about commitment. In a way, you could divide the character of people (simplistically) in two: the taker-side that needs an other, and giver-side that needs to be needed by an other. At face value, these naturally seem to fit together. However, it is this natural fit that causes problems. Especially, it destroys freedom: out of being needed one signs a contract with the needy, and this contract implies obligations. And thus it implies that one part of every person is repressed. Every time one has a need, let's say for comfort, then the other is obliged to provide for the need, and give comfort. It seems that it is in the nature of relationships that people give up the freedom of giving and taking and either the contract says you take or it states that you give, there is often no room to be both after the initial contract is signed. Of course, both partners fight it, the taker tries to give, and vice versa. But it is often useless, they are chained to their role. And then it leads to freaking out, to commitment issues of the giver that is sucked empty and the taker who loses itself in the other. But if there would not be any obligations, what would that mean? Are there intense feelings that go beyond needs, do they exist? I think (but many tell me I am wrong), that the taker-side and giver-side of one person should only go into a relationship amongst themselves, your giver-side providing for your own taker-side. I am completely narcissistic. But in this case you need things only of yourself and only you yourself provides for them; then maybe you can deal with a relationship that is not based on needs. And, from experience, one will happily continue freaking out when a relationship starts to revolve around unchanging needs and pushes you into a one-sided role. But I wonder, without needs, can there be intense feelings for each other or does the needless relationship mean simply indifference? I do not know. I just keep on freaking out...