Contract for freedom for your partner in case of dementia - alpha/gamma values conflict?

[nanashi]

I thought it was noble of me. My ILE ex was horrified. I think this is a GAMMA and ALPHA values conflict.

He suggested I never marry (in front of everyone at my job) and sd:"Poor guy.Forgets his keys once and nanashi's out looking for the next young thing." He was angry for like an hour, which is would be weird to me (because we'd been broken up for 6 months), but I realized it's not about me leaving him in the future necessarily (it's not personal). It's more to do with what I'm saying about all marriages--more Fe.

He brought up the line "for better for worse, in sickness and in health," and I countered with the fact that some instances exist in which the partner is not affecting your life in positive way that most of us see leaving as fine in: they sexually abuse children, murder, or cheat on you. not everyone would leave. but many can understand leaving. If we can leave when the person's choosing these things and harming our social position and breaking our trust (dragging us into their child abuse/murder cover ups or giving away affection and focus they promised us to someone else), why can't we leave when they've abandoned us through no fault of their own choosing? I see my future spouse being sweetly loyal to someone who doctors assure him doesn't have a clue who he is--maybe is scared by him--and he's emotionally and mentally and physically alone. It's breaking my heart. I think it ignores the needs of the fit partner if they are loyal to me. Why can't they realize I'm different? I don't provide the same things for him. Our relationship has changed. He can remain a caring friend/relative and financial supporter and advocate, but I want him to feel intentional love from someone else.

[Cyrano]

I thought it was noble of me. My ILE ex was horrified. I think this is a GAMMA and ALPHA values conflict.

He suggested I never marry (in front of everyone at my job) and sd:"Poor guy.Forgets his keys once and nanashi's out looking for the next young thing." He was angry for like an hour, which is would be weird to me (because we'd been broken up for 6 months), but I realized it's not about me leaving him in the future necessarily (it's not personal). It's more to do with what I'm saying about all marriages--more Fe.

He brought up the line "for better for worse, in sickness and in health," and I countered with the fact that some instances exist in which the partner is not affecting your life in positive way that most of us see leaving as fine in: they sexually abuse children, murder, or cheat on you. not everyone would leave. but many can understand leaving. If we can leave when the person's choosing these things and harming our social position and breaking our trust (dragging us into their child abuse/murder cover ups or giving away affection and focus they promised us to someone else), why can't we leave when they've abandoned us through no fault of their own choosing? I see my future spouse being sweetly loyal to someone who doctors assure him doesn't have a clue who he is--maybe is scared by him--and he's emotionally and mentally and physically alone. It's breaking my heart. I think it ignores the needs of the fit partner if they are loyal to me. Why can't they realize I'm different? I don't provide the same things for him. Our relationship has changed. He can remain a caring friend/relative and financial supporter and advocate, but I want him to feel intentional love from someone else.

I'm with you on this. I wouldn't want to become an anchor for my wife. I would expect for her to see that I'm cared for physically, but emotionally she would be be free to move on. Perhaps this is why SLIs never fully commit. Life is change.

[MatthewZ]

Like any contract, as long as both parties specify and agree to the terms beforehand, I don't see a problem with it. Of course, if such a "Dementia Clause" had not been specified, leaving a partner with permanent dementia would clearly violate the contract. The person been left would not have chosen to harm the status of the other person, such as would happen if they lost their job which is NOT considered by most to be an adequate reason for terminating marriage. A contract not being presently beneficial for one of the parties does not free that party from contractual obligations.

For this reason, I consider

He brought up the line "for better for worse, in sickness and in health," and I countered with the fact that some instances exist in which the partner is not affecting your life in positive way that most of us see leaving as fine in: they sexually abuse children, murder, or cheat on you. not everyone would leave. but many can understand leaving. If we can leave when the person's choosing these things and harming our social position and breaking our trust (dragging us into their child abuse/murder cover ups or giving away affection and focus they promised us to someone else), why can't we leave when they've abandoned us through no fault of their own choosing?

a moot point. If marriage was not viewed as a contract, then a person absolutely has reason to leave a partner with such a degenerative mental illness. However, when it comes to the contractual view of marriage, neither party is necessarily required to constantly be beneficial to the other. The exit clause that exists for the vast majority of marriage contracts, at the present time, is death. (or, as with any contract, clear violation of the terms by the other party)

That being addressed, I naturally and fully support the notion of a couple agreeing to not be emotionally bound to each when the other person is incapable of remembering that bond. That said, I would not be inclined to propose such in any theoretical marriage of my own because of the difficulty of diagnosing that point, instead deferring to the definitively irreversible point of death. I have this preference because of the gaps of modern understanding of mental illnesses and, consequently, the analogous potential nightmare of a person recovering from a coma only to find that spouse has prematurely moved on because of the idea that they were forever a vegetable.

[silverchris9]

While the type of reaction might be type-related, I wouldn't be too quick to say the actual opinion is type related. I see it as pertaining much more to one's culture than to one's quadra.

[nanashi]

Thank you all, and I am glad, Silverchris, that you pointed out that it's the reaction, not the opinion. I agree.