My friend Michael told me this week that he is contemplating ending his relationship. He loves her but he is bored with his career so figures he may as well throw out the babe with the bath water.
My friend Mark is counting down the days until his girlfriend’s foot has heeled from surgery so he can send her home and throw a party.
And Jonathan text me late on Friday night, looking for a booty call, the fact that he has a girlfriend of 18 months thrown out the window.
I’ve spoken to all three of them at length on numerous occasions about how much they want to settle down. But when it comes down to it, the FOC (fear of commitment) overrides the LUV every time.
But why does love incite such fear? Why does the concept of security cause so much instability? The concept of something definite result in such ambiguity?
The evolutionists would have us believe that the male fear of commitment is due to the genetic drive to spawn as many offspring as possible.
I disagree. After all, human beings behave in all sorts of ways that defy Darwin. Homosexuals, suicide bombers, women who refuse to marry the father of their children and stay-at-home dads do not follow the guidelines of the “survival of the fittest”.
What they do show is the complexity of human behaviour that extends far beyond man’s need to spawn children and provide for them and woman’s need to rear children and provide a permanent father for them.
The FOC is not a result of nature, but of nurture. A result of a culture that celebrates the sexual triumphs of eternal bachelors like Colin Farrell and George Clooney and wonders why an ageing Kylie Minogue is so unlucky in love. That spews out Mills & Boon and Nuts magazine, Pretty Woman and James Bond, Barbie dolls and Transformers.
If a man falls in love in the woods, does anyone feel the fear? I think not.
I’ve lost many a great man to FOC. May they all RIP (after a long and lonely life).