I've been pondering something since I posted to Adinva this morning, and reflecting on KD's post about M... It's about the overall concept of a marriage commitment.
I started reflecting on my current approach, and why my acts of doing things for my H, meeting his needs, is not pleasing me. There was a time when it did, when the mere act of doing something for him was pleasurable to ME. And I spent some time contemplating what the difference is between now and then.
It boils down to the reason why I'm doing it. My current approach is out of a sense of obligation. "If I am going to remain M'd, even just until son goes off, I am obligated as a W to perform certain functions. It's my responsibility, my duty. Everyone is telling me it's what I need to do."
Key word, obligation.
But most people don't refer to M as an obligation, they refer to it as a M commitment. Having a commitment sounds much better than having an obligation. Why?
I tried looking at the definitions of the words but they tended to cross-over, so that wasn't very helpful. So I tried coming up with examples of where the different words are used.
Committed: (not the lock-away-in-an-asylum version) I'm committed to losing weight He's committed to finishing this marathon They're committed to saving x dollars a month for retirement
Obligated: He's obligated to pay child support each month She's obligated to serve 20 hours of public service as restitution They're obligated to pay a fine if they don't show as scheduled
The difference, I've determined, is where the motivation is coming from. When someone is committed to something, the motivation comes from within. When they are obligated, the motivation comes from without. Most people that are obligated to do something would choose not to if given a choice. Most people that are committed doing something do so even when no one is watching.
WAS's that walk from a M lost the commitment to the M some time prior, and they are left only with the obligation. Eventually, the obligation isn't enough to keep them around, because the obligation can be negated simply by filing for D. Proof! Obligation removed.
So what causes people to lose commitment, and how can it be regained, or is it even possible?
So back to the examples. - Someone is committed to losing weight. Why do they quit? Because the challenge is too difficult and the reward is not forthcoming. - He's committed to finishing this marathon. Why do they quit? Personal injury, exhaustion, physical inability, overwhelmed by the monumental size of the task, progress is not forthcoming. - They're committed to saving x dollars a month for retirement. Why do they quit, or perhaps fall short? Material things too tempting, loss of income, long-term big picture too far away to grasp the payoff.
In each of the examples, the external barriers are greater than the internal drive to accomplish. The payoff is not there. The same reason not everyone is committed to completing a marathon or even trying -- too much effort for not enough personal payoff. So I'm hard-pressed to see why anyone would commit to M if they believed they would get nothing in return. They have to have SOME expectations of a payoff.
When the payoff is not forthcoming, the internal commitment is tested. If the period without payoff is too long, the commitment is lost and the only thing left is the obligation, which by definition can in itself be suffocating. Clearly, obligation is rarely enough to motivate a person to stay in a M, and when it is, it's far from satisfying for either party.
So how does one present enough payoff to a WAS that they'll want to commit to the M again? What would make me once again value doing something for my H just for the sake of doing something for him?
