baby g’s diary

in this series: #1 (#1.5) | #2 | #3 (#3.5) | #4 | #5 (#5.5) | #6 | #7 (#7.5)

Extension of #7.

---

On Commitment

To commit to a romantic relationship is to pledge yourself to someone, possibly for life. You are investing your already limited time and energy into someone else and a relationship.

The implications of this decision are enormous:

• It is an opportunity cost (the loss of total control of your time, of the opportunities to date others, of a particular flirtatious kind of freedom, etc);
• It dramatically raises the potential for sunk costs: for young people, we are trading what might be the best years of our lives for the inherent uncertainty of love.

As such, commitment cannot be careless; it is a decision that must withstand interrogation.

I’m not interested in why we commit — philosophers have done that better — but rather how we can most effectively determine who to commit to from a selection pool.

---

As You Are, As I Am

My man accepts my “wild” side (if “society” deems it so, I guess; who is to say what?). This includes my past (debauchery galore) and my online self — which, really, are only slices of a whole.

It’s funny because some people consider me uncontrollable; they assume so from my public persona. Perchance. But anyone who reads this blog consistently (is that you?) should know I am compulsively logical. He recognised this, somehow. In contrast, the men who preceded him either did not make this vital connection or, even if they did, decided that the deal wasn’t worth pursuing.

Maybe he saw something in me early on that the others couldn’t. Or he just happened to be mentally resilient (or unhinged) enough to decide that the pros I brought to his table outweighed the cons.

Either way, he understands that I am more than what I display on the surface.

And so, he gets to eat cake: he gets my good, reasonable, controlled side.

Yes! I’m not that crazy around him in person!

• First, I am pretty emotionally stable around others out of respect for them (surprise!; I learned over the years. Sorry to my exes, though, really!…).
• Second, because he keeps me grounded. One time, I spilt wine on my keyboard. He hardly blinked before offering to buy me a new one. Another time, it was his turn to spill something, to his mortification. I didn’t get mad because what would be the point? I focused on scouring for cleaning agents instead…

It’s a circular problem: for someone to trust and show you more, you must believe they are more — even when they haven’t fully revealed themselves. I believe that this ability to trust someone before the fact is the solution to the “dating problem”; it distinguishes secure (and successful) daters.

I don’t typically expect people to give me so much benefit of the doubt.

But he did, and that’s why he won.

---

Power Dynamics

Power permeates everything, including relationships. What kind of power dynamics do you like? Equal, less, or more? There are no right or wrong answers, but it says much about you and what you seek.

The taming of the shrew

Remember the astrologist who interpreted my brattiness as “taking an anti-authoritarian stance to test the authority of the people around me to determine who I could trust”? _{(Huh? Many word for simple concept.)}

Yes and no.

I do act bratty to mess around with others, and it’s my default mode because why not? It’s fun watching y’all squirm.

• By the way, I don’t test authority for the fun of it. I challenge people and environments only when I think there’s room for improvement (or when they are WRONG!). I just seem testy all the time because well, I think many things can be bettered, including myself.

But I’m more than willing to be mellow with the people I care about.

• That’s what taming a brat really means. Contrary to popular belief in the style of predators like Andrew Tate, you don’t tame a brat by asserting your dominance over her through force or Master/Alpha roleplay nonsense. The more you try to dominate, the less power you have because it reveals your insecurities (and on god, men have so many insecurities).
• You tame a brat by meeting her at eye level — by respecting her as an equal. You do not choose; you are chosen.

And that’s what he and I are = equals, or so I think. He does not look at me like a hunter. What we have is not a game; it is a partnership.

Equality in partnerships

If you start off looking for a partner as someone you can control, you will find them — but the two of you will start with an imbalanced dynamic that corrupts all you are.

But here’s an interesting thought: I suspect everyone (secure) fundamentally seeks an equal partnership. We just don’t see it clearly sometimes.

Consider the following. I want equal emotional contribution, for sure — for him to love me as much I love him. But I’d be happy if he was financially dominant (and why wouldn’t anyone be, including men with richer wives?). No shame in acknowledging I have always wanted a man with a provider mentality; it’s how I was raised (I love my daddy darling), and I don’t see an issue with it.

Considering my self-sufficiency, I recognised this desire was silly, but no epiphany precludes the joy of being provided for. I enjoy it because I see it as an act of love. And he’s willing to show me love that way because it makes him happy. That’s what it boils down to, finances and future prospects aside — an alignment in giving and taking.

Now you might think I am self-contradicting: what is all this talk about equality if you want to have your cake (him to give equally emotionally) and eat it too (him to give more financially)? Wait la.

The second thing is that power dynamics fluctuate across domains. Emotional contribution, social dominance, and financial status can differ widely in a relationship.

If time is money, and he gives me money, then I’m willing to give more of my time. I’m more than happy to manage the household — such as buying things to make his life easier before he even realises he needs them, or making our home a welcoming place for him to return to. And please don’t say that it’s so much easier to manage a household; just look at men in their dormitories.

• The above example just happens to be gendered, as all things inevitably are, and as some people unfortunately cannot distinguish from actual inequality like the second shift. If I were working the same hours as him, he’d better be cooking, cleaning, and babying too. Or goodbye!

If he buys me a cake, I feed him with it. That’s how equality is achieved in a relationship — it happens when all domains are holistically integrated.

Feelings of trust and safety

Your body is excellent at putting together things that don’t add up. It’s so good, in fact, that it can do so way before your mind ever gets to it.

That’s why sometimes you have a nagging doubt that you can’t explain until later with the benefit of hindsight. The mind is fantastic at rationalising, which is to explain away inconsistencies with logic.

But your body can’t because it doesn’t “think” similarly. When your body senses a problem, it will force you to confront it every night when all the world’s distractions have subsided, and you’re left alone with your thoughts.

I will note that with my man, I sleep like a log in his arms. I feel safe. Sounds dandy and all but safety takes work to get to before your body will accept it. It entails a subconscious recognition that in this moment, you have given whatever you are willing to, and they have reciprocated in kind. It doesn’t mean there are no longer secrets, but you have accepted that what you have right now is enough.

There are even gradations to this. For the love of excessive detail, I can rank how safe I felt with men based on how my body responded when we slept together (non-sexually). I will go as far as to say your feelings when you lie beside someone are an accurate snapshot of your feelings towards them.

Level of safety	Sleeping behaviour	Snapshot assessment
None	NA – I am sleeping alone. Goodnight!	Stay away from me 🙂
Little	We may sleep side by side but not touch each other. I stay wide awake for a long time — if I even fall asleep in the first place.	I feel empty, and his presence almost makes it worse.
Medium	I might hold his arm or something at most. I take a while to fall asleep.	I’m undecided about him. His presence is cool but not necessarily value-adding to my life (or sleep).
High	He wraps his arms around me, and I nestle my cheek in the crook of his neck. I fall asleep quickly and sleep soundly through the night.	I feel content. What we have is good enough.

It’s also about inferring your partner’s intention and deciding if it works for you. When I intuit that a man is just there for my body, in the sense that he has no care for me as a person, my physical self instinctively recoils. I can’t stand the thought of touching him, much less falling asleep around him.

• So, despite my mythical ability to compartmentalise love and sex, even I only slept with men I trusted at the time. Not necessarily as potential lovers, but at least as another human being who seemed to respect me (and found me hot). Regardless of what you think, babygirl has standards, OK? I think to make any exception would be disrespecting myself.
• That’s also why I don’t regret anything I did with them, even if I never want to be associated with them again. My acceptance is borne from trust in my past self — that she did what felt right, knowing what was appropriate then. Even if she did not make the best decision for me now, in hindsight, she could not have known the future; how can I blame her?

---

Consistency (and lovebombing)

Players, lovebombers, whatever

Early on — and let it be said that it is still early — I wondered if my man was lovebombing me.

My definition of a lovebomber is when:

• They make premature proclamations of love. An essential criterion to catch a sinner, but insufficient.
  • Not a problem per se because time is relative. Who is to say how fast a relationship should and can develop? Sure, you need time to know someone, but do we make decisions based on all the available evidence? (If you think so, you’re wrong.)
• The definitive sign of a lovebomber is when their actions do not line up with their proclamations.
  • I particularly detest men who make promises they do not keep. Your inability to follow through screams two things: 1) you lack accountability for your words; 2) you are careless with the trust that others put in you. Both are not even red flags; they are black. If you cannot fulfill a single promise made early on, how can I count on you for anything in the future?
  • This is also why in seeking to understand someone, you look at what they do, not what they say.

Suppose their actions line up with their proclamations for the trial period. Unfortunately, the test is not over; it will never be. The next challenge, now and forever, is consistency.

Consistency is key

I suspect that the most critical challenge all relationships face is consistency over time. Unleashing a barrage of sweet fawning in a relationship’s honeymoon phase is easy. Maintaining this affection over several years, after all the love dust has settled in the spaces between, is hard.

Maybe that’s why my friends told me not to give everything initially. Because once you show all your cards, you only have the option of withdrawing or persisting.

That being said, the human tendency to throw oneself onto the battlefield during the infatuation phase is an invaluable tool to determine who is worth keeping. As I argued, if they do not love you given some time, what makes you think they will do so later?

Barring major upheavals, love is most intense at the beginning. If you’re lucky, this love plateaus in time — giving way to consistency.

If you’re not lucky — it dies.

---

Good, bad, double-edged swords (are we bandits now?)

One thing I’ve learnt from my past relationships (and the advice of women wiser than myself, such as my Mami) is that where there is good, there will be bad. All traits in a partner are double-edged swords.

Fun examples:

• If you want to date a hot girl who gives spectacular head, you must accept that she’s a little crazy and that you’ll never be able to fully control her.
• If you want to date an “accomplished” and ambitious man willing to provide, you must accept that he likes to be in control most of the time.

My man likes to be the one ordering the food. Past me might have felt like my place at the table (?) was threatened. LOL. But we look at the bigger picture. Simply because he orders doesn’t mean my opinion is irrelevant. He always orders what I like and doesn’t tell me what to eat, ever — he merely informs the waiter on my behalf. And hell, if it makes him happy, why not?

Again, it’s all about give and take. I always want garlic kang kong for my veggie fix. But if we’ve eaten kang kong two days in a row, I’m happy to eat some potato leaves since I know he likes them more.

A relationship sails when you can tolerate the bad in light of the good.

---

You don’t really want any specific person. You want an idea of a person. You project your ideals onto potential lovers. If they fit that criteria, you will love them; you find that they’re enough; you settle. You are looking for the one, but it turns out there are many ones — that’s why you can move on and love again. It’s not the end of the world if someone doesn’t want you; you’ll find someone else, and you’ll love like you’ve never done before.

On commitment: ask, demand the very best you deserve, be willing to give in return, and you shall receive.

---

This post is dedicated to my future husband.

Happy Monthsary! The road ahead is long, but I hope we’ll make it together.

Even if we don’t — I want you to know I love you.

---

in this series: #1 (#1.5) | #2 | #3 (#3.5) | #4 | #5 (#5.5) | #6 | #7 (#7.5)