commitment

Di (me? never!) is watching ‘the Bachelor’.  We like the ugliness of the characters.  Ugggh! :)

He’s down to the last two girls, and is being incredibly intimate with both of them.  Both of the girls (and no doubt part of him) are going to be really hurt.  I can’t count the number of times he has said, “I’m just so confused right now emotionally.”  Di just said, “Pashing two girls.  For the love!”

The dangerous illusion is that he hasn’t committed to either one yet.  The truth is that the intense intimacy they have shared (not just physical intimacy, but emotional, relational intimacy – the identity forming stuff) has long since been building committed bonds with both of them.  The principle is thus: intimacy and commitment advance in tandem.  You can’t have one, as they say, without the other.

I often make this point concerning the relational bond or union (or ‘joining’ or ‘marriage’) created by sexual union, but the same principle holds true even before the sexual act.  A ‘mere’ kiss, for example, is no ‘mere’ thing at all.  Heck, even the first hand-holding experience sends a few hundred amps up one’s arm.