Commitment dating dilemma
Devin and Janine laughed together, shared many of the same goals, and communicated at a deep level. This man, so wonderful in every other way, simply could not keep a job.
His résumé, if he ever compiled one, would be as long and varied as a gangster’s rap sheet.
‘Historically, you had to pair up: socially and financially, having a partner facilitated your life. The more fast-moving modern society becomes, the less relevant a relationship is to our survival.
We live in an incredibly exciting time, where we have the freedom to choose what suits us best.’ Coupled with this freedom is the brute fact that being faithful to one person is hard.
There are fewer expected markers of commitment, and many important couple behaviors (e.g., moving in together) occur through a process described in a paper by Scott Stanley and colleagues as “sliding” rather than “deciding." In other words, our current culture is set up to allow for more asymmetrically committed relationships to persist.
‘In the past people would sleepwalk into marriage,’ says Helen Croydon, author of new book , which explores the flowering of alternative relationship models. The internet makes finding like-minded groups easier.
In fact, for Devin the term ‘steady employment’ is an oxymoron.
Do I want to make a long-term commitment to someone I may end up supporting financially and whose serial job-hopping is bound to cause conflict?
If so, you might be in what researchers refer to as an asymmetric commitment relationship.
Even if you haven’t experienced it yourself, you're likely familiar with this type of relationship.