|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Open marriage vs divorce | by plum_geeky | 2010-04-23 13:16:48 |
| The exclusivity contract is one of the |
by twixt |
2010-04-23 17:39:50 |
fundamental assumptions of marriage. IMO, in the absence of full-disclosure discussions about the topic *before* marriage, the exclusivity contract is assumed.
To redefine the marriage after-the-fact is essentially the breaking of the marriage vows. The issue then becomes whether or not this is acceptable to the other party in the relationship. If it is not acceptable to the other party - then the honourable thing for the first party to do is to remain exclusive. (A promise is a promise.)
Unilateral breaking of the vow - either with or without discussion - is adultery. Full stop. If one or the other person in the relationship is so unfulfilled in the relationship that they wish to renege on the vow of exclusivity they voluntarily and consciously entered into when marrying in the first place - then the relationship is either over or in need of serious renegotiation.
If the relationship is being renegotiated on a whim, then the relationship was not entered into with the proper respect for the vows made at the time of marriage. And again, there is a need to either end the unworkable relationsip or renegotiate the terms of that relationship.
Note: The above does *not* mean there is something wrong with Open Relationships. I mean nothing of the kind. It is the renegotiation of the rules *after the fact* and/or *unilaterally* that is the problem - not the idea of an Open Relationship.
Now, here comes the hard part:
1. In order to renegotiate the relationship, the rules-of-engagement require that both parties are fully and consciously aware of the new ruleset. That requires both negotiation (communication) skills *and* the ability to trust the other person's word to abide by the renegotiated contract. If either the communication skills or the ability to trust the other person's word are missing, then the negotiations *will* fail - and the marriage is already doomed IMO.
2. The party in the marriage who is interested in reneging on the exclusivity agreement is usually "gone" from the existing marriage already - by the time discussions on the matter have started. They just don't have the guts to admit that they're not emotionally present any more - or they are lazy and want the benefits of the marriage (somebody else shares the housework and financial load) without the responsibilities-of-care that are IMO the foundation of a happy marriage.
3. The person who is surprised by the request to renegotiate the marriage contract must take a *rigorously* honest look at their partner - and decide whether or not that person is a willing and capable *participant* in the marriage. If the other partner is there for maid service, roommate-cost-sharing, or the other conveniences of a shared life *without* the emotional sharing as well - then the marriage is over and there is no point in maintaining the sham. IMO, it is then prudent to get on with the divorce so both parties are then free to renegotiate the kind of marriage they want with a suitable partner - without the baggage of broken promises and mutual recrimination.
4. After the divorce - and before entering into a new relationship - it is well for both parties to rigorously examine their own contributions to the marriage failure. If either party cannot define their own contribution to why the marriage failed - they have not done sufficient introspection. And if sufficient introspection has not been done - both parties *will* select a second (or third, or fourth, and so on) partner with the same characteristics as the original. We *are* creatures of habit - and it takes very good reasons of which we are consciously *aware* for us to break our destructive patterns and establish new constructive ones. (Eg: Diet)
The above is written in a cold, hard-hearted, uncompromising and unromatic manner. This is deliberate. The *mechanics* of establishing and maintaining a workable relationship are no different than the *mechanics* of buying and maintaining a car. There is a committment to the vehicle (partner) which requires attention to the vehicle's operation (communication) and the ability to perform the required maintenance (negotiation) to maintain the integrity of the vehicle (relationship) *regardless* of whether romance is present or not. If that maintanence is not performed - *regardless of whether romance is present or not* - then the car (relationsip) will eventually turn into a hunk of junk and be discarded.
The issue then becomes whether or not the maintenance of a relationship is considered an act of love or a duty. Having that communication and negotiation be an act of love makes the maintenance a pleasure rather than an obligation - and as we all know a pleasurable action is its own reward. But it takes two responsible adults to tango in this manner. And IMO not everyone qualifies. :-(
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
