An incident with a cat led to this exchange between my current partner and me and it sums up my position and his very nicely. As usual, consulting with a dictionary is immensely helpful and resolves any lingering doubts. Every time I see "committed relationship" in print, as if it were a good thing, the word "commit" really really offends my brain, if I may say so. I always thought that it was just an idiosyncratic reaction of mine, but no, it is sensible: in the dictionary entry, the commitment against one's will is placed above the commitment in the sense of "commitment to marriage". So that is why it was so offensive to my brain - for a good reason.


From me to him:

I now understand why I do not want committed relationships. I want people to want my company on their free will. I do not want to act in the capacity of a prison or a mental health facility.

Yesterday, I was bringing a large Amazon box into the apartment, and Adele ran away while I was doing it. I chased and caught her.

I still feel kind of bad because I am not letting her do what she wants to do.

But she is a cat, a pet, and I am responsible for her health, safety, and wellbeing and I know that she would be better off with me so I am to some extent justified in keeping her against her will.

But I simply do not get how people want to keep their partners against their will. Human partners - not pets. Humans are responsible for their health, safety, and wellbeing on their own so there is no justification in not letting them do whatever they want.

I mean, I have understood it for a while, but this dictionary entry does the job of fully explaining my train of thought.

com·mit (k-mt)
v. com·mit·ted, com·mit·ting, com·mits
v.tr.
1. To do, perform, or perpetrate: commit a murder.
2. To put in trust or charge; entrust: commit oneself to the care of a doctor; commit responsibilities to an assistant.
3. To place officially in confinement or custody, as in a mental health facility.
4. To consign for future use or reference or for preservation: commit the secret code to memory.
5. To put into a place to be kept safe or to be disposed of.
6.
a. To make known the views of (oneself) on an issue: I never commit myself on such issues.
b. To bind or obligate, as by a pledge: They were committed to follow orders.
7. To refer (a legislative bill, for example) to a committee.
v.intr.
To pledge or obligate one's own self: felt that he was too young to commit fully to marriage.
[Middle English committen, from Latin committere : com-, com- + mittere, to send.]

From him to me:

I totally agree. This is a normal reaction of a responsible adult. Even though I have to acknowledge that most people do not want freedom of choice and are willing to exchange it for a ring, house, and/or a promise of sexual exclusivity.

My further thoughts, not sent to him:

1) I like my fingers are they are, "unadorned", and most rings are very ugly, so I have no objections to not having a ring
2) a house would be very nice or at least an apartment would be very nice
3) I thought more on sexual exclusivity and do not see any benefits in it other than in having unprotected sex. This guy with whom I had this exchange treats me very well unlike ex 2nd H who was exclusive with me and I with him and nobody derived any benefit from it over the course of those many many years that we were together. So clearly it is more important to be with a nice person than to be with someone exclusively - that part seems obvious and not subject to discussion. OK, so maybe exclusivity has some add-on benefits, as an optional but positive thing? Nice clearly is not optional - it is required, but maybe exclusive is optionally beneficial? Say, hypothetically, if a person is nice AND, on top of it, is sexually exclusive with you, may be that would be better than just nice by itself? Not sure, still see no benefit.