Turn on thread page Beta

What leads to fear of commitment in men? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    In my case, it's a fear of giving up my freedom. I really like doing whatever I want whenever I feel like it, without being accountable to anyone else.

    I'm also not entirely keen on the dependence that comes with relationships. I don't want to be (even slightly) responsible for someone else's happiness.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    Tbf were all making assumptions here unless someone has experience of the above?
    Its certainly true for me. It is unlikely that I am the only person like this, so it is at worst an uncommon reason to be afraid of commitment, but you are right to say that we are only assuming at this point.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Well seeing the whole marriage route is effectively becoming more and more a bad deal. On top of that many groups are, rather successfully I may add, campaigning for co-habiting couples to get the same legal rights as married couples.

    Basically when the relationship is over you get screwed over and your social life is expected to drastically change when in a relationship.

    I don't think the majority of men really mind the commitment aspect of relationships in of itself. It's the sum of all the small and rather large negatives.
    Thanks for your answer. Yes fear of marriage, or just seeing it as obsolete, is one thing but I am also referring to even the initial fear of committing to becoming someone's boyfriend. However with reference to marriage do you not think if men only chose women of a similar status/salary to themselves they would not lose out so much? I think part of the reason men lose out is because they pick women who earn much less than them but in cases where the women earns more she gets rinsed too, think Katy Perry having to pay out Russell Brand, Myleene Klass's divorce settlement she has to pay her ex, Halle Berry having to pay child support to her ex, Megan Fox is set to pay a huge settlement and had no prenup etc.

    Yes good point about the lose of the social life as they know it. I think the same applies to women as well not as many girls nights out etc although I've never been one for partying myself so it wouldn't bother me I prefer meeting friends in the day or early evening sans alcohol.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I wrote that some men have a fear of commitment not most. However I admitted that most (if not all) of the men I have personally attracted into my life have had this fear and that I hold some responsibility towards attracting them into my life.

    It's interesting to think of it more as a dislike as opposed to a fear that gives me something to think about and I can see that now. Like the whole sex thing in point 2 I think men keeping their options open and preferring to play the field is a big thing especially given how easy it can be in today's society. I personally don't relate to that though as I do not have an inclination to sleep with lots of men and would prefer a deep, meaningful bond with the man that I sleep with even if that comes with more compromise and sacrifice.

    However for instance based on your point 3 I still think fear is a substantial element of it as the man is too afraid to take a risk as he is afraid it will impact his finances and emotional well being negatively. He is afraid it just won't pay off so he does not bother as he thinks a woman will only take from the table and not have anything to add to it. I can sympathise that there are a few men who have been used for their assets or grown up in broken homes where the father got rinsed by the divorce and family courts and through emotional hell, leading to a lack of trust in women and relationships.
    You're understanding some of the cultural reasons why men may dislike commitment but there are natural ones too. when there are more women than men in a community or when men perceive that there are more sexually available women men become less committed to one woman. when the reverse is true, when there are more men then there are women, or that there are less sexually available women men become more committed. A lot of Evolutionary Psychologists have noticed this phenomenon. http://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_r...en-are-scarce/
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by money-for-all)
    ]

    My Life.
    My choices.
    My Mistakes.
    My lessons.

    Your question is too personal for me to even consider answering.
    Well then don't answer. I'm just exploring ideas no need to get so tetchy I'm not forcing anyone.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    You're understanding some of the cultural reasons why men may dislike commitment but there are natural ones too. when there are more women than men in a community or when men perceive that there are more sexually available women men become less committed to one woman. when the reverse is true, when there are more men then there are women, or that there are less sexually available women men become more committed. A lot of Evolutionary Psychologists have noticed this phenomenon. http://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_r...en-are-scarce/
    Yes I agree that there are some biological reasons as well as to why a man won't commit to one woman although I can't personally relate to those reasons of course as I have never felt those urges.

    I also think what you may be say is the more sexually liberated women are the less men will feel the need to commit to one one, which I agree is true.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by member841230)
    In my case, it's a fear of giving up my freedom. I really like doing whatever I want whenever I feel like it, without being accountable to anyone else.

    I'm also not entirely keen on the dependence that comes with relationships. I don't want to be (even slightly) responsible for someone else's happiness.
    Yes if you want to keep your freedom and your own routines then that is completely understandable.

    The whole issue of dependence is interesting and I suppose it relates your ideas of what a relationship is. Do you also fear that your own happiness may become dependant on someone else and that that would give them power over your life, and not just the other way around? Or do you feel that a woman will only take more than she can give?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)

    However for instance based on your point 3 I still think fear is a substantial element of it as the man is too afraid to take a risk as he is afraid it will impact his finances and emotional well being negatively. He is afraid it just won't pay off so he does not bother as he thinks a woman will only take from the table and not have anything to add to it. I can sympathise that there are a few men who have been used for their assets or grown up in broken homes where the father got rinsed by the divorce and family courts and through emotional hell, leading to a lack of trust in women and relationships.
    I don't think it is fear. It is simply avoiding a situation that you don't currently consider to have a good cost-benefit ratio. Let me repeat it again, it is not fear imo. In more game theoretic terms: commitment has too many risks (financial and psychological) and too few benefits (secure access to regular sex for a period of time ranging from now till her menopause) for your average male when compared to singlehood which has few risks (STIs, unwanted pregnancies) and too many benefits (freedom to pursue female mates or to play out any of your fantasies - because chances are you will find someone who shares your fantasies, your finances are for your sole benefit, no relationship/cheating drama, no break-up drama, freedom to move around geographically, freedom to dedicate your time to things of your interest -as opposed to having to dedicated part/half of your time to things you don't care about).

    It is all a game where the interests of a player are evolutionarily defined by their sex. Females have a goal and males have another. It is only rational that each player will attempt to do whatever is needed to ensure he/she reaches his/her goal.
    • #3
    #3

    (Original post by Juichiro)
    I don't think it is fear. It is simply avoiding a situation that you don't currently consider to have a good cost-benefit ratio. Let me repeat it again, it is not fear imo. In more game theoretic terms: commitment has too many risks (financial and psychological) and too few benefits (secure access to regular sex for a period of time ranging from now till her menopause) for your average male when compared to singlehood which has few risks (STIs, unwanted pregnancies) and too many benefits (freedom to pursue female mates or to play out any of your fantasies - because chances are you will find someone who shares your fantasies, your finances are for your sole benefit, no relationship/cheating drama, no break-up drama, freedom to move around geographically, freedom to dedicate your time to things of your interest -as opposed to having to dedicated part/half of your time to things you don't care about).

    It is all a game where the interests of a player are evolutionarily defined by their sex. Females have a goal and males have another. It is only rational that each player will attempt to do whatever is needed to ensure he/she reaches his/her goal.
    Im not the op but this is interesting. I suppose the question that would then arise is what would it take for the ratio of risks to benefits to tip in the 'benefits' direction when it comes to commiting?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    It's not commitment itself that men are 'afraid' of. It's what men are being asked to commit to.

    Take marriage. I do not want to sign a legal contract that will force me to give half of my net worth to someone, regardless of whether or not they were the instigator of the divorce, or if they were adulterous.

    Nor do I trust a family court system that is heavily biased against men, where I have to prove I'm a good dad rather than that being the base assumption with the opposing lawyer attempting to prove otherwise.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Yes if you want to keep your freedom and your own routines then that is completely understandable.

    The whole issue of dependence is interesting and I suppose it relates your ideas of what a relationship is. Do you also fear that your own happiness may become dependant on someone else and that that would give them power over your life, and not just the other way around? Or do you feel that a woman will only take more than she can give?
    The former. I guess I just believe everyone (including me) should derive happiness from within. An extension of that is that people should be responsible for their own happiness. This conclusion isn't really consistent with committed long-term relationships.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by Juichiro)
    I don't think it is fear. It is simply avoiding a situation that you don't currently consider to have a good cost-benefit ratio. Let me repeat it again, it is not fear imo. In more game theoretic terms: commitment has too many risks (financial and psychological) and too few benefits (secure access to regular sex for a period of time ranging from now till her menopause) for your average male when compared to singlehood which has few risks (STIs, unwanted pregnancies) and too many benefits (freedom to pursue female mates or to play out any of your fantasies - because chances are you will find someone who shares your fantasies, your finances are for your sole benefit, no relationship/cheating drama, no break-up drama, freedom to move around geographically, freedom to dedicate your time to things of your interest -as opposed to having to dedicated part/half of your time to things you don't care about).

    It is all a game where the interests of a player are evolutionarily defined by their sex. Females have a goal and males have another. It is only rational that each player will attempt to do whatever is needed to ensure he/she reaches his/her goal.
    I would still argue that is constitutes to fear. Fear is not weakness nor is it even a negative thing - it's recognising the danger and protecting yourself as necessary for instance using your experiences and observations to weigh out the cost-benefit analysis and deciding to opt out as you have done above. None of us would survive without fear the problem is when it becomes the driving force in your life rather than' love' - I don't mean that in the romantic or Westernised/commercial sense of the word I'm basically talking about an openness to give and receive, and in my view there is a duality between the two they are two side of the same coin and a fine line between them. Perhaps it is just me but we only fear because we want safety, acceptance and stability.

    I find it interesting but also a little upsetting in your analysis that the only thing a woman can bring to a relationship is 'secure access to regular sex for a period of time ranging from now till her menopause'. Whilst sex is undoubtedly important in relationship if it is the sole point of focus or all that exists with then yes one's sights are best set elsewhere. However I do feel that we women must take accountability for the fact that we are only seen to bring regular sex to a man's life and no substance.

    I agree that there is an evolutionary/biological basis for all of this. However perhaps I am now being idealistic but I feel both men and women can transcend their nature rather than play games with each other.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by Don John)
    It's not commitment itself that men are 'afraid' of. It's what men are being asked to commit to.

    Take marriage. I do not want to sign a legal contract that will force me to give half of my net worth to someone, regardless of whether or not they were the instigator of the divorce, or if they were adulterous.

    Nor do I trust a family court system that is heavily biased against men, where I have to prove I'm a good dad rather than that being the base assumption with the opposing lawyer attempting to prove otherwise.
    My question was not about putting a ring on it more about just committing to be someone's boyfriend as I admitted in my OP that no man has even committed to be being my boyfriend.

    However since marriage has arisen many times here I think it is important to discuss it as this seems to be a big fear for many and understandably so.

    Marriage should have more meaning than just being a monetary contract. It is not just about finances it as about two lives committing to each other not two back accounts/real estates. However I do agree that financial element is important and the divorce courts do tend to favour women, however most men marry women who earn/work less than them. If a man were to marry a co-provider of similar status and they were to put in equal amounts over the years for property and bills etc there would not be much for her to rinse out of him or better yet if he is that scared marry someone much more well off than himself... Unless they had children which leads the next point: What I do agree with is that there is a massive problem and bias when it comes to custody battles. I'm not yet a mother but I cannot imagine my children being taken from me and I don't think men should have to either I would rather someone took all my money than my children, the money doesn't not pale in comparison. For this reason I can completely understand why a man may hesitate to start a family and I think it is a sad state of affairs that fear having them taken away stops them from bothering in the first place.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Thanks for your answer. Yes fear of marriage, or just seeing it as obsolete, is one thing but I am also referring to even the initial fear of committing to becoming someone's boyfriend. However with reference to marriage do you not think if men only chose women of a similar status/salary to themselves they would not lose out so much? I think part of the reason men lose out is because they pick women who earn much less than them but in cases where the women earns more she gets rinsed too, think Katy Perry having to pay out Russell Brand, Myleene Klass's divorce settlement she has to pay her ex, Halle Berry having to pay child support to her ex, Megan Fox is set to pay a huge settlement and had no prenup etc.

    Yes good point about the lose of the social life as they know it. I think the same applies to women as well not as many girls nights out etc although I've never been one for partying myself so it wouldn't bother me I prefer meeting friends in the day or early evening sans alcohol.
    That relies on the fact those couples can quite easily afford lawyers. Concerning the whole non committal to initial boyfriend stage, I always think with my partners there is a potential for eventual cohabitation and after that potentially marriage.

    Also if a partner has lost income by picking up part time work they can still claim loss of earnings and as such claim part of the others property. That's despite the man potentially earning less.

    Another issue is the fact statistically speaking women still earn less due to the jobs they choose and hours. Because of this the vast majority of men will have partners who earn less than themselves.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    1.I would still argue that is constitutes to fear. Fear is not weakness nor is it even a negative thing - it's recognising the danger and protecting yourself as necessary for instance using your experiences and observations to weigh out the cost-benefit analysis and deciding to opt out as you have done above. 2.None of us would survive without fear 4.the problem is when it becomes the driving force in your life rather than' love' - I don't mean that in the romantic or Westernised/commercial sense of the word I'm basically talking about 4.an openness to give and receive, and in my view there is a duality between the two they are two side of the same coin and a fine line between them. 5.Perhaps it is just me but we only fear because we want safety, acceptance and stability.

    6. I find it interesting but also a little upsetting in your analysis that the only thing a woman can bring to a relationship is 'secure access to regular sex for a period of time ranging from now till her menopause'. Whilst sex is undoubtedly important in relationship if it is the sole point of focus or all that exists with then yes one's sights are best set elsewhere. However I do feel that we women must take accountability for the fact that we are only seen to bring regular sex to a man's life and no substance.

    I agree that there is an evolutionary/biological basis for all of this. However perhaps I am now being idealistic but 7.I feel both men and women can transcend their nature rather than play games with each other.
    1. I disagree that it is fear. It is a decision made to advance your interests. Fear is "an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm." This is not fear because there is no emotion into this. It is merely decision making. Think about it in a more logical sense. Imagine you have a robot on the floor whose goal is to reach some point ahead of him. There are obstacles in his way so he needs to avoid them when he faces them. What this robot does is what men do: decision making. He avoids situations (bumping into obstacles) that prevent him for reaching his goal. His behaviour and that of men can be explained without resorting to fear.
    2. I disagree. All you need is the ability to recognise potentially harmful situations and avoid them as appropriate. Fear is only one of many ways to do this.
    3. Assumption made: that fear is the driving force in men lives. It is not. Point 1 elaborates on this.
    4. There are almost as many definitions of love as there are people in this planet. Every Joe and his mum has a unique definition. I won't argue about your definition just making it clear that there is no one definition of love so talking about it is pointless unless we agree on a definition of love (which we probably won't and is not the topic of this thread anyway).
    5. Incorrect. Fear is biological mechanism (more specifically, a biochemical mechanism) that increases the likelihood of self-preservation at any point in your life (and hence increases your survival rates).
    6. Maybe it was not obvious but I was approaching this from a game theoretic and evolutionary perspective. In that case I was explaining that for your average heterosexual male, one of the benefits of commitment is access to regular sex without the threat of STIs (and in some cases, unwanted pregnancies). I did not mean to say that this is a benefit for females too. I specifically made clear that the sum of the benefits from a commitment differs depending on your sex. The reasons for this are evolutionary. You also imply that access to regular sex and "substance in a man's life" are mutually exclusive. This needs not to be the case. What is substantial and what isn't depends on your sex. For example, having a family with your partner might be substantial to you but it might be substantial to an average male. Similarly, the freedom to move geographically on a whim might be substantial for an aveage male but it might not be substantial to you.
    7. Life is a game, dear.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by member841230)
    The former. I guess I just believe everyone (including me) should derive happiness from within. An extension of that is that people should be responsible for their own happiness. This conclusion isn't really consistent with committed long-term relationships.
    I agree that we should be the source of our own happiness and that it should starts from within, but I don't think that means that we can't share our happiness with others? I'm not just talking about romantic partners but surely family and friends bring something to your life also? Do you not think you can be dependant within a long-term committed relationship? It's just my opinion but I do think that two wholes rather than two halves can come together.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    what would it take for the ratio of risks to benefits to tip in the 'benefits' direction when it comes to commiting?
    The answer is simple: for that to happen to an average male the sum of all benefits needs to be higher than the sum of all risks.

    Now think about it from a male's perspective. An average male must be thinking: what would it take for the ratio of risks to benefits to tip in the 'benefits' direction when it comes to having sex with [the male himself] without a relationship?

    At the end of the day, this is a game. A game where males try to make females what males want and where females try to make males what females want. The driving force of the evolution of sexed life forms lie on the fact that the sex game is a zero-sum game (i.e. a benefit for males is a risk for females and a benefit for females is a risk for males). Without this sex game, sexed life forms cannot evolve. And those who do not evolve are torn apart by those who do (those who do not need the sex game: asexual life forms).

    Life is pretty until you take a closer look.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    My question was not about putting a ring on it more about just committing to be someone's boyfriend as I admitted in my OP that no man has even committed to be being my boyfriend.

    However since marriage has arisen many times here I think it is important to discuss it as this seems to be a big fear for many and understandably so.

    Marriage should have more meaning than just being a monetary contract. It is not just about finances it as about two lives committing to each other not two back accounts/real estates. However I do agree that financial element is important and the divorce courts do tend to favour women, however most men marry women who earn/work less than them. If a man were to marry a co-provider of similar status and they were to put in equal amounts over the years for property and bills etc there would not be much for her to rinse out of him or better yet if he is that scared marry someone much more well off than himself... Unless they had children which leads the next point: What I do agree with is that there is a massive problem and bias when it comes to custody battles. I'm not yet a mother but I cannot imagine my children being taken from me and I don't think men should have to either I would rather someone took all my money than my children, the money doesn't not pale in comparison. For this reason I can completely understand why a man may hesitate to start a family and I think it is a sad state of affairs that fear having them taken away stops them from bothering in the first place.
    You misunderstand the issue. It is not about fear it is about cost-risk situation evaluations. If a situation has a poor cost-risk ratio, you avoid going that path. That avoidance is not necessarily fear. A female might want to avoid someone who looks far younger/weaker than her for the same reason a male might want to go for someone with those traits. It is not fear, it's a matter of goals and checking those goals against the cost-risk ratio of different situations. At the end of the day, you have some goals and you want to do your best to reach them.

    Your use of 'fear' only seems to put a negative spin on the male sexual behaviour. Now it is likely that males' decisions in avoiding commitment are influenced by fear - the possibility of ending up in an undesirable state. But females have the same possibility when they reject sex outside of a relationship because of fear to end up in an undesirable state. So perhaps, you could say that poor ratio in cost-risk evaluations of commitment leads men to avoid commitment, but you could say the same for women and sex outside of a relationship. But this is natural because males and females have different goals evolutionarily speaking. And seeing the vast range of sexed life forms it seems to be something of an advantage.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I agree that we should be the source of our own happiness and that it should starts from within, but 1. I don't think that means that we can't share our happiness with others? I'm not just talking about romantic partners but 2.surely family and friends bring something to your life also? 3.Do you not think you can be dependant within a long-term committed relationship? 4.It's just my opinion but I do think that two wholes rather than two halves can come together.
    1. Surely, if you can source your happiness from yourself it is much better than sourcing from someone else. Namely because that someone else might abandon you one day. And stats shows that he will abandon at some point in the future (and apparently, in the early stages break-up rates are quite high). As a rule of thumb, independence and not dependence seems to be favoured by most people in most areas of life.

    2. Family is not likely to abandon you. Your partner is.

    3. You assume that it will be long-term. But your partner can abandon you at some point in the future, or your partner can die. Both of these are quite likely and the latter becomes more likely as time passes. At any point, you are highly likely to spent your last days of your life (assuming you reach them) without a source of happiness. That's quite miserable to me!

    4. The notion of half and whole is only a metaphor for dependent and independent. A whole does not dependent on anyone but himself while a half depends on someone else. Those are subjective notions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by member841230)
    The former. I guess I just believe everyone (including me) should derive happiness from within. An extension of that is that people should be responsible for their own happiness. This conclusion isn't really consistent with committed long-term relationships.
    +1 Totally agree
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 14, 2015
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.