"a man that hasn't committed to you yet"

You've agreed to be exclusive, is this a commitment?

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
LovinLocks

LovinLocks

Well-Known Member
The above statement begs the question . . .

When a couple agree to exclusivity are they committed to one another?

com·mit·ment

noun \kə-ˈmit-mənt\
Definition of COMMITMENT

1
a : an act of committing to a charge or trust: as (1) : a consignment to a penal or mental institution (2) : an act of referring a matter to a legislative committee b : mittimus

2
a : an agreement or pledge to do something in the future; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date b : something pledged c : the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled <a commitment to a cause>
 
Last edited:
Exclusive = Committed to being faithful and building a relationship but not committed for a lifetime. A short-term commitment.
 
well id say kinda. You make a commitment to stay exclusive, yes, either of you could bail at any time, cause you guys are not married.
 
Before I was married, I didn't take anything seriously but a ring. It's not that I dated a bunch of people at once. I never did that. But words are words. I figured he could tell me I'm his sun, moon and stars all day long. Until that was backed up with an intention to marry, and steps toward making that intention become a reality, I didn't take the existence of a commitment for granted.
 
lea86111 said:
well id say kinda. You make a commitment to stay exclusive, yes, either of you could bail at any time, cause you guys are not married.
Click to expand...

And, as we know marriage certainly does not stop one from "bailing" either. One things for sure I'm not stupid enough to think a ring, an engagement, NOR a marriage would stop "bailing" IF it's what a person wants to do.
 
LovinLocks said:
And, as we know marriage certainly does not stop one from "bailing" either. One things for sure I'm not stupid enough to think a ring, an engagement, NOR a marriage would stop "bailing" IF it's what a person wants to do.
Click to expand...

As a woman in a LTR who dreams of marriage :rolleyes: , I would hope that marriage at the minimum, indicates a lack of desire to 'bail'. At least, at the precise moment he asks for marriage. After that who knows? :ohwell:

</pessimism>
I agree that commitment technically begins at marriage, but in the minds of many women I know, for us it begins at exclusivity. For the men...:look: In my personal experience, I've been told repeatedly that I have 'nothing to worry about' but I'm going to continue 'worrying' until I'm married. :sekret:
 
TayMac said:
Exclusive = Committed to being faithful and building a relationship but not committed for a lifetime. A short-term commitment.
Click to expand...

Yep! Marriage is the ULTIMATE commitment, but exclusivity is the precursor to that, so I'd say yes. Otherwise, what's the point in being exclusive?
 
Of course it is. I don't want a man to feel that he doesn't have to honour his word to me until we marry.
 
Phew, well I'm glad you women chimed in 'cause I was beginning to worry (on a couple of points). That's one thing I didn't punk out on (sometimes I get skurred to ask people stuff); but I asked, loud and clear, "ARE WE EXCLUSIVE" so I would know how to proceed? He emphatically (I might add) stated, "Yes!"

To think that's not a form of commitment would be just . . . whooaa!!! Thanks for replying ladies.
 
The way I interpret and often see this phrase "a man that hasn't committed to you yet" interpreted is this: A man who has not taken active, visible, unambiguous steps toward making you his own in a way that is binding (either legally or at least socially), and clearly understood by the both of you and other members of your social circle. Commitment used in this context is usually understood as discussing and taking obvious, realistic, and affirming steps toward being with you in a durable, binding way.

So while 2 people may have agreed to be exclusive and may very well live up to that commitment, the title of this thread depicts a different kind of commitment than what is being expressed by the poll. The fact that a man is committed to being exclusive with you in a certain phase of a relationship has very little correlation with his or your decision or intent to move up or down to another phase of the relationship.

Simply put: The fact that a man has committed to be your "exclusive" boyfriend (one type of commitment) has little to do with the fact that he may or may not want to be your fiance/husband (another, and higher level of commitment).
 
Last edited:
LovinLocks said:
And, as we know marriage certainly does not stop one from "bailing" either. One things for sure I'm not stupid enough to think a ring, an engagement, NOR a marriage would stop "bailing" IF it's what a person wants to do.
Click to expand...

And you are right. None of those things will stop one from bailing BUT (keeping the title of the thread and it's colloquial use in mind) they depict a greater level of commitment than "I'm going to date only you." This is how I see it, in chemistry certain reactions are not spontaneous, they require some input of energy to overcome the "energy road block" and 'force' a forward reaction. The ring, engagement, and marriage are like "energy road blocks" to bailing, they require just a tad bit more 'work' to exit the relationship than a commitment to exclusivity might require. They do not prevent bailing but you gotta do just a tad bit more to bail.
 
GraceV said:
The way I interpret and often see this phrase ".
Click to expand...

My point exactly . . . I'm just relieved that there are other women here who disagree and who may have seen the phrase used in the way that they overstand as expressed above and interpreted (not trying to put words in their mouths).

The title of the thread (which I penned) does not depict "a different kind of commitment than what is expressed by the poll". Colloquialisms change with geography and/or culture.

As choclate79 stated, " . . . exclusivity is the precursor . . . ". Ya gotta start somewhere or there will be no engagement, no ring and no subsequent marriage. Being committed gets the ball rolling.

Now, I'm done, gotta get some rest to pull an 11p-7a tonight.
 
Last edited:
LovinLocks said:
My point exactly . . . I'm just relieved that there are other women here who disagree and who may have seen the phrase used in the way that they overstand as expressed above and interpreted (not trying to put words in their mouths).

The title of the thread (which I penned) does not depict "a different kind of commitment than what is expressed by the poll". Colloquialisms change with geography and/or culture.

As choclate79 stated, " . . . exclusivity is the precursor . . . ". Ya gotta start somewhere or there will be no engagement, no ring and no subsequent marriage. Being committed gets the ball rolling.

Now, I'm done, gotta get some rest to pull an 11p-7a tonight.
Click to expand...

I prefaced my comment with "the way I interpret..." for a reason: to point out my understanding of the whole deal. I didn't need to include it but I did to make it clear that what I was about to say was just the way I "overstand" :lachen: the issue. I may have read your comment wrong but your response seems antagonistic. I hope I misunderstood the tone.

Folks typically will pick whatever input justifies what they want to believe, and there's nothing wrong with that. Whatever interpretation you choose, I wish you the best with your choices, and sincerely pray that you get all that your heart truly desires. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
IMO women see exclusivity as a committment while men do not. Infact men will say/do this out of convenience/boredom or just wanting a break from the dating rat race - If he WANTS to commit to you he will want to lock you in/down.
 
Sasha299 said:
IMO women see exclusivity as a committment while men do not. Infact men will say/do this out of convenience/boredom or just wanting a break from the dating rat race - If he WANTS to commit to you he will want to lock you in/down.
Click to expand...

You raised a good point Sasha299. I think beyond looking at how a dictionary describes commitment or indulging in word play, a woman needs to be able to look at what her partner is doing rather than saying about commitment to her. That speaks clearer than any dictionary about his intentions toward her. Women know when a man is intent on making you his woman, his actions speak loud and clear.
 
GraceV said:
I may have read your comment wrong but your response seems antagonistic. I hope I misunderstood the tone.
Click to expand...

I would say so. These discussions are for entertainment purposes (after all this is a hair board). Had we been f-2-f you would have seen expressions of amusement. That's the only thing about writing, even with emoticons sometimes things get lost in people's translation(s).

"The fact that a man has committed to be your "exclusive" boyfriend (one type of commitment) has little to do with the fact that he may or may not want to be your fiance/husband (another, and higher level of commitment)."
Click to expand...
But wait, something just occurred to me, the original question was a simple one (or so I thought) - it was simply about commitment, nothing more nothing less; then the topic turned to marriage - a whole 'nother deal. :spinning: Then, the comment to the effect of not paying attention to the dictionary definition . . . the reason I looked up the word commitment was first of all to make sure I knew what the heck it was and was not putting my own spin on it, or attributing a colloquialism (sp?) to the word and also to have a basis for what commitment is according to accepted standards or norms. For whatever reason I've been taught to use such means as a basis for establishing communication 'cause if folk aren't talking about the same thing, communication is not taking place.

It is proving interesting to see the differing opinions about it. Not going to do another thread, but it would be interesting to note if the ones who choose to downplay unmarried folk being committed to one another are in a marriage. It almost seems as if those that don't respect/agree with exclusivity=commitment are of the opinion that men who state they are exclusive are doing it for covert reasoning and the women who accept or have this belief are in denial (for lack of a better word right this sec.)

I do know "luck" has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
 
Can I change my answer? After reading the other responses, and thinking about it, if you and your SO have agreed to be exclusive then yes it is a commitment. He just hasn't decided to tell everyone about it, which would be 'locking you in/down' and marrying you. The only things keeping exclusivity from being a commitment in the eyes of those who feel it isn't (myself included!) are possibly the fact that it may not be the ultimate goal, and personal insecurity (yep me again). You know, that feeling of 'great we're exclusive. when we gonna get married??' It's a commitment, it just may not be the one you want... :look:
 
not that steve harvey is the end all be all but one thing he said that i actually agree with is that men will give a woman he values a title. Once he at least going to take the step of calling you his girlfriend then he is at the very least committing to only date you for an unspecified amout of time. when he is willing to call someone his wife then that is the ultimate marker of committment (at least in name) because he is willing to commit to you forever (theoreticall, at least).

I expect my bf to only date me. we are committed to dating only eachother until either we break up or get married.
 
Commitment IMO means satisfied.

Marriage IMO means that this person at their bare minimum satisfies you, so you want them always- also with the legal stuff to keep you together, and if you are a christian with the sex/cheating rules to keep you together

If you are not married and commited it means you are satisfied, but you still dont know or are ready to be with that person for life or with truely binding rules- So b/c of that IMO you have to be carefull, and make sure your not getting used for what you have at the moment.
 
I have to give thanks to the women that stepped up and posted here. You've given me food for thought and for that I thank you.
 
Last edited:
Agreeing to be exclusive is a commitment IMO.
You're committing to trying to make the relationship work and bring the best you to this relationship and no other.
 
chocolat79 said:
Yep! Marriage is the ULTIMATE commitment, but exclusivity is the precursor to that, so I'd say yes. Otherwise, what's the point in being exclusive?
Click to expand...

You said everything that I was thinking. Add me to the 'commitment' column.

Daeuiel said:
Can I change my answer? After reading the other responses, and thinking about it, if you and your SO have agreed to be exclusive then yes it is a commitment. He just hasn't decided to tell everyone about it, which would be 'locking you in/down' and marrying you. The only things keeping exclusivity from being a commitment in the eyes of those who feel it isn't (myself included!) are possibly the fact that it may not be the ultimate goal, and personal insecurity (yep me again). You know, that feeling of 'great we're exclusive. when we gonna get married??' It's a commitment, it just may not be the one you want... :look:
Click to expand...

If he's committed to you, he shouldn't have a problem shouting his commitment to you from the rooftops. Betcha, if you were keeping your boyfriend/girlfriend status a secret, he would want to know what going on. If you're committed, you're locked down imho.
 
I tend to think that exclusivity is a mutual understanding, but not necessarily a commitment. The way I see it, you aren't actually committed to something if you're still deciding whether you want to continue in it or not and if it could change at the drop of a hat. You're still contemplating commitment at that point. That said, people can certainly be committed to one another before actually being legally and/or religiously married.
 
IMO. No a "discussion" of exclusivity does not make one committed.

Committment = formal intentions have been communicated to me and our respective families (i.e. marriage proposal).

Until we get there, the rest is just pretty words. I'm look for ackshun!

ETA: What I'm saying is that I don't view our relationship any differently at that point then when he started calling me or introducing me as his girlfriend, significant other etc.
 
LovelyNaps26 said:
not that steve harvey is the end all be all but one thing he said that i actually agree with is that men will give a woman he values a title. Once he at least going to take the step of calling you his girlfriend then he is at the very least committing to only date you for an unspecified amout of time. when he is willing to call someone his wife then that is the ultimate marker of committment (at least in name) because he is willing to commit to you forever (theoreticall, at least).
Click to expand...


The bold is so true. I wish more women will remember this point. Men aren't complicated creatures. Either it is or it isn't is the way most men think.

Personally, being exclusive is saying that we are committed to each other for a period of time until he puts a ring on it with the WIFE title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top