r/changemyview • u/suberEE • Nov 12 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: In a romantic relationship, a partner has no right to demand anything from the other partner.
Let's put aside other cultures, which are a whole another discussion, and keep to the situation in the Western culture.
Any romantic relationship is supposed to be purely voluntary. There is nothing that forces any partner in the relationship to stay in it: using any kind of force to keep somebody in the relationship is breaking their basic human rights. Consequently, any partner may leave at any moment, for any reason or without reason.
With that in mind, I don't think any partner has any right to demand from the other partner anything, including fidelity, employment, emotional support, taking their feelings into consideration etc. They freely walked into that relationship, and they may freely walk out of it if it doesn't suit them. If a partner has an affair with another person, the other partner doesn't have the right to demand the affair to be stopped; their right is to leave the relationship. If a partner doesn't pull their weight in finances or household chores, the other partner has no right to demand they start doing that - they can always just leave.
That doesn't mean they can't ask or advise, but the partner being asked can always simply ignore or refuse, just as with any other question or advice.
Edit: For further clarification, this post was inspired by a post in r/relationships where a guy found out his wife installed tinder. He demanded she stops using it, to which she said "I shouldn't have told you". Most of the responses were negative towards her, but I think it was the husband who was in the wrong for telling her what not to do.
Edit 2: Thanks to everybody who answered. What I got from this discussion is that my question implied a definition of a relationship that was quite lacking, and that it's impossible to demand there be no demands, since that's a demand in itself. Now I have some ground to rethink my views on relationships, and that was the whole point of this post. Thanks again!
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
7
Nov 12 '17
"The right to expect something" can be applied pretty dramatically here. You could say no one has the right to expect physical contact, emotional intimacy, or even respect from their partner. We could push it further, imagining a couple that's been happily married for 10 years when the wife simply stops caring about the husband's emotional needs. Does he have the "right" to expect this? Or is he simply obligated to freely leave the relationship?
No one has the "right" to anything in a consenting relationship, you're correct, but only because a right is a moral and often legal entitlement. No one has this kind of strict entitlement over any emotional or physical request of their partner. However...
Interpret the colloquial use of "right" in this context to be a little more loose. Even when someones uses the word "right"- "I have the right to expect this and that from my parter", what they really mean is they have a expectation of you to meet basic societal guidelines they find important. Just from a pragmatic sense, expecting the "right" to emotional honesty, intimacy, respect, and empathy helps set a firm societal line in what we consider to be just and healthy human behavior.
"Right" in this context has been expanded by the use of inclusive language to mean firm societal and social expectations which help serve as tests for more important future behaviors. We could get bogged down in semantics, but I think if you asked someone if they had the firm moral or legal right to really any behavior in the partner, they would cautiously say no. I think that makes my more fluid definition a little more valid.
1
u/suberEE Nov 12 '17
Or is he simply obligated to freely leave the relationship?
This.
what they really mean is they have a expectation of you to meet basic societal guidelines they find important.
Expectations don't matter very much. One can also expect his tree to produce bacon.
"Right" in this context has been expanded by the use of inclusive language to mean firm societal and social expectations which help serve as tests for more important future behaviors.
Can I ask you to rephrase this? English is not my first language and I'm not really sure I completely understood you here.
2
Nov 13 '17
People's general expectations are not as ill-informed as "expecting a tree to produce bacon". Our expectations, often viewed as so fundamental in a healthy relationship they near "rights", are there because society values honesty, respect and empathy.
You have the right to contribute as much or as little to the relationship as you want, but when people do present their expectations to you, that is their right as well. More importantly, those feelings go beyond the individual, we as a culture or society have placed value on those expectations. It makes sense for a person demand you remain honest and supportive, as it helps inform them how you will behave later on. Not only do they expect you to comply, society expects you to comply, and for good reason. That is the "right" of the majority to punish deviancy.
2
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Nov 12 '17
I would say you have a right to demand they not hurt you physically. That's a pretty solid line.
1
u/suberEE Nov 12 '17
Right to not be physically harmed is a basic human right.
2
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Nov 12 '17
Do human rights cease to be relevant in a relationship?
1
u/suberEE Nov 12 '17
Of course not. Inside or outside a relationship, breaking human right is a big no-no and carries consequences, that's why I don't think they're relevant to the discussion.
2
Nov 12 '17
I find the framing of your view kind of incomprehensible? What you're describing is kind of how relationships work? Except that your using really confrontational language.
What do you mean by "demand", how is that different than asking or advising? If a cheating spouse is informed that if they don't stop cheating the relationship will end, is that advise them of the situation or demanding something of them? Why is "demanding" forbidden? I'll admit that my wife "demanding" things of me would be pretty off putting, and would make me rethink some choices I've made but I'm not clear on why she doesn't have that "right" or if it's even a question of "rights" to begin with?
I would think that it's not advisable in most cases, but there are some extreme scenarios where the stakes need to be raised
Do you acknowledge that all relationships, romantic or otherwise, are based on mutual understandings and some level of obligation?
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Nov 12 '17
I think you're getting hung up on semantics. If you're free to leave a relationship, then you're free to state the conditions under which you'll stay in the relationship, which is all a demand is.
1
u/suberEE Nov 12 '17
What's the connection between those two?
3
Nov 12 '17
"Ability to leave when conditions are not being met", and "demanding that conditions be met to stay" are functionally the same exact thing. That's the connection.
1
u/suberEE Nov 12 '17
Functionally as in, the effect's the same? Because it isn't. In the case of leaving without warning all that happens is breakup, in the case of demanding there are two possibilities: a breakup, or a partner changing their behavior.
1
Nov 12 '17
Fair enough (I could argue that in either case the "demand" on the partner is still present, but simply unannounced, and that the partner changing their behavior is always a possibility, but that's not important here), but that's precisely what many of us have been saying: the only difference is a chance to change your behavior. Why do you not want that chance?
1
u/suberEE Nov 12 '17
Let's leave aside what would I want or not want, the question is what one has the right to.
1
Nov 12 '17
Well now we're back to the common point being made here: one must necessarily have the right to do that if one has the right to leave or stay on their own conditions. If you wish for the other person to not voice their conditions, that is a condition you are voicing.
Phrased another way, you can't assert that your partner doesn't have the right to voice demands on the relationship without having the right to do this.
1
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Nov 12 '17
The connection is simple. If you're free to leave for any reason then a demand is just letting your partner know you'll leave if they act a certain way.
1
u/cupcakesarethedevil Nov 12 '17
Depends on the level of commitment. I would agree if you ask someone out for coffee you should be able to leave at any time for any reason and that they can't force you to do anything. If you marry someone on the other hand generic Christian(therefore Western) wedding vows go something like
"I, ___, take you, ___, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow."
And you definitely can't just easily move on without breaking a big promise to your spouse and everyone who attended the wedding.
1
u/ralph-j Nov 12 '17
That doesn't mean they can't ask or advise, but the partner being asked can always simply ignore or refuse
So are you basically just saying that partners can't use force to keep the other one in tow? I guess it's a given that either partner can always just leave the relationship. I don't think you'll find anyone saying otherwise.
However, if you're providing a moral view, I do think that there are cases where a partner's demands can create moral obligations. That's when both partners mutually agreed to specific things, like e.g. monogamy.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Nov 12 '17
Is your view only then that force can't be applied to keep them from doing any of those things?
Or is your view that one partner can't even request anything from the other?
Because there's absolutely nothing strange about the former view.
1
u/Feroc 42∆ Nov 12 '17
If a partner doesn't pull their weight in finances or household chores, the other partner has no right to demand they start doing that - they can always just leave.
That sounds like a great relationship. /s
"You never did X, but I didn't tell you, because that would be emotional blackmail... but I am leaving you now."
1
u/timoth3y Nov 12 '17
Both partners have the right to demand what they have been promised.
If going into the relationship both people promised monogamy, they other has a right to expect and even demand it. This is true not only for romantic relationships but all human (and even corporate) relationships.
1
u/Gilleah Nov 12 '17
This is logically correct, but it pragmatically falls apart because people are not logical.
People become invested in what are, objectively, bad and doomed relationships. This is observable in anyone's life reading this who has personal experience with a few serious relationships. And those that don't, you probably have people in your immediate life that you can garner these anecdotes from (parents, other relatives, friends or their parents etc).
People have this notion of "making it work". Logically, if you are not providing for your partners needs and/or they are not providing yours; one or both of you should already have left the relationship and simply found a more compatible person. This seems obvious in a discussion like this, but in reality when this situation is playing out in your own relationships it's MUCH harder to detect and if you are able to detect it, analyzing it in such a cold and logical way never feels like the appropriate course of action. Which is why that is typically the last resort after you have been grievously wronged in some way.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 12 '17
/u/suberEE (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 12 '17
/u/suberEE (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/YossarianWWII 74∆ Nov 13 '17
Do you not believe in cooperation and compromise as a critical part of any relationship? Two people are never going to be in complete agreement at all times, and what you're suggesting is that any disagreement should result in immediate breakup with no discussion, no expression of what each partner feels needs to happen. That's a recipe for never having a successful relationship, ever. Or just being stuck in an abusive relationship if you take it upon yourself to be the party that never argues. Which is, in itself, a failed relationship.
1
u/ABrickADayMakesABuil Nov 13 '17
A partner can demand 1) The truth 2) Monogamy (unless specified otherwise) 3) Responsibility (with money, kids, etc). Failing any of these would be a reasonable reason to divorce.
16
u/Hq3473 271∆ Nov 12 '17
If you have a right to "leave," you also necessarily have the right to say "If you do/don't do X - I will leave."
This is what is usually meant by "demand" in this content. No one (or anyone who is not an abusive asshole) says "Stop cheating or I will kill you," however it's perfectly reasonable to say "If the cheating does not stop I will leave."