This comment may be a bit incoherent because as I started reading your first post, I went down a rabbit hole of 20-year commitment and BDSM.
It would be interesting to read the letters that inspired this correspondence as I feel that I am only seeing one side of an argument. I struggle personally with my obligations to society, others and myself. Often these are in alignment but there are times they are in conflict and that's where it gets tricky. Unfortunately, I have at times resorted to deception (justified by the idea that there is no harm as the actions are self-indulgent and not harmful). This justification is false on both levels as just the act of deception towards a loved one is harmful even if one feels the reason for the deception is not (and often the reason for deception is harmful or it would not necessitate the deception). Sorry for being intentionally vague but I am a private person by nature.
In regards to the 20-year marriage. I understand how the 20-year commitment may help one who can't fathom a life commitment enter the relationship. However, I think it provides a false justification to absolve oneself from the inevitable hurt that is caused when one person wants to leave a relationship and the other wants to continue. While your life is not owed to the other, saying I told you at the start that I was only willing to commit to 20 years does not lessen or justify the pain at the relationship's conclusion. So, I think it gives you a false sense of escaping easily when the evitable pain is the same.
I do agree that one can care for a person suffering from chronic illness without being married and that the relationship can continue to persist in a healthy form even if the label has changed.
First, I apologise for the delay in responding to your thoughtful comment, and for not being able to share the original letters that sparked this series. The author requested anonymity, which I'm honouring, though I agree it would be valuable to see both sides of this rich dialogue.
Your reflection on the struggle between obligations to self, others and society cuts to the heart of conscious relationship design. The tension you describe - and your candid acknowledgment of sometimes choosing deception - reflects a common challenge when our relationship structures don't create space for honest discussion of evolving needs and desires.
Your point about the 20-year marriage contract is particularly insightful. You're right - stating an intention upfront doesn't eliminate the pain of endings. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this in my writing (you may want to see this piece where I struggle with the ethics of my decision: https://hitpause.substack.com/p/reimagining-bonds-ethically-navigating). The contract wasn't meant to avoid pain or justify leaving, but to create a container for authentic commitment within a timeframe I knew I could honour fully. Like you, I believe we can't escape the emotional impact when one person wants to continue and another needs to move on.
However, I wonder if there's a difference between pain that comes as a shock when unspoken truths finally surface, and pain that we can prepare for through honest dialogue? While both hurt, conscious relationship design aims to create space for authentic communication about difficult truths - including the reality that people and needs change over time.
Interestingly enough, all of this came up in my TEDx talk in November. I'll post the link to the video when it is available if that interests you.
Your observation about caring for someone with chronic illness outside of marriage reflects an important truth: our capacity to support others isn't dependent on formal relationship structures. Sometimes, releasing the pressure of traditional expectations can actually allow for more authentic forms of care and connection.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully with these complex themes. Your reflection on deception versus honesty, and the inevitability of pain in relationships, adds valuable perspective to this ongoing exploration of how we might design relationships that honour both personal truth and care for others.
Looking forward to our further dialogue - it is so good to hear your thoughts!
This comment may be a bit incoherent because as I started reading your first post, I went down a rabbit hole of 20-year commitment and BDSM.
It would be interesting to read the letters that inspired this correspondence as I feel that I am only seeing one side of an argument. I struggle personally with my obligations to society, others and myself. Often these are in alignment but there are times they are in conflict and that's where it gets tricky. Unfortunately, I have at times resorted to deception (justified by the idea that there is no harm as the actions are self-indulgent and not harmful). This justification is false on both levels as just the act of deception towards a loved one is harmful even if one feels the reason for the deception is not (and often the reason for deception is harmful or it would not necessitate the deception). Sorry for being intentionally vague but I am a private person by nature.
In regards to the 20-year marriage. I understand how the 20-year commitment may help one who can't fathom a life commitment enter the relationship. However, I think it provides a false justification to absolve oneself from the inevitable hurt that is caused when one person wants to leave a relationship and the other wants to continue. While your life is not owed to the other, saying I told you at the start that I was only willing to commit to 20 years does not lessen or justify the pain at the relationship's conclusion. So, I think it gives you a false sense of escaping easily when the evitable pain is the same.
I do agree that one can care for a person suffering from chronic illness without being married and that the relationship can continue to persist in a healthy form even if the label has changed.
Thanks for the thought inspiring posts.
Dear Paul,
First, I apologise for the delay in responding to your thoughtful comment, and for not being able to share the original letters that sparked this series. The author requested anonymity, which I'm honouring, though I agree it would be valuable to see both sides of this rich dialogue.
Your reflection on the struggle between obligations to self, others and society cuts to the heart of conscious relationship design. The tension you describe - and your candid acknowledgment of sometimes choosing deception - reflects a common challenge when our relationship structures don't create space for honest discussion of evolving needs and desires.
Your point about the 20-year marriage contract is particularly insightful. You're right - stating an intention upfront doesn't eliminate the pain of endings. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this in my writing (you may want to see this piece where I struggle with the ethics of my decision: https://hitpause.substack.com/p/reimagining-bonds-ethically-navigating). The contract wasn't meant to avoid pain or justify leaving, but to create a container for authentic commitment within a timeframe I knew I could honour fully. Like you, I believe we can't escape the emotional impact when one person wants to continue and another needs to move on.
However, I wonder if there's a difference between pain that comes as a shock when unspoken truths finally surface, and pain that we can prepare for through honest dialogue? While both hurt, conscious relationship design aims to create space for authentic communication about difficult truths - including the reality that people and needs change over time.
Interestingly enough, all of this came up in my TEDx talk in November. I'll post the link to the video when it is available if that interests you.
Your observation about caring for someone with chronic illness outside of marriage reflects an important truth: our capacity to support others isn't dependent on formal relationship structures. Sometimes, releasing the pressure of traditional expectations can actually allow for more authentic forms of care and connection.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully with these complex themes. Your reflection on deception versus honesty, and the inevitability of pain in relationships, adds valuable perspective to this ongoing exploration of how we might design relationships that honour both personal truth and care for others.
Looking forward to our further dialogue - it is so good to hear your thoughts!
Julie