Advantages of being single

Miley30

efb wrote: »

the better looking people are in couples.

Not necessarily, some people just settle for someone for the sake of having someone in their life, which is wrong.

Earthhorse

justchecked wrote: »

this is great. I never realised it was so good being single, tonight's crywank might just be a ****. Winning.

Or a cry. It could go either way.

bluewolf wrote: »

I want coco pops

Are you single?

I am but I don't think the shop is open either way
Or do we get a magic singletons password?

You're never rudely awoken by a poke in the back.

Miley30

Candie wrote: »

You're never rudely awoken by a poke in the back.

Or a poke in the bum :pac:

Miley30

Miley30 wrote: »

Or a poke in the bum :pac:

This is one of those joke-explaining scenarios.

Earthhorse

bluewolf wrote: »

I am but I don't think the shop is open either way
Or do we get a magic singletons password?

All I know is that if you want Coco Pops you can't just sit there wishing it were so. You've got to get out there and say to the world, "Give me Coco Pops or give me death! Or maybe some of that Kellogg's Start. Whatever happened to that? You can't find it in shops anymore."

Words to that effect.

No that sounds like a lot of effort

DivingDuck

Candie wrote: »

Dont forget you included:

People complaining about your browsing history, waking you when your sleeping, hogging the bathroom, complaining about physical changes, complaining if you want to go out, and making you explain your expenditure.

Good partners don't do those things.

You're right though, you're probably unsuited to a relationship. It's not for everyone. It takes give and take.

Yes, I included things that covered both bad relationships (which are obviously abundant-- you only need to consider the Ashley Madison hack or look at the Relationship Issues forum to see that) as well as normal/healthy relationships.

However, while only a bad partner will be constantly complaining about things, the core concepts and issues are still relevant even to a healthy relationship.

Browsing history is a contentious issue for many couples. Some people feel threatened by their partner looking at porn, and some people like to engage in casual flirtation with zero intention of follow-up which could harm their partner if they found out. It doesn't require a paranoid screwball with issues on either side for this to be a problem in the relationship.

Physical changes can impact upon a couple's sex life, intimacy, and general happiness levels. Even if the other party isn't whining because their partner lost or gained a lot of weight, they may still feel less attracted to them as a change has occurred. If you are making big changes to how you look, it's going to have an impact on your partner. If you yourself are a good partner, this is something you should consider. (I am not saying you shouldn't still be able to make the changes you feel you need to make, but you do need to be aware it can upset the balance of your relationship.)

I never said anything about one person "hogging" the bathroom, but if one party is having their perfectly reasonable pre-work shower while the other person is having uninvited digestive convulsions from a bad probiotic yoghurt, it's still going to be a problem.

It is rare that a couple will have the exact same initial expectation of how much time they'll spend at home, out independently, and out together. This is something which has to be discussed and hashed out. While a good partner will not complain about you seeing your friends, you will likely have to enter into negotiations about it, and be prepared to give and take. It's also reasonable and fair to give notice so they're not sitting at home with dinner on the table while you're on the lash with the boys. It's not as simple and carefree as it is when you are single.

A good partner will not force you to justify your expenditure, but in a long-term relationship with shared finances, this is often an issue. You spent how much on a car?! We could have had three holidays for that! Those shoes cost how much?! That was a weekend in Galway! It is only fair to think about your partner when you are spending money if your finances are pooled-- and if they're not joint, you still need to think about it. Can they afford to partake in the activity you're planning? Can you afford to partake in the things they'd like to do? If one party pays for the other, will it create dissent and tension? If one party has to decline opportunities for the sake of their partner's finances, will it lead to resentment?

When you share your life with someone, you owe it to them to be considerate on all fronts. When you are single, this is never a concern. A good relationship will always require more effort from both parties than either would ever have to expend as a single person. While this trade-off is worth it to some people, it will never be a good deal for others because the what you have to give will never exceed what you would take.

Earthhorse

bluewolf wrote: »

No that sounds like a lot of effort

Worst. Libertarian. Ever.

DoYouEvenLift

Has there been a thread like this but for not having children?

DivingDuck

DivingDuck wrote: »

Yes, I included things that covered both bad relationships (which are obviously abundant-- you only need to consider the Ashley Madison hack or look at the Relationship Issues forum to see that) as well as normal/healthy relationships.

However, while only a bad partner will be constantly complaining about things, the core concepts and issues are still relevant even to a healthy relationship.

Browsing history is a contentious issue for many couples. Some people feel threatened by their partner looking at porn, and some people like to engage in casual flirtation with zero intention of follow-up which could harm their partner if they found out. It doesn't require a paranoid screwball with issues on either side for this to be a problem in the relationship.

Physical changes can impact upon a couple's sex life, intimacy, and general happiness levels. Even if the other party isn't whining because their partner lost or gained a lot of weight, they may still feel less attracted to them as a change has occurred. If you are making big changes to how you look, it's going to have an impact on your partner. If you yourself are a good partner, this is something you should consider. (I am not saying you shouldn't still be able to make the changes you feel you need to make, but you do need to be aware it can upset the balance of your relationship.)

I never said anything about one person "hogging" the bathroom, but if one party is having their perfectly reasonable pre-work shower while the other person is having uninvited digestive convulsions from a bad probiotic yoghurt, it's still going to be a problem.

It is rare that a couple will have the exact same initial expectation of how much time they'll spend at home, out independently, and out together. This is something which has to be discussed and hashed out. While a good partner will not complain about you seeing your friends, you will likely have to enter into negotiations about it, and be prepared to give and take. It's also reasonable and fair to give notice so they're not sitting at home with dinner on the table while you're on the lash with the boys. It's not as simple and carefree as it is when you are single.

A good partner will not force you to justify your expenditure, but in a long-term relationship with shared finances, this is often an issue. You spent how much on a car?! We could have had three holidays for that! Those shoes cost how much?! That was a weekend in Galway! It is only fair to think about your partner when you are spending money if your finances are pooled-- and if they're not joint, you still need to think about it. Can they afford to partake in the activity you're planning? Can you afford to partake in the things they'd like to do? If one party pays for the other, will it create dissent and tension? If one party has to decline opportunities for the sake of their partner's finances, will it lead to resentment?

When you share your life with someone, you owe it to them to be considerate on all fronts. When you are single, this is never a concern. A good relationship will always require more effort from both parties than either would ever have to expend as a single person. While this trade-off is worth it to some people, it will never be a good deal for others because the what you have to give will never exceed what you would take.

It's ok, I don't need a lecture. I get it, you don't want a relationship. That's grand.

I won't be proposing.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

Worst. Libertarian. Ever.

I have the freedom to want cocopops but also be too lazy to get them right now!
Get outta here with your police state cereal!!

justchecked

Miley30 wrote: »

Or a poke in the bum :pac:

can still happen if you sleep out in an estate car.

Earthhorse

bluewolf wrote: »

I have the freedom to want cocopops but also be too lazy to get them right now!
Get outta here with your police state cereal!!

Libertarianism is about eating cereal and stamping on the poor.

Have you even read Atlas Shrugged?

DivingDuck

Candie wrote: »

It's ok, I don't need a lecture. I get it, you don't want a relationship. That's grand.

I won't be proposing.

I think what you might need is an understanding of the difference between a lecture and a rebuttal, but considering that you're not proposing, I'll leave that task to someone else.

DoYouEvenLift

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Has there been a thread like this but for not having children?

A huge number of them, and they're all identical.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

Libertarianism is about eating cereal and stamping on the poor.

Have you even read Atlas Shrugged?

I did all my stamping earlier and all I need right now is a cup of tea and a sit down!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Nobody to wake you up pawing at you or kissing you.
Nobody to choose TV shows you hate
Nobody to leave the en suite door open at 6:30 so you can hear the water running and tone deaf singing
Nobody to nag you when the postman can't carry your asos order with both hands
Nobody to nag you about hair clogging up the drain
Nobody to fart in bed
Nobody to clip their manky toenails in bed
Nobody to leave weights lying on the bedroom floor thus eliminating banging your toe off them in the dark

You can be in a bad mood to your hearts content without having to explain yourself or reassure someone there's nothing wrong.
You can use "fine" or "right" as an answer without being accused of being pissed off.

There's a lot to be said for it

DivingDuck

DivingDuck wrote: »

I think what you might need is an understanding of the difference between a lecture and a rebuttal, but considering that you're not proposing, I'll leave that task to someone else.

Ah don't worry about my understanding. I understand you perfectly.

DivingDuck

Are there any threads about the advantages of being married?

I'd love to know if single people are as invested in arguing that being single is the only true path to happiness as married people are invested in telling single people that being in a relationship is the only way to go.

AH posting, serious investment

Candie

Candie wrote: »

It's ok, I don't need a lecture. I get it, you don't want a relationship. That's grand.

I won't be proposing.

tl:dp

efb

Miley30 wrote: »

Not necessarily, some people just settle for someone for the sake of having someone in their life, which is wrong.

keep telling yourself that

Miley30

efb wrote: »

keep telling yourself that

You think that anyone over 25 who isn't in a relationship is not good looking ?

DivingDuck

efb wrote: »

keep telling yourself that

Do you really believe that some (obviously not all; there are many passionate and devoted couples out there) people are not in a relationship purely because they got desperate?

I can think of several couples in the 25+ age group who I would be reasonably confident are only with their partner because they were available and unlikely to break up with them. Of the three I'm thinking of, two are now married: one with children, and one trying.

None of them seem terribly unhappy, but one has openly confided to his friends that he "settled" because his previous partner was "too ambitious". He initially wanted a girl whose educational experience and career prospects matched his own, but he also wanted to be the breadwinner in the family, so unsurprisingly their relationship ended in a divorce. He's since remarried and had kids to a lovely girl who had limited career prospects and minimal financial ambition. As I said, I don't believe their marriage is unhappy per se, but in addition to his confession, it's pretty clear that he does not look at his current partner like he did his previous wife.

Plenty of people "settle" because they don't want to be alone. There isn't even anything wrong with it, so long as both parties are getting what they wanted out of the deal. In the case of the chap above, he got a wife who prioritizes homemaking over career, and she got a strong provider who takes care of his family. Many long and happy marriages are based on something other than deep and passionate love.

all of them are.

it's kinda naive imo to posit "deep and meaningful love" as something magical that exists outside of and/or overrides personality, expectations, reality, attraction, compromise, shared experience, etc, etc, etc

efb

Miley30 wrote: »

You think that anyone over 25 who isn't in a relationship is not good looking ?

No, but the % of better looking people in couples would be higher

DivingDuck

Deleted User wrote: »

all of them are.

it's kinda naive imo to posit "deep and meaningful love" as something magical that exists outside of and/or overrides personality, expectations, reality, attraction, compromise, shared experience, etc, etc, etc

I suppose the distinction I'm making is between someone thinking to themselves "This is the person I most want to be with out of everyone I know, even though I know it will be difficult and we'll have to work at it sometimes" versus "Sure he'll do" at the point of commitment.

Of course in due time passion won't be the primary factor in the relationship, but I do think there's a difference between someone being head over heels at the outset and someone just taking what they feel is their practical option because they feel it's time to bed down in a secure and long-term relationship.

_Whimsical_

One of the happiest couples I know were definitely people who "settled" for each other. She wanted kids, desperately and unashamedly to the point of tears when the subject came up, he was done with dating after some really bad experiences and wanted someone to want him now. They met and were engaged within 2 months, he'd often say "she doesn't have the best sense of humour now... but we can work on that" among other rather shakey things. Now they've kids, a lovely home, a whole load of common ground and the things that once were important to them like admiring someones wit and intelligence etc are obviously not as necessary to creating a great life as you'd think, for them at least! They admire each others parenting skills now and what each of them brings to making the life they have. It definitely works really well sometimes!

_Whimsical_

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

One of the happiest couples I know were definitely people who "settled" for each other. She wanted kids, desperately and unashamedly to the point of tears when the subject came up, he was done with dating after some really bad experiences and wanted someone to want him now. They met and were engaged within 2 months, he'd often say "she doesn't have the best sense of humour now... but we can work on that" among other rather shakey things. Now they've kids, a lovely home, a whole load of common ground and the things that once were important to them like admiring someones wit and intelligence etc are obviously not as necessary to creating a great life as you'd think, for them at least! They admire each others parenting skills now and what each of them brings to making the life they have. It definitely works really well sometimes!

That is the result of shared values and realistic expectations. There's a lesson there for most of us.

_Whimsical_

Candie wrote: »

That is the result of shared values and realistic expectations. There's a lesson there for most of us.

Yes I think so to. It's not a loveless union either, they clearly love what they both have and appreciate and love other for helping make it and keep it going .They call each other love all the time. Maybe they make the extra effort because it didn't come naturally at firstiI don't know but I know something I worried might be doomed is actually rockk solid now.

Sorry for the typos, my phone is being a nightmare!

Filmer Paradise

I remember seeing a documentary on Army life one time....

An old soldier described it perfectly....

'At 25, the idea of standing waist-deep in a river with full kit can seem like a bit of fun. At 35 you can just about bear it & at 45 it's the last place you want to be!'

That sums up single life for me & most others in my experience

r93kaey5p2izun

I can't ever see myself in another relationship. Conventional relationships are just not for me and I generally see almost everything about being single as an advantage for me. To me the only disadvantage to being single is not having someone to share living costs with, but since I wouldn't be willing to live full time with a partner anyway it's irrelevant really.

Perhaps I will find the right person one day whose lifestyle is compatible with mine, but I doubt it. I thought I had once but eventually they wanted a closer relationship and it just didn't work for me.

DivingDuck

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

An old soldier described it perfectly....

'At 25, the idea of standing waist-deep in a river with full kit can seem like a bit of fun. At 35 you can just about bear it & at 45 it's the last place you want to be!'

That sums up single life for me & most others in my experience

Or a relationship, for others.

When I was younger, being in a relationship seemed like the best thing ever. The older I get, the more I see it as an effort. I have plenty of older relatives (60+) who seem to feel the same way.

lazybones32

Miley30 wrote: »

Is there any ?

Of course there are! There are positives and negatives to every decision but it's up to you to decide which is the better route to take.

I don't have to listen to bullsh*t that my friends have to; no rom-coms; no nagging; no jealousy; no moodiness; no hogging blankets/bathrooms; no irrational fears and worries. No telling me about dreams or being angry with me because of something 'I' 'did' in their dream...

There are times of loneliness but having a partner doesn't mean they are always available and attentive. You can be lonely in a relationship too. The 'honeymoon' doesn't last long.

Filmer Paradise

DivingDuck wrote: »

Or a relationship, for others.

When I was younger, being in a relationship seemed like the best thing ever. The older I get, the more I see it as an effort. I have plenty of older relatives (60+) who seem to feel the same way.

When I was younger I liked the whole idea of wondering how life might turn out. Dreaming of how things could be.

Gradually, as I got older I grew to like certainties.

I'm in my '40s now & my life is to some degree set in stone. Married, mortgaged, kids, etc.... I like it like that now.

20 years ago I'd horrified at the idea!:eek:

DivingDuck

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

20 years ago I'd horrified at the idea!:eek:

I always thought I'd like to be in a long-term/serious relationship, but experiencing them taught me otherwise. They weren't bad relationships or anything (I've always been very fairly fortunate in that respect), but I never felt as free or content as I do while single.

Maybe everyone ends up wanting the opposite of what they wanted when they were younger...?

One More Toy

Timothy Cold Carpenter wrote: »

I can't ever see myself in another relationship. Conventional relationships are just not for me and I generally see almost everything about being single as an advantage for me. To me the only disadvantage to being single is not having someone to share living costs with, but since I wouldn't be willing to live full time with a partner anyway it's irrelevant really.

Perhaps I will find the right person one day whose lifestyle is compatible with mine, but I doubt it. I thought I had once but eventually they wanted a closer relationship and it just didn't work for me.

Pm sent

Tigger

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

One of the happiest couples I know were definitely people who "settled" for each other. She wanted kids, desperately and unashamedly to the point of tears when the subject came up, he was done with dating after some really bad experiences and wanted someone to want him now. They met and were engaged within 2 months, he'd often say "she doesn't have the best sense of humour now... but we can work on that" among other rather shakey things. Now they've kids, a lovely home, a whole load of common ground and the things that once were important to them like admiring someones wit and intelligence etc are obviously not as necessary to creating a great life as you'd think, for them at least! They admire each others parenting skills now and what each of them brings to making the life they have. It definitely works really well sometimes!

O__o

Filmer Paradise

DivingDuck wrote: »

I always thought I'd like to be in a long-term/serious relationship, but experiencing them taught me otherwise. They weren't bad relationships or anything (I've always been very fairly fortunate in that respect), but I never felt as free or content as I do while single.

Maybe everyone ends up wanting the opposite of what they wanted when they were younger...?

Everyone's different. I was talking about things in general really. Not just relationships.

When you're younger you tend to daydream about the future. As you enter you're 30's & if things haven't turned out like you expected, the future can be something to be feared.

People tend to deal in reality rather than dreams after the age of 30.

But Hey. Everyone's different.:)

Pac1Man

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

One of the happiest couples I know were definitely people who "settled" for each other. She wanted kids, desperately and unashamedly to the point of tears when the subject came up, he was done with dating after some really bad experiences and wanted someone to want him now. They met and were engaged within 2 months, he'd often say "she doesn't have the best sense of humour now... but we can work on that" among other rather shakey things. Now they've kids, a lovely home, a whole load of common ground and the things that once were important to them like admiring someones wit and intelligence etc are obviously not as necessary to creating a great life as you'd think, for them at least! They admire each others parenting skills now and what each of them brings to making the life they have. It definitely works really well sometimes!

That sounds like an actual nightmare. Especially the bolded bits.

John T Carroll

Candie wrote: »

You're never rudely awoken by a poke in the back.

A single person is someone who has never made the same mistake even once.

NachoBusiness

Don't have to take me Tupac poster down.

Filmer Paradise

Pac1Man wrote: »

That sounds like an actual nightmare. Especially the bolded bits.

Might not be. That couple could be perfectly happy now.

There's much to be said for having kids in a situation like this. The shared memories, worries, expectations,& so on.

This can give those concerned a purpose in life, a future & a reason to carry on as they get older. Contentment is a thing to be valued sometimes.

colossus-x

The advantage of being single are that you don't have to tolerate the disadvantages of being in a relationship - whatever they are , I don't know.

_Whimsical_

Pac1Man wrote: »

That sounds like an actual nightmare. Especially theed bits.

Well you would think it would be a nightmare alright certainly but it's really not. There's research that finds people in arranged marriages are equally happy, equally fulfilled as those in marriages based on love relationships. That as someone said probably due to the fact that people who marry to have a family with an expectation to work on their relationship and create a good one can develop love abd affection for each other. While romantic love and fancying someone are the gold standard in the western world we all know from experience those feelings can fade and aren't as solid as poetry and novels might suggest for a lot of people.

It's not what I'd want for myself but I think it's probably naievity to think it's the only way and that there's only one basis for a fulfilling life with someone.

osarusan

Ok, i'm convinced.

I'm calling a divorce lawyer.

Mister Vain

Pink Lemons wrote: »

Your hand doesn't make you feel guilty when you finish too early

Or if you accidently let one rip.

Huntergonzo

You don't need a permission slip to go drinkin, nor will you have someone giving out to you when you're hungover.

As the aul fella said to me once when I asked him for relationship advice = "never jump into the well for a drink of water son".