Ground Rules of Breakups

Remove all ads!

I have to give some credit here, because Chev's topic on "splitting because it's going too well" really got me thinking about this.

First of all, I must state that I am speaking of relationships that have lasted a while, say at least a couple of months, but NOT marriages. There are very few justifiable reasons I can see for ending a marriage, of which abuse, neglect, and a serious breach of trust (such as infidelity) spring immediately to mind.

But about dating someone. There are so many reasons for relationships such as these to end, of which simple incompatibility has to be near the top of the list. However, something has occurred to me, and I think this is a big reason, and quite possibly, a rather shallow reason, that many are guilty of, including myself.

We'll call it the "Grass is Greener" arguement. Is it OK, speaking either morally, ethically, or even just in the name of what's right, to break up with someone because you've met someone who is better looking? I know I've done this, and while I can't say for sure, I'm fairly confident this has been done to me as well. Now, keep in mind I'm not speaking of a compatibility issue. Say you've been dating someone for a couple of months, everything is going well, and then you meet someone who is much better looking. You seem to get along with this person, you seem to be just as compatible, and everything would be just fine, except you happen to be involved with a someone else. What's more, it's not like the relationship with the other person isn't going well, it's just you've found greener grass elsewhere (no pun intended).

When this has happened to me in the past, there's been no doubt of my response. I jumped ship. I switched. Very little, if any hesitation involved in my decision-making process. It's only now, looking back at my years of being "young and dumb" that I've really concluded that my actions were not very nice at all. So basically, is finding someone who is more attractive reason enough to dump your current partner, provided you aren't already married, or at least engaged? What point does a relationship have to get to that commitment demands a really good reason, beyond simply looks, to go with someone else?

I really don't have an answer for this. Looking back on things, I certainly am not proud of my actions, and yet, I'm quite confident just from the number of times I've seen this happen with both myself and others, that it's a rather common occurance. So common, in fact, that in some cases, it's probably OK? So when does it become not OK? Certainly not after you get married, but certainly not after the first date either. The worst part is that you know you aren't being very nice when you're doing it, and you do it anyway. Those breakups always are the hardest too, because you know you really don't have a good reason, you don't want to tell them why you want to break up, and you realize that if you hadn't met someone else, you'd proabably would have remained happy with this person for the foreseeable future.

Any thoughts?

 

I am by no means an expert on relations but I dont really see what you are aiming at here Aldeth. Lets turn it around, why wouldnt it be OK to break up with someone for whatever reason? Are you supposed to stay with someone in a relationship just to be nice even if you dont want to? Does it matter if your lack of wanting to stay is because you have met another superfoxy chick or because your girlfriend beats you when she have been drinking?

I am not saying one should break up with someone as soon as a distraction or little problem shows up but if you really feel that you want to the reason for you wanting to do that cant really matter. Even if that reason may appear quite mean or stupid.

 

Well that's the thing. It does appear to be both mean and stupid - and shallow to boot. But it happens all the time. I'm happily married to my wife - I certainly don't want to give any false impressions here - but I was wondering basically at what level does a relationship move past such things? When does the skirt chasing give way to deeper feelings?

 

It happened to me once or twice, i told my girlfriend how things were, and moved on. Sounds cold, but you don't wanna spend too much time feeling bad about it.

They'll do it to you just the same.

 

Ahh yes...the old grass is greener theory.

Its hard to fight human nature. Every person wants something that they think is better than what they have already.

I remember being on a date with this guy. Probably our third date. We were at the movies when this girl walked up the aisle by us. I thought he would break his neck looking at her. I asked him did he want me to take her picture or was it now burned into his memory. He told me it wasn't really the girl he was looking at it was more about what she was wearing. lol. He then went on to explain that to guys, girls, were like cars. Just because a guy sees a nice one go buy dont mean he wants it. I elbowed him in the ribs and told him if she was a sportscar then what did that make me a BUICK. lol. I dont think he took his eyes off the movie screen the rest of the night.

Something to remember: Just because the grass looks greener on someone elses lawn dont mean the lawn isn't high upkeep!

 

I have never and I never will seek greener grasses when I have a good lawn of my own. All relationships I have been in haven't been 'bad' because I'm selective with whom I start a relationship with. Once I'm with someone, I stay with them till one of us doesn't want to be with the other.

Why do I do this? Because I expect the same kind of dedication from my partner. I'm not going to call someone who breaks up with me a 'whore' or a '*****' when I would do the same thing.

The irony is that a girl has broken up with me, not because the grass was greener but because it was closer (at least that's what she told me). A month later she finds out that her new lawn has far more problems than her old one (me) and she wants her own lawn back. Obviously she showed her true colors so I wanted nothing to do with her.

 

Here's the conundrum as I see it. Basically, when you start dating in high school, it's just for fun. Very few people marry their high school sweet hearts. In college, and certainly by the time you hit your mid-20s, most people start seeking life-long partners. Logically, everyone wants to get the "best" life-long partner that they can. No one wants to "settle" for someone when they think they can do better, and that's where the grass is greener theory comes into play. If you think you can do better (and lets face it, attractiveness is part cultural, but also leads to reproductive success from an evolutionary standpoint) that there is a strong biological drive to get the best that you can get. Still, it doesn't make us very nice.

 

Can't say I've ever done the "grass is greener" thing. I don't get into a relationship unless there is actually something more than just physical attraction (man, I sound like such a wiener). I've been on the receiving end once or twice (at least), which is tough, but if I'm not what someone wants then that's their choice and I'll respect it. The only reason why I've had to end anything is because my emotions aren't what they need to be to maintain a real relationship. It hurts like hell to tell someone you care about that you don't love them, but it's better to be honest than to drag things on - you shouldn't ever feel shackled or burdened by a relationship, otherwise it's pretty much screwed.

Not that being honest makes it any easier or hurts less, mind you. "Grass Is Greener" stuff is understandable if it's not serious, but in my experience it comes back to haunt people.

@ Aldeth: Evolution never really meant much to me (except on RAW, but that's a different story).

 

I'm going to give you a couple of strange answers here. Most of them will be things you wouldn't have expected me to say.

But, first of all, my relationships have been different. I'm very strict about starting relationships and applying names to them. This doesn't mean I haven't had the same feelings, emotions, even relations with people. It will pop up down there a couple of times.

@Aldeth: I'm prone to say it's always all right to stop a relationship on a compatibility issue. It's actually, in my judgement, more morally sound to stop that relationship than to continue it. Both you and the other person can find someone else yet. And, given compatibility issues springing to attention this early in the relationship (as in, before getting engaged or married), it's not reasonable to suppose it will all work out all right and the couple will live happily together ever after. Nay. The only reasonable is to expect that the issues will multiply.

But you said you didn't really mean to include compatibility issues. Here's the catch: if being around a person looking better than your "someone" makes you think about "upgrading", you clearly have a compatibility issue. If the compatibility is sound and healthy, there are no such concerns, except clear fidelity tests.

What do I think about that? You'd be surprised. I think it's better to leave your current "someone" in such circumstances. This is because "someones" are not meant to be placeholders, waiting until you find a better version and upgrade.

Once you have left you current "someone", however, you are single and free to start a relationship with anyone. Including the new person you have met.

Sounds cruel? The alternative is worse. Being with someone who is only a placeholder for you isn't good for either of you. It cheapens the relationship and destroys what's left between you. If looks come to importance as decisive factors against your current "someone", something is obviously amiss and no matter if you finally choose to go for the new person or not, the current relationship isn't really going anywhere. As you probably had had warm feelings for each other on the onset of the relationship, toning down and becoming friends sounds like the better way.

I know, it sounds harsh and difficult to enact, bordering on masochism. But I've done that and I don't complain. Perhaps it wasn't about looks, or not only. There were various factors. However, a strong presence of factors, elements of an abstract equation, was enough for me to conclude that romantic feelings were not really the base of it. The social pressure to have a girlfriend? Maybe. The need to have someone close? Perhaps. The need to share your ways with someone? Possibly. Nature calling? Probably. ...And the feeling of emptiness deep inside as well as consciousness of the fact that you're about to take a shortcut, together with a hunch that perhaps it isn't the right thing to do.

Sounds cold. I know. I've been called that. Do I calculate in matters of feelings? Perhaps. However, the reality is that what people refer to as feelings is not always feelings. As I said above, it may be loneliness, biological drive, whatever. Even a misguided sense of attraction to someone (ie being indeed attracted, but in a different way - there are various kinds of attraction). Those are disturbing. True feelings are more part of your world, of yourself even and they aren't so intrusively illogical, nor so aggressively illogical. It's very possible you have true feelings, but of a different kind than you thing - perhaps you delude yourself as to romantic love, but you have true feelings of friendship for the person. Heck, or even brotherly/sisterly love.

At this point, you're probably under impression that I'm light on fidelity. No, I'm not. But there's a huge difference between leaving someone and cheating on him. I'm very hard on cheating. Fidelity essentially means being true to the person. Keeping faith. Playing open cards. In that sense, dragging the relationship on and on is less in line with fidelity than stopping it.

So, is it right to leave someone like that? I won't tell you. It's between you and your conscience in any and all case. Breaking up right or wrong, should the relationship have started, in the very first place? Should it at all exist?

I have made such decisions. Decided it shouldn't. And it didn't start as a relationship in name, and what was already going on in relations with persons in question gained borders that it didn't cross. I've avoided doing several things I would most certainly have regretted if I had done.

I still believe one should stop and smell the roses. But I also believe one should stop and think instead of rushing. Things may look totally different over a couple of days... or weeks. Persons are there and are not really going to be removed from your life. They can meet someone else and go for it? Yes, they can. And that's good. How? Ekhm... I'll give you a question as an answer: Wouldn't they still go away if they met that someone after starting a new and young relationship with you? I suppose they would, or at least they would consider it. What would keep them? Sense of responsibility and faithfulness? That's great. I mean, really, great. Those are commendable virtues. However, a relationship should have substance, not only form. Responsibility and faifthulness won't make it without that substance. Without the feelings, and the bond.

But then, are really feelings so strong this early? Can we speak about a bond this early? I don't suppose so. But what does it show? Perhaps that relationships start too early. Love, bond and commitment should be the cause and not a result of a relationship. What's the practical meaning of this?

That you date someone doesn't mean you have to swear love eternal to that person. Nor call him or her your boyfriend, girlfriend, other half or whatever. Names are meant do describe, not to create. It doesn't mean they can't create - but we aren't God. Sorry, but fiat lux won't work for us. Promises? Promises should seal commitment rather than create it. Granted, they create a generic commitment one to fulfil oaths. But that's it. They will help preserve something but they won't magically create a feeling that doesn't yet exist.

In plain language: calling a girl your girlfriend and promising you won't leave her won't make her the love of your life.

In many cases, absolute promises are made without an intention of keeping. It's hardly possible in human life to guarantee anything absolutely. There's one sure thing: that you will die on one die. And that's about all. Making a promise without intention of keeping, or accompanied by unspoken conditions and reservations, is asking for disaster. So is using words bigger than reality warrants.

I'm not theorising here. I know it, I have been there and done that, though unwittingly, and paid the price. I know the price as well, I've been billed hard.

But in situations when I was consistent, I was shown I had done right. People would say I was dull, unlively, even devoid of feelings. Or even instincts (one girl asked me once if I felt any sexual drive at all, and it was hardly flirtatious). As time passed, however, it became clear that I was right and had done the right thing.

Perhaps, as a result, I've had a number of friendships that could be classified as a sort of platonic love more than a normal friendship. Granted. But I don't have a number of ex-es who were meant to be more than they have ultimately become.

And now short answers:

Frequency of occurence has no inherent power to validate an act morally. In plain words, no matter how often you do it or how many other people do it, it won't become right if it's wrong.

Note that I'm not saying it's wrong, hehe

@Abomination

And you did very right. I've been in the same situation a couple of times. Done the same. Respect for you for that. I suppose it was a tough decision to make and temptation was strong to have her back as well? Been there, done that.

Hurts like hell, but is about the only way to preserve self-respect.

I've never taken offence, never blamed anyone for saying such things flat out. I gained a lot of respect once for a girl who, when it seemed to be going on well... almost too well to be real, told me that she enjoyed the company, liked the walking, talking etc, but didn't feel (consistently) anything physical either way. She wasn't telling the whole story and refused to answer the Substantial Question ("What is it you really feel?"), but she visibly (or rather audibly), had some sad reasons for that.

On the other hand, I would always lose respect for someone beating around the bush in order to avoid the inconvenience of taking responsibility. Flat out lie has always been flat out disqualification. No attempt to win my interest back has been successful so far.

 

Here's something that's also logically inconsistent, and I'm sure Chev can comment on this. I would agree with what Chev said about commitment in general. That making a promise doesn't guarantee commitment, or keeping of that promise. That in any relationship, a bond should grow gradually, and strengthen over time. However, that's not what I've found to be true. Typically, when you first fall in love with someone, the bells and whistles are really going off (metaphorically speaking of course) and the first few weeks, and sometimes even months of a relationship are one of the most exciting feelings one can ever have.

Now, I'm not saying that people who have been together a long time don't love each other - I'm quite sure that the vast majority of them do. It's just a little sad that you really don't have that excitement, that zing anymore that you used to feel. It's like, after we've been with someone for a while, we trade excitement for commitment and certainty. It's usually a good trade, but it doesn't take away that you don't have that excitement anymore. But that's the thing, the two are almost mutually exclusive. Part of the excitement is that it is uncertain and uncommitted. That the two of you are taking a path that may well lead to something long-term and committed, but that you haven't got there yet.

And I think that feeling of excitement is at least partly responsible for the grass is greener arguement. After being with someone for a while, you are in a commitment phase of the relationship. You miss that zing, that excitement, and someone who you meet may actually make you feel they are more attractive than they really are, simply because you get that zing again when you see them. Still doesn't make anything right, and maybe you have to be involved in a long term relationship (or possibly even married) to understand what I mean when I say that it's usually a good trade to give up excitement and that zing for commitment and certainty. The conundrum of that is it doesn't SEEM like a good trade at first, and you don't realize it is until after you make such a trade.

 

OK, Aldeth, I see your point on excitment. But can't a person find alternative ways to provide excitment in a relationship? It doesn't have to come from just uncertainty about where the relationship is going. I think the important thing to remember is that no one feeling can be felt all the time. Being in love is great, but nobody can go around 24/7 being in blissful love. At some point they are going to crash. But there are plenty of ways to keep things exciting. Surprises, spontaneity, etc. It comes naturally for me. I'm always keeping my girlfriend on her toes.

 

I agree Big B. My point was not that people in committed relationships have life that is devoid of excitement. It was more of a comment on how no effort was initially required to have that excitement at first. I don't know if that makes sense. People say that relationships are work, and making an effort to keep things exciting is one of the ways this is true. Yes, you still can have excitement in a long-term relationship, but I have found that I have had to invest some time and effort for that to happen, whereas it just happens naturally for the first several weeks, and sometimes even months.

 

Absolutely, Chev. IMO, transparency is always a better policy - you shouldn't be hiding the truth, even if it is inconvenient. It's a heck of a lot more inconvenient if you've tried to hide it the first time. A few years back, an ex was confused about my reaction to being dumped - I told her that I'd rather she gave it to me straight, which she did, and that there was no point being angry because that's exactly what I would have wanted her to do. Sad, yes. Angry, hell no.

There's no point relying on promises - they're just words. Words without commitment are the specialty of politicians, commitment without words is an act of faith and love no matter whether it's romantic or platonic. It's harder to do, but that's why it means anything at all.

I think people find different things to be excited about in a relationship over time. The longer things go on, the more you appreciate those things which at first, you wouldn't notice. Just from personal experience, people stop focusing so much on the immediate and physical aspects as their appreciation of another person changes. All those little nuances that make you miss them when they're not around, that put a smile on your face when you think of them - that's when I start thinking seriously about someone. I'd much rather have someone to call my rock and my rose - a partner, an equal - than someone different to shag every month or so before trading them off (or being traded), but that's just me and how I feel. It just seems hollow to me. If things feel like they're dragging, then you probably need to re-evaluate why you're involved. If you can find joy in simply seeing someone's eyes shift a little when you come home early, or surprise them, or crack a lame joke, then I don't think there is any need to chase after a more visceral and less meaningful hit of excitement.

...sorry about that - I'm a bit of a tragic for this topic.