h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Having just been dumped by my boyfriend of 6 years as he didn't want to enter into any form of committment with me; I feel compelled to ask the community what you think of committment to one's partner.

I would have been happy to enter into a joint mortgage with aforementioned boyfriend, marriage would not have been a necessity. I would be interested to know if any of you are in a long term relationship but have not yet made a committment. I'd especially like to hear from people who are against the idea of committing to someone.

This thread is not to fish for sympathy, I'm just seeking enlightenment!

Many thanks in advance,

(sorry for using the word "committment" so many times, can anyone think of a substitute word?)

I'm not,nor have I really been..in a long term relationship,but I do think commitment is important.But that depends what you call commitment..to me it would mean there be being no one else involved in the relationship ,monogomous as it were primarily. Marriage and such is an individual thing..it may be right for some and not for others.But it's important to make sure you both have the same view on it. I think some people are scared of such commitments as moving in together, joint finances ,marriage etc because they somehow see it as signing their life over, thats it forever!..which is of course a little silly as all you're realy saying i love you enough to want to try this!

QB, brief bit of sympathy there...

I'm not long out of a long-term relationship myself (8yrs) that floundered in part due to committment issues. The problem was the other way round, though - I was ready to move in together etc. but she never was and had other issues that compounded this. In my mind, I had 'committed' several years previously - but it had been an emotional/intellectual decision (in the wee hours of the morning) rather than a particular action.

I think there's an element of fear involved, which can paralyse one or both parties. There's an element of control of your own life that you lose at that moment of 'commitment', and that can be scary, prompting otherwise sensible people to or otherwise sabotage the situation to prevent any change in the comfortable non-committed status quo.

I would add that I felt better in myself after making my 'committment' - I knew i'd crossed a line but I was happy with that. Next time I'll know that it isn't something to be afraid of.

All the best!

So from the sounds of it, committment is only an issue if people disagree about it. Much like anything else then!

Has anyone successfuly changed their own view on committment to that of their partners, or can it be possible to find a compromise?

Should wait 6 years before telling your partner that you don't want a committment with them? I'm a bit biased on this one.

This sounds like an episode of "Sex in the City"...



I've got to attend a meeting, but I'll check back later

Weeeeellllll, my Other Half successfully changed my views on commitment. In the past ten - omigod, eleven nearly - years, I have gone from 'No no no no I won't commit I'm too scared you can't make me' to 'Well, OK, we can TRY living together, but no joint accounts' to sharing a credit card, and now I am seriously considering proposing to him on the 29th and having his babies (don't tell him, it's a surprise). So change is possible.

How could you be with someone for 6 years without being committed? I mean, maybe I'm looking at this wrong...but surely after a year or so it stops being "messing around"??

I of course would have kicked him very heartily in the kneecap if some bloke had told me after 6 years he "wasn't serious"...six years? That's just madness !!

I like the idea of marriage...but committment should be a part of every real relationship...that he waited 6 years to tell you it wasn't something he was really into just screams cowardice and deceit to me...??

Marriage is an institution, and who wants to live in an institution?

It's all part of being committed, innit ?

Marriage is techniqually a institution but there are many forms of institution that are good, such as education or government (despite what many think). However, I still am not for the labeling of marriage as an institution, it is really just a way of proclaiming your commitment to the world. I am not sure about other places, but as far as my local legalities go, the difference between common-wealth and married is you non-willed estate and you family gets to make those your-incapacitated desicions.

-R
ps: my first real post at h2g2

welcome aboard moontide !

I got married for one reason, and one reason only (am now divorced) to protect my child. Unmarried fathers have no legal rights, and I wanted my son to be safe when he was with his dad.

So I think that marriage is paperwork because of out-dated laws.

I don't want any more children, so I'm never intending to get married again. I've worked hard to get what I have. Ok, so that's only a small ex-council mid-terrace house, but it's *mine* and I'm paying for it all by myself. I'm not interested in marrying and ending up with someone else owning half of it. Even if I end up owning half of what they've got. I sound a bit bitter, and maybe it's because I haven't met the right person, but I cant imagine spending the rest of my life with one person.

Mina, I'm confused by what you mean about your son - do you mean that you wanted him to have two legal guardians? In the states, a positive dna test is all that's needed to make a guy legally responsible.

I didn't think I'd get married again after the first fiasco. But I sort of had to this time around, otherwise I wouldn't be able to be with that nice British boy Njan. Hard to say how long I would have avoided the subject had be been an American.

He'd be financialyly responsible, but he wouldn't have any rights - for instance if J needed hospital treatment, his dad wouldn't be able to consent. He wouldn't have any legal right to bring up J if I died (although I doubt he would betaken away in that case), and he wouldn't have any say in where J went to school, or anything like that. I felt it was better for J if his dad's rights were legal. It's a parental responsibility thing - unmarried dad's don't get it automatically.

Hmm..what about in my case, where james is married to me, and the biological father is deceased?

Njan would, I think, have to legally adopt your children to get guardian status over them. I could be wrong though.

I think you are right Kerr, njan would have to legally adopt them. I know somebody that did this, and in the end they decided that the kids would also change their surname to match their adopted father's name. That is a separate decision to the adoption one though.

I thought so. You two need to read:

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 - http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20020038.htm

and

The Children Act 1989 http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890041_en_1.htm

Which incidently is the act which reversed the rule of law that the father shall be the automatic guardian of a child.

ANother option is to get your solicitor to give parental responsibility to Njan - from what I've heard in the past (and I don't know if this is true) if Njan adopts them, you have to as well, so that you are both adopting them as a couple.

It's a good idea, because if you have any children with Njan, it can do weird things. As the children are (I assume) American, it might all be a bit more complicated.

I was in two long term relationships that didn't involve marriage but did involve two children (one from each) both fathers applied for parental responsibility after the breakup of our relationship. However, after a long period of I'm not interested in blokes anymore I met a really good one. We are now married even though I was always dead set against the whole marriage thing. Would like to have my husband as the legal guardian of both kids but I know the fathers would make a mighty big fuss about it. Being married is not really any different to not being married apart from the commitment you have decided to make to each other for all to see. I would have been quite content to carry on being unmarried (although I prefer my new surname)
It is far more important to make a will (particularly if you have children) so that the welfare of the family can be sorted. I have requested that my children live with my new husband should anything happen to me.

i want to get married...one day, maybe, i think


"He'd be financialyly responsible, but he wouldn't have any rights - for instance if J needed hospital treatment, his dad wouldn't be able to consent. He wouldn't have any legal right to bring up J if I died (although I doubt he would betaken away in that case), and he wouldn't have any say in where J went to school, or anything like that. I felt it was better for J if his dad's rights were legal. It's a parental responsibility thing - unmarried dad's don't get it automatically"

so marriage was to just make the man pay for everything but have no say in what he was paying for? perhaps i don't want to get married, i like to know what i am payiong for and have a choice

but i digress, marriage is nice, so is saying 'I love you.'.