Housebound and Single = Home Alone?, Part II

In "Housebound and Single = Home Alone?, Part I," we introduced "Marie," who has spent years trying to sustain a social life despite an existence that is largely confined to the boundaries of her home. She's looking for ideas to help her stay connected to those she cares about as well as to help her find new friends.

The housebound lifestyle is still something I'm figuring out for myself since I was diagnosed last October with a chronic illness that limits my mobility, and, unfortunately, information on the social aspect of housebound living isn't prevalent. However, I'll gladly share what has worked for me and others I've known in hopes that someone will benefit. If anyone out there is also housebound and single, please feel free to contribute your own suggestions to the discussion!



Maintaining Existing Friendships


1. Open up to your friends and family.

Just because someone cares about you doesn't mean they understand what it's like to be you or that they know what you want and need all the time. A lot of younger people have never known a peer who was housebound and may not be sure how to respond. They may assume that you're not well enough for visits or lengthy conversations. They may worry about saying the wrong thing or unintentionally making you feel bad by talking about their busy lives, which you can't participate in.

If they haven't been in touch as much since you've become housebound, make sure your friends and family know that you miss them and want to hear from them. For instance, you could say, "I know it might seem like I wouldn't be interested in ________ [whatever things you can't do anymore], but I'm relying on you to keep me informed. I love hearing about it, and I want to know everything! Hearing your stories is as good as being there."

Be upfront about your limitations, too; no one understands them like you do. Don't leave your friends guessing about what you can and can't do. If you can't handle visitors but can talk on the phone, let them know. If you get too tired to talk for two hours but can talk for one, let them know that, too.


2. Make technology work for you.

If you can't see friends and family in person, be creative. For all the flak that texters and tweeters get, we're incredibly blessed to have such convenient methods of communication at our fingertips. So when you don't have the energy for in-person visits, pick up your PDA and put technology to work for you. From Facebook updates to blog posts, you have a wealth of options for keeping current with the people you care about from the comfort of your own home.

Do you miss the immediacy of face-to-face conversation? Download Skype or similar free VOIP software, order a headset with microphone and a webcam, and your callers will be able to see every smile, nod, shrug, and wink on their monitors. (Yes, that means you have to change out of your favorite Buzz Lightyear pajamas before they call!) If your friends and fam don't have webcams, they make great birthday or holiday gifts.


3. Check your own attitude.

When you talk to your friends, does the conversation revolve around how much it sucks to be sick or hurt? Do you hit them over the head with a litany of complaints? Underneath it all, are you envious that your friends are healthy, and might that attitude be sneaking into your conversation? Chronic pain is a heavy burden to bear physically and emotionally, and you should be able to complain about it sometimes. But many people have a hard time dealing with a constant barrage of negativity, which makes them feel sad, helpless, and even guilty. So try not to contact your healthy friends when you're at your worst and save the gory details for your doctor, therapist, and support group (see 3. under "Building New Friendships" below).



Building New Friendships


1. Seek out other survivors.

Even though Marie has had a hard time finding new friends, her strongest friendship right now seems to be with another survivor of serious illness. As Marie notes, the beauty of the Internet is that it brings together virtually people who can't be together physically. Lots of communities have real-life support groups for people suffering from specific illnesses or injuries (ask your doctor for a referral), but if you aren't able to leave the house for even a limited time, an online support group is the next best thing. If you're suffering from a relatively rare disorder, the Internet might even be the best thing.

Some people who haven't ever been part of an online message board or mailing list may be dismissive of friendships formed this way, but those who've participated in groups like this know that they can provide tremendous reserves of inspiration, empathy, caring, and even humor. Friendships established through this medium, especially those that continue via email, IM, phone, and, eventually, in-person meetings, can be just as deep as friendships that form in the "real world," if not more so. Why? Because other people in a support group understand what you're going through since they have the same concerns. They're likely to be more interested in your progress, more tolerant of your limitations, and more open to developing friendships because they're in the same boat with you, experiencing the same hardships.

To find the right online support group for you, search Yahoo! Groups, Google Groups, Facebook Groups, Yuku, or any other site that has message boards, email lists, or chat. You might also run a search for web sites dedicated to the illness or injury you're suffering from. Online foundations may include forums. If you don't find what you're looking for, you can start your own group or maybe even your own blog or web site!

Prefer one-on-one interaction? Make friends with Craig--Craigslist, that is--and post an ad for a friend in similar circumstances in the Strictly Platonic section. In addition, lots of free dating sites such as PlentyofFish and OkCupid allow users to search for "pen pals," "friends," or "activity partners" and set their profiles accordingly. You can briefly explain your lifestyle in your profile and specify that you want to find others in the same situation. (If you choose to sign up at a dating site, though, don't be surprised if many of the members you encounter expect "friendship" to be an intermediate step to something more.)


2. Don't forget the 'Net for other interests, too.

Just because you're housebound doesn't mean you have to give up your interests and passions. The Web is a wonderful gathering place to discuss art, entertainment, sports, politics, or whatever else is on your mind. Although you may not find close friends among online communities built around special interests, not all conversation needs to be of the deep, soul-baring variety. In the "real world," most of our interaction is based on light small talk, and we need these kinds of loose relationships as much as we need strongly rooted friendships. The Internet allows housebound singles to continue participating in those broad social circles without setting foot out of the house. Furthermore, because communication isn't in real-time, those who struggle with pain, discomfort, or fatigue are free to respond at their leisure. And perhaps the best thing about the Internet is that it doesn't discriminate. Housebound singles can freely express themselves without worrying that others will perceive them through the filter of their physical problems.

You can find online forums for your hobbies and passions in some of the same places you found forums for the housebound. Also investigate large hub sites devoted to your interest, such as IMDb for movies or Care2 for environmental and social causes. Additionally, many companies, TV and radio stations, and print publications have web sites that encourage commentary and discussion.


3. Find good counsel.

As much as your friends and family want to help, it may be hard for them to understand or cope with the physical and emotional pain that are part of your daily life as a housebound single. A mental health counselor can offer you a sympathetic ear and a safe place to vent your frustration. She or he may also be able to suggest new ways to find social support, keep your current relationships strong, or meet routine challenges more effectively on your own. If you're depressed or anxious as a result of the changes in your lifestyle, a therapist can help you overcome that, too.

In Marie's case, a counselor helped her to accept that she was not at fault for the distance that had grown between her and her friends and introduced her to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which, according to the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science, is "a behavioral intervention to help people learn strategies to live life more in the present, more focused on important values and goals, and less focused on painful thoughts, feelings and experiences."

Ask your doctor for a referral to a psychotherapist who has experience with those who are housebound, or search online at sites like MentalHealth.net, MentalHelp.net, or LocateADoc.com.


4. Enjoy your own company.

As Marie's story illustrates, we can't necessarily change the behavior or reactions of others, but we can always change our own way of thinking. Whether or not you're chronically ill, disabled, or housebound, you probably already know that because it's the key to being happy as a single. Singles with singletude can be content in a coupled world because we've changed our thinking--we no longer believe (if we ever did) that a romantic relationship is the only route to a fulfilling life. When illness or injury strikes, we can use this same attitude to inform how we confront our limitations.

While everyone needs some contact with other people, sometimes we confuse our social needs with the desire to be popular, the obligation to fit in, or the fear of being alone with our own thoughts. The next time you feel lonely, ask yourself if it's because you truly miss and want to interact with certain people or because you're afraid of feeling bored, excluded, abnormal, or "uncool" if you don't take up your place in the social pecking order on Saturday nights. Chances are that, at least some of the time, your "loneliness" will be revealed as insecurity about being alone.

With a newfound awareness of the difference between being a lone individual and a lonely individual, you can use your time by yourself to explore interests and ideas you never knew you had. Before long, you may discover that you like being alone and embracing the opportunities it affords to set your own schedule, choose your own projects, and work, think, plan, relax, or dream undisturbed. There's a lot you can accomplish at home on your own. For examples, see "Top Ten Hobbies for Singles." Many of the activities described can be pursued in your own living room. You might also try writing a list of all the things you can do in your time alone that your friends can't and hang it somewhere you can see it every day.



Socializing remains challenging for singles who are housebound. You can't complete a 12-step program to guarantee that your old friends will stay in touch or order new friends from Amazon. But there are measures you can take to encourage the survival of existing friendships and the growth of new ones. Beyond that, you can embrace the circumstance in which you find yourself as an opportunity instead of a limitation. Most people spend each day racing from place to place, often hassled by thoughtless, uncaring people wherever they go. However, the housebound single has a rare chance to experience a degree of autonomy and peace that others may never know. Remember, your home is your castle. Isn't it nice to live like royalty every day?


Are you housebound and single, or do you know someone who is? If so, what have you done (or what has your acquaintance done) to stay in touch with friends and family or make new friends? Have you (or has your acquaintance) found any new activities that can be enjoyed at home alone? What do you do (or what does your acquaintance do) when loneliness strikes? Has the housebound lifestyle required a mental shift of sorts and, if so, can you describe that process?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have an unpublished rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"! Singletude makes every effort to republish submissions in their original form but reserves the right to edit your submission for length and clarity.

Housebound and Single = Home Alone?, Part I

Awhile ago, "Marie" (name changed for privacy) of Footloose Femails, a Yahoo! group for single women, requested a post about the social consequences of a housebound lifestyle for singles. There are a number of reasons why one might be housebound, most of them involving physical or mental disabilities. Occasionally, people also find themselves spending a lot of time at home when living in a remote location or telecommuting, which can be similar to, though not quite the same as, being truly unable to set foot out the door. When you're single and live alone, the challenges of a housebound lifestyle are compounded. Previously, in "Single in Sickness and in Health: Prepare for Medical Emergencies," Singletude covered some of the steps single individuals can take to prepare physically for long-term health issues that limit mobility. But the emotional consequences of living single and housebound are harder to address, especially when many singles rely on activities outside the home to meet their social needs.

I don't think Marie realized it when she asked, but I've been largely housebound since I developed a long-term illness in September. I'm able to go out, but, for various reasons, going out is not that comfortable or convenient for me, so I don't do it a lot. New Year's Eve was my first night out in quite awhile, and by the time the evening wrapped up, I was starting to feel pretty uncomfortable. I'm already learning ways to cope with my isolated lifestyle, but since I've only lived this way a short time, I don't consider myself that knowledgeable on the subject. So, I knew some research was in order.

My first instinct was to search the Web, where I found a lot of information about navigating the health care system, applying for social security, workman's compensation, or other benefits, and securing one's legal rights via a living will, power of attorney, etc. Unfortunately, this wealth of information didn't extend to solutions for maintaining a healthy social life while housebound, particularly when single. So I put out a call for housebound individuals who live alone to take part in an interview.

I received several responses from housebound singles, who generously sent me emails, blog links, and excerpts from their writing. What emerged was a picture of single people living relatively disconnected lives. It was amazing how soon after the onset of serious illness or injury these individuals saw their friends and loved ones start to drift away! Unfortunately, none of them wished to be interviewed for the blog. That's when I realized that I had overlooked my best source of information, one that had been in front of me all along--Marie! I asked to interview her, and she kindly consented.

For 12 years, Marie, age 43, has suffered from the effects of lymphoma, encephalitis, and a benign brain tumor that have left her housebound with debilitating, chronic pain, fatigue, and memory loss. When she was diagnosed, she was a popular young woman, "very social" with "lots of friends" and a boyfriend she was planning to marry. But the onset of her illness forced her to quit her job, and within two years, the strain of it took a toll on her relationship, which disintegrated. She has since decided to remain single.

Unable to manage the illness entirely on her own, Marie moved back in with her mother, who lives in a separate wing of the house, an arrangement that suits them both. "Life is excruciatingly lonely if you're housebound and living alone--so I'm lucky to have the option of living with mum," she says. However, Marie rarely sees friends--once every two or three months, at best. For two years after she became ill, she could still manage afternoons out, but this diminished to a two-hour maximum after another three years, and now she only leaves the house for short daily walks, medical appointments, occasional visits to her brother, and once-in-a-blue-moon shopping trips. If her friends want to see her, they have to make the effort to come to her, and most have proven unable or unwilling to extend themselves over time.

Another difficulty has been that friends find it hard to relate to her life. Explaining how her social circle has dwindled, Marie says, "At the same time as I got sick my good friends got married, moved, and soon had children--so our lives began to take on a completely different route--that ultimately, drastically, affected the friendship...I have lost all but a handful of friends, and those friendships have lost their 'spark.'" This drifting apart due to dissimilar life circumstances is something that many never-married singles experience, but it is magnified for the housebound, who have little opportunity to interact with more like-minded people and seek out new friends.

Throughout her prolonged illness, Marie's social refuge has been the Internet and, to a lesser extent, sewing circles and writing workshops when she was still reasonably mobile. Yet she has only made one new friend in 12 years, another patient whom she met through an online medical support group. This is now the friend that Marie sees most often. Marie's frustration is palpable when she says, "This is despite making a LOT of effort to make new friends--to find local hobby groups to join and hopefully, in time, to make a friend or two....Being housebound for so long has ruined many of my friendships and I have a regular, if not daily, feeling of 'loneliness' that can be fleeting or last for a few hours." Like the other housebound singles I heard from, Marie has clearly defined the problem but is still searching for a workable solution.

As stated before, I'm still new to the "housebound" lifestyle, which I put in quotes because I'm not nearly as housebound as some, so I'm not sure I have any valuable insight into how to form and maintain friendships in these very special circumstances. But next time, I'll offer some suggestions based on what I've heard from Marie and the other housebound singles who responded to my request, as well as on my own ideas, some of which I've already started to implement. Whether you're a single who's technically housebound or just isolated from your friends and family for some other reason, perhaps these ideas will be useful.


Are you housebound and single, or do you know someone who is? If so, has loneliness been a problem? Have friends and family withdrawn since you or your acquaintance became housebound? Has it been hard to establish new friendships or relationships?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have an unpublished rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"! Singletude makes every effort to republish submissions in their original form but reserves the right to edit your submission for length and clarity.

"A Critical (But Highly Sympathetic) Reading of New Yorkers' Sexual Habits and Anxieties" by Wesley Yang: A Singletude Response

Have you read New York Magazine's "A Critical (But Highly Sympathetic) Reading of New Yorkers' Sexual Habits and Anxieties" by Wesley Yang? If browsing singles sites or dating blogs is part of your routine, chances are you haven't been able to avoid this article or someone's opinion of it. Like sex itself, it has spawned a wide range of heated responses, from prophecies of impending moral apocalypse to passionate defenses of Gen Y's highly evolved textual shorthand. Because although the title suggests a bland report peppered with decimals and percentages in tables that list "number of times per week" and "number of partners per year," it's actually all about the wireless hook-up network that connects young, urban singles. It's one writer's response to the online New York Magazine column called "The Sex Diaries," in which one lucky male or female gets to play Carrie Bradshaw for a week and record his or her dating woes and sexual exploits. Yang's central question: "Are the digital tools that make it easier to find sex compounding the confusion that accompanies it?"

Yang says yes, and he's not the first to reach that verdict. Since the cell phone became a must-have accessory and the code of texting a lingua franca--since the Internet Age multiplied our social options to the infinite power, really--academics, politicos, pop psychologists, and lifestyle journalists have obsessed over the paradox of perceived choice in sexual or romantic partners. The idea is that as our choices increase, we become paralyzed with indecision and end up making no choice at all. When too much choice intersects with the impersonal void of wireless communication, some experts argue, human beings become disposable objects that exist only for momentary gratification, their existence erased afterwards with the touch of an address book key.

This is the theme of Yang's analysis, too. He reviews the diarists' weekly entries since 2007 and describes a cutthroat world of sex games in which everyone is a player, like it or not, and you can trust no one because your partner is also your opponent. The object of the game is to have as many partner options as possible. To handicap yourself is to reveal emotion your partner/opponent does not feel, and to lose is to have no options at all. The jackpot is "true love," but in this virtual reality, the winner is too disconnected to know when it's real and so forfeits the prize.

The sticking point for most commentators is whether or not the tech revolution is to blame for this state of affairs, but I'll reserve judgment on that because it doesn't really matter. The BlackBerry didn't come with a set of instructions on "Using Speed Dial to Juggle Hook-ups," "Using the Calendar to Create a Safe Emotional Distance," or "Using Autocomplete to Send a Break-up Text." People, singles out there on the dating scene, decided to use those features to that end. The technology facilitated it, but the idea was all human. My interest is not in how young, single Americans got to this place but in how they are functioning in it and whether it needs to be made a different and better place.

What strikes me about the voices Yang quotes is that they're not the voices of empowered, sexually fulfilled, enlightened singles. They're permeated with angst, frustration, disappointment, and bitterness. It's possible that a selection bias is interfering here, but I believe that Yang is sincere in his attempt to represent the zeitgeist as he admits, "Reading the Sex Diaries all in one enormous gulp...caused me to surf on the edge of a terrible vertigo as I thought of the many wounds I had myself endured and inflicted during my brief career as a person with a New York City sex life." When he's moved to tears by an entry with a happy ending, I don't doubt that he's stumbled on a needle in a haystack, a Shangri-la unattainable to the multitudes of earnest diarists.

Is it any wonder that singles are unhappy trying to keep their personal lives impersonal? Yang describes how the "compulsive toggling of options winds up inflicting the very damage it was designed to protect against," noting how hard singles work to disguise "the fond hope, better kept to oneself, that one yearns to leave behind the serial f*** buddies, friends with benefits, and other back-burner relationships." This is not living with singletude, people. Singletude is about being authentic to your own wants and needs, not trying to repress what you feel to best someone else in a game of emotional one-upmanship. It's about promoting healthy attachments to others and concern for the community (as opposed to just one person), not using your singleness as an excuse to role over other people because you think you're a free agent and have no responsibility to anyone but yourself. Of course this lifestyle produces insecurity, loneliness, and disillusionment.

But, like ravers in some kind of dating trance, everyone keeps dancing. Why? Perhaps the answer lies in this nugget of wisdom, as Yang tries to explain why droves of single New Yorkers, some of the most entitled people in the world, would tolerate being manipulated like so many pawns in a casual after-dinner game: "The back burner is a confusing, destabilizing, and exhausting place to be, and yet none of the Diarists...appear to view it as anything but a fact of life. It is clearly less terrifying than the alternative, which is to not be on anyone’s." (italics added)

Ah-ha! There's the crux of it. Desperation. Millions of single daters have sold out on their ideals because they believe the alternative is to be alone, and that prospect is intolerable. They would rather have relationships that are unsatisfying at best and damaging, degrading, or depressing at worst than be single.

Let's clear up some cultural myths that seem to have resulted in a mass Millennial delusion: One, if you feel like your love life has forced you into a game of relationship poker that you never wanted to play, you should know that you can put the cards down. You can opt out. There will be people who will tell you to resign yourself to the way dating has changed, that this is the way of the world. That is, in effect, what even this New York Magazine article says, right? Well, believe me, you do not have to resign yourself to anything. All you have to do is be honest with yourself about what will bring you long-term happiness and what will derail you from that and then pursue the former single-mindedly. If someone is intimating that you have to let others treat you in a way that makes you feel hurt, anxious, ashamed, angry, depressed, devalued, deceived, manipulated, disrespected, or just plain uncomfortable in order to have a shot at a more meaningful relationship, that is a lie. Anyone who expects you to feel that way as a matter of course doesn't have your interests at heart and never will.

Two, you don't have to be a swinging, cybering, cell-wielding single to find a relationship. This is Peer Pressure 2.0: Adult Version, isn't it? It's the same lie--that if you don't conform, you'll be alone and unwanted. But the truth is that you don't have to cave to be with someone great. If you don't want to play the game, there are other singles out there who don't want to play it, either, and they will admire you all the more because you share their values. It may seem like "everybody's doing it, " but the more you refuse to, the more other singles you come in contact with will feel confident in their own decisions to opt out. That's how change happens.

Third--this is the most important part--even if you don't end up in a relationship, you don't have to be alone. The only reason this disposable dating movement has so much leverage is that it's powered by the sheer terror of being single (or maybe just sexless, in which case see "No Sex for Singles"). If you're so horrified by the prospect of singleness that you'd rather agonize over whether your booty call is ignoring you because you freaked him/her out with a kissy face text, then maybe you should ask yourself why. What's better about feeling like you have to map out elaborate schemes to get someone to see you and not just your cam phone shots? Today there's more literature than ever before to verify that singles can be as happy, healthy, socially active, and professionally productive as couples, if not more so. Anyone who doubts it should spend some time reading through the Singletude archives and visiting the blogs and web sites on Singletude's blogroll. Many of these sites also have information and tips that can help you learn how to resolve common problems and make the most of your life as a single. Above all, you should know that being single doesn't mean being alone! Research shows that singles, especially single women, aren't very likely to be lonely at all.

If New York Magazine's "Sex Diary" series is representative of how single adults in the U.S. date and mate, then it does seem like our shrinking, global society has paradoxically made us both more detached from any individual and more demanding of perfection from everyone. But even if technology has enabled this line of thinking, we can step back and consciously reevaluate how we choose to interact with others. Yang bemoans the transactional nature of wireless dating, naming "a certain callousness toward the merchandise" as "an unavoidable side effect of entering a marketplace as both buyer and seller." But each one of us has the choice to put ourselves up for sale or buy what is offered. Or we can decide that some things are priceless and treat them accordingly.


What are your thoughts on this article? If you're a fan of the New York Magazine "Sex Diaries" column, what are your observations about it? Do you think the tech revolution is responsible for the way sexual behavior has evolved over the past decade? If not, what is? What are some of the positive and negative consequences that have resulted from how dating and mating trends have changed? Can you relate to Yang's characterization of the current dating scene as a fast-paced, competitive world of superficial relationships, or has your experience with dating been different? Do you think the rise of the casual dating culture has generally made singles happier or unhappier? If the latter, why do you think so many singles continue to participate in it?

No Sex for Singles

This week, Singlutionary has a brilliant post entitled "Sexless Singlutionary Experiment." Casual sex, including one-night stands, friends with benefits (FWBs), and f*** buddies (aka, "just benefits, hold the friendship please"), has been a hot topic in the singles blogosphere in recent months. Maybe it's the steamy weather with its requisite bikini beach days and titillating romcom movies, or maybe it's just the greater visibility of singles issues in general. Whatever it is, the Web is abuzz with opinions about how sex fits into the single life.

All long-term singles with a sex drive must confront this dilemma. Often, it remains the only stumbling block in an otherwise satisfied single's life. Go to any web site, blog, or message board for singles, and you'll see the ubiquitous complaint: "I love being single--the freedom, the flexibility, the self-determination--but I hate not getting any!" Sooner or later, every single has to make a decision about how he or she will channel sexual energy and whether that outlet will involve another person.

Without spoiling the details of the Singlutionary's gem of a post, which you should have a look at before you read any further, she decided to give intentional celibacy a try. Other than discussing the potential fallout of FWB relationships and hook ups in "Friends With Benefits and the Lowdown on Hook Ups, Part I" and "Part II," Singletude has been silent on this issue. That's because it's so personal and wrapped up in centuries of moral, psychological, and religious layers that can be hard to separate from it. However, I'm highlighting the Singlutionary's blog because she perfectly articulated my thoughts about the conundrum that is sex for the single person and chose an undeniably smart, safe, and sensitive solution for this time in her life.

Please keep in mind that I'm not saying any other choice is dumb, dangerous, and insensitive. But, as a single, whenever you add another person to the mix in your sex life, you have an unknown element that could become explosive at any time, so you have to be vigilant. When sex is an activity just between you and yourself, it's totally risk-free. STDs, jealousy, ruined friendship? Out of the question.

Again, I don't want to make a blanket statement implying that all casual sexual relationships go downhill or do damage, physical or emotional. But many of them do. That may not be politically correct, and it may not be popular, but sometimes the truth is neither. I have to call it as I see it, and time and again, I see these relationships beginning with two happy people and ending with at least one of them sad, regretful, or disillusioned. Casual affection turns into unrequited love, "friends" with benefits fail to deliver on the friendship, opportunities to pursue more meaningful relationships are missed. If even one person gets hurt, how can the relationship be considered "successful"? How can a few minutes of pleasure be worth this risk?

As singles, we're so used to living for ourselves that sometimes we forget sex involves someone else. It's an interpersonal experience, whether or not we want it to be. You can ignore the other person's feelings, pretend they're nothing more than a body. Hell, you can even ignore your own feelings and pretend you're nothing more than your body. But our minds and our hearts are an inseparable part of who we are, and we carry them into every interpersonal exchange. Of course that doesn't mean the feelings we bring to a sexual encounter will be love or other warm-fuzzy emotions. There will be feelings, though, of one sort or another, quite possibly intense feelings because sex is a physically intense experience, associated with a powerful physiobiological response as well as with powerful episodes in our personal histories and sometimes powerful beliefs and values. So when we imagine that this kind of interpersonal experience can be casual or only about the body or only about ourselves (as opposed to our partners) just because we're single, we don't prepare ourselves for how emotionally messy it can be.

No one wants to hear that these days, and I'm sure I'll get flak about voicing it. Everyone wants to believe that we singles can have our single serving and eat it, too. But I think this emanates from the flawed belief that life can be perfect, that we can search for and find a lifestyle that is all pros and no cons. That's the same trap that matrimaniacal people tumble into when they fantasize about living "happily ever after." They dream that marriage will give their lives an instant makeover, a quick fix after which there will be no conflict, no hardship, no sacrifice, just smooth sailing into the sunset. Sometimes, singles seem to believe that singlehood can have a similar transformative effect, that if we don't couple, we won't have any conflict, hardship, or sacrifice. That's not true. There is no perfect way to live. Both states, single and coupled, have advantages and disadvantages unique to each. Maybe living without partnered sex is just one of those disadvantages of singleness.

And is it really that much of a disadvantage anyway? Why is it that so many of us think we can't live without partnered sex? Is that really because it's so indispensable or because the dictum that we can't live without it has become as unquestioned as the tradition of marriage? One element of the Singlutionary's post that fascinated me was how she acknowledged her envy of all those nameless, faceless people out there getting it on. As she said, "I'm going to quit thinking that everyone out there doing-the-nasty is happier and healthier and having more fun than me."

For a long time, I felt the same way as Singlutionary. When I had to endure a dry spell without sex, I felt like I was suffering and envied couples who, I presumed, were getting laid on the regular. If I was abstinent for long enough, I started feeling insecure about myself, like I was a "loser" because I wasn't having The Sex. Then, as I was in the process of choosing singleness for myself, I also started reexamining my attitude toward sex.

What I realized was shocking. All my life, American culture had been sending me the message that sex was amazing, stupendous, the best experience that humans could aspire to. When I finally started having sex, I expected it to live up to the hype. I was so sure it would that I kept telling myself and other people how much I liked sex. But the fact was...it wasn't all that. Sex was a hit-or-miss experience. Sometimes, with a partner who knew me well, understood what I liked, and was willing to do what I liked...and at certain times of the month...and when I was into it and not tired, uncomfortable, tense, irritated, etc....it was very pleasurable. Other times, it was just blah or downright painful. If I was honest with myself, I had to admit that, more often than not, the sex that really blew my mind was battery operated.

The fact that I have to "admit" that, that it's embarrassing, tells me a lot about how our society pushes intercourse. Why? I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet it's tied to the push for coupling and, ultimately, marriage. After all, isn't that one of the supposed benefits of marriage that matrimaniacs advertize all the time? If we get married, we can have better, more consistent sex, or so we're told. We need to reproduce to keep society functioning, so society tells us to reproduce. Even though we can experience as much physical pleasure on our own as with a partner, partnered sex is portrayed as the ultimate experience, like an ice cream sundae compared to a scoop of vanilla. If we're not constantly having sex, thinking about it, or trying to get it, we're pitied, derided, even diagnosed! To be fair, at least part of this is probably a backlash against the repression of previous generations, and it's totally normal to like sex, think about it, and want it. The problem arises when it's considered abnormal to not be that interested in sex.

Once I had separated out the physical aspect of sex, I was able to identify what it was that I really craved--acceptance. Social programming had done it's job, and I'd learned that as a normal, healthy woman, I should want sex and lots of it. So, naturally, I wanted sex just like I'd wanted a Champion sweatshirt and Z. Cavaricci jeans in junior high--so I could have what everyone else had and fit in. There was something competitive about it, too. From women's magazines to talk shows, I started noticing how sex had been commodified. It was like a resource you could accumulate for bragging rights: "I've had more sex than you and for longer and in more positions, too! Neener neener neener!" It seemed like no matter how good your sex life was (with yourself or otherwise), there was always someone out there taunting you with how much better it could be. Under the circumstances, no wonder I'd felt left out! I'd internalized the notion that "winners" have heaps of wild, crazy, earth-shaking sex.

Now that I understood the cultural messages I'd absorbed, I could focus on what really did distinguish partnered sex from single sex. First, there was the beautiful human body, which I had always admired and loved to touch. But was that in itself worth tolerating the trappings of a relationship or undertaking the risks of casual sex? I knew that, for me, the answer was no. Second, there was the personal connection, the closeness, and that's something I do miss about relationships. But it's not something I can get from a casual relationship, and it's not enough to justify a serious, committed relationship.

Perhaps you'll think about it and decide that sex does justify either pursuing a monogamous relationship or accepting the risks inherent in something casual. Just like the decision to get married, though, it should only be made when you can separate what you really want from what mainstream America has taught you to want. You may be surprised to discover how little your happiness really depends on getting off with someone else.


Okay, bring it on! What do you think about the cultural messages we receive about sex? Can you identify some beliefs about sex that you've internalized from society? Why do you think U.S. culture pushes partnered sex so much? Have you had a casual relationship primarily or just for sex? If so, what were the pros and cons as you experienced them? Were the pros worth the cons?


Fun Link of the Day


Don't forget to enter the Singletude giveaway contest for your chance to win over $150 in prizes from SingleEdition.com!


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"!

Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza by Cherie Burbach: A Singletude Review

In case you've been living it up on your summer vacation in Cabo while I've been slaving away over a hot CPU to serve up post after post of relevant, singles-friendly info and not feeling at all bitter about it, you may have missed that Singletude is currently running its first ever giveaway contest! The prize is a gift basket worth over $150 from SingleEdition.com. It also includes a book donated by online dating guru Cherie Burbach, Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza (IDINLOAP).

Burbach, a professional freelancer who is also the Dating feature writer at Suite101.com, knows that of which she writes. After joining an online dating service, she went on a dizzying 60 dates in six months, a figure that defies credulity, memory, and eight hours of sleep a night. She also met her husband.

If you've been reading online dating advice for any length of time, chances are many of the tips and tricks presented here won't be new to you. In fact, Singletude dispensed much of the same advice over a year ago in"Tips for Online Dating Success, Part I," "Part II," "Part III," and "Part IV." However, if the book's strategy isn't totally original, it is solid. The reason you'll find various Internet dating experts parroting this same advice is because it works. What sets Burbach apart from the others is that she conveniently collects all this wisdom in one volume and makes it easy to apply.

How easy? Well, instead of nebulous suggestions to "be unique" or "show off your personality," she offers step-by-step instructions with lots and lots of examples so you can see what that really looks like in a dating profile. Rather than leave you to figure out for yourself what it means to send a reply that's "open" but not "too familiar" or "pushy," she demonstrates several appropriate ways to initiate and respond to messages. In essence, reading IDINLOAP is like shadowing an Internet dating coach as she works the dot-com scene. Whether you've just jumped into the online dating pool or have been swimming in it for awhile without success, you'll benefit from observing how an expert navigates the waters.

Set in big, friendly type with generous spacing, IDINLOAP adopts a conversational tone from the outset, as though the author had stopped by for a casual, one-on-one chat (which is, by the way, the same tone she recommends for dating profiles). Burbach's formula for online dating success can be summed up as the right profile plus the right attitude, and she immediately sets out to show singles how to achieve both. She doesn't skimp; every stage of online dating is covered, from photo selection to first date follow-up.

Drawing on her experience as a professional writer, Burbach reveals the secrets to creating a magnetic profile, which aren't nearly as complicated as you might think. In fact, one of her simplest trade secrets is to write as though you're "describ[ing] yourself to...an alien," someone "who speaks your language but doesn't know anything about your world." Naturally, instead of just rattling off things you like to do and places you like to go, you would describe what those things and places are like, how they make you feel, and why they're important to you. The book's main tenet is that a successful profile isn't one that makes you sound better than you are but one that sounds exactly like you are so it will attract the kind of people who would be interested in you. Burbach's guided questions and examples teach you how to reveal yourself in your headline, profile essay, and multiple choice questions.

Another key part of her strategy is to help your potential date envision him- or herself with you, something you probably thought you had no control over. Don't worry. IDINLOAP will show you how to do that, too.

Soon, you may notice that Burbach's pointers for seemingly disparate pieces of your profile are transforming it into a thematic whole, a story of you that sparkles as more than the sum of its compelementary parts. This "big picture" approach is, to my knowledge, a completely fresh idea in the world of online dating advice and should add an impressive luster to any profile.

Thankfully, IDINLOAP doesn't push the online dating newbie out of the nest once the profile is complete. Burbach walks you through the search process, illustrates how to initiate and reply to messages appropriately, and will even hold your hand through the first date and its follow-up. Along the way, she provides a crash course in netiquette and steers readers away from the pitfalls that online daters unwittingly stumble into.

On that note, if IDINLOAP has a downfall, it's that its many "don'ts" may not be flexible enough for some readers. Burbach has very firm ideas about things like what you should and shouldn't show in pictures, the search criteria you should use, and how long your first date should be (exactly 60 minutes and not a second longer). Some online daters may find these rules too confining or not applicable. For instance, IDINLOAP is squarely aimed at singles looking for serious commitments, so those who want to date casually will have to adjust the guidelines to their own purposes.

Furthermore, the book's overriding philosophy is that online dating is a numbers game, so dating site members should make their searches as broad as possible and write to as many other members as they can. In Burbach's eyes, you can't figure out much about people until you meet them in person, so you should try to meet as many as will say yes to a coffee date. In contrast, the Singletude approach is to start searches narrow and work outward so you have the best chance of finding the ideal match for you. But, then, I'm writing from the perspective of someone who knows exactly what she wants, can detect it easily in profiles, and lives in a region with a lot of online daters. Also, I would find it overwhelming to juggle as many online contacts as Burbach recommends. In short, the Singletude strategy is based on what works for me; the IDINLOAP strategy is based on what works for Burbach. Either one may work for you.

If you aren't comfortable with the book's one-size-fits-all method, you can easily adapt it to your needs. However, most of the advice in this volume is not only sound but repeated again and again by Internet dating vets, so you will want to follow much of it to a tee. In addition, part of IDINLOAP's formula for success is a positive attitude that doesn't get much attention in most online dating how-tos. Everyone knows it's bad form to whine about your ex in your profile, but IDINLOAP's definition of a positive attitude is holistic, extending beyond smiling pictures and an upbeat headline to incorporate your expectations for the dating process on- and offline. Throughout the book, Burbach serves this slice of advice straight up to singles who are letting negativity interfere with their dating prospects and helps site members reframe the sometimes brutal online dating process as a light-hearted, experimental adventure.

If you're new to online dating, IDINLOAP is indispensable and could save you from costly errors and discouragement. On the other hand, if you've been around the cyberblock and are frustrated with Internet dating sites, this book may help you identify what you're doing wrong so you can finally meet your perfect match. Even successful online daters may find themselves refining old strategies with Burbach's advice. To win a free copy of Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza, enter the Singletude giveaway contest today!




Have you had success with online dating? If so, what are some online dating strategies that you would recommend? What are some online dating pitfalls that singles should beware of? If you've read Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza, do you have comments on the book?

Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a book or web site for or about singles that you would like Singletude to review? Contact Elsie!


Don't forget to enter the Singletude giveaway contest for your chance to win over $150 in prizes from SingleEdition.com!


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"!

"Marry Well for Better Health" by Dr. Christopher Lillis: A Singletude Response

Those of you who perused last Sunday's edition of "Singles in the News" may remember the article "Marry Well for Better Health" by Dr. Christopher Lillis, which sent me into spasms of singlist-inspired horror. To quote from the Singletude summary:

Written by a doctor who is a self-described "very biased" newlywed (and takes pride in his prejudice, too), it trots out unidentified research studies to "confidently make this claim. Married men survive longer and live healthier lives than their single or divorced counterparts." Although the author admits those results were contingent on how happy the marriage was and cautions single men not to grab the nearest woman and drag her to the altar, he'd still rather advance his pet theory about the miracle drug of marriage than present hard evidence.

So, Dr. Lillis tosses out a few health measures on which married people score well while failing to mention the measures on which singles score better. (Oh, sorry. He mentions one such measure--obesity--but dismisses it since he's sure his new bride will nag him to lose weight. Let's catch up with him in 10 years and see how that's working out, shall we?)

He also neglects to inform his impressionable readers that, in many cases, the differences that do exist between marrieds and singles who have never married are marginal. If anything, he exaggerates the differences by lumping in people who have always been single with those who are divorced or widowed, two groups that sometimes do show a marked difference on health measures as compared to marrieds. (Singletude's information, by the way, comes from the CDC study "Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2000" by Charlotte A. Schoenborn and "Is There Something Unique About Marriage? The Relative Impact of Marital Status, Relationship Quality, and Network Social Support on Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Mental Health" by Julianne Holt-Lunstad, et al., discredited here by Dr. Bella DePaulo. Lillis doesn't say where his comes from.)

Even worse, Lillis takes some of these correlations and makes causal statements about them, asserting that married couples are "healthier" because they have a sense of responsibility to each other or because "getting married reduces depressive symptoms." The fact is we have no way to measure whether marriage causes any of these minor health differences or, if it does, how or why. If studies of singles and marrieds do show significant differences in, say, risk taking, perhaps that's because single people tend to be younger, and youth is associated with risky behavior. If singles do have slightly higher resting blood pressure than marrieds, maybe that's not because they're alone in their beds but because they worry more about things like health care or social security, which are more accessible to married couples.

No matter what, we can't talk about what marriage causes or doesn't cause because marriage is not a variable you can manipulate like an electric shock to get an experimental result (though some would say divorce gave them quite a jolt). See, marital status is similar to traits like age, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation in that the researcher can't change them. In order for a researcher to claim that something causes an effect, he or she has to be able to add or remove it at will to demonstrate that it was solely responsible for the outcome of the experiment.

To use a nonsense example, if a researcher wants to prove that everlasting gobstoppers turn kids blue, then she has to take two groups of kids that have never eaten everlasting gobstoppers and make sure that one group eats them and the other doesn't. In addition, she has to make sure that there are no other dietary, environmental, genetic, or medical differences between the two groups that might explain why some kids look like they fell in a blueberry bush. If, after determining that there are no differences between the groups except that one is getting gobstoppers, the researcher finds that the kids who eat gobstoppers turn blue, then she can tentatively state that gobstoppers may cause kids to turn blue. Why tentatively? Because, as careful as she was, maybe there was some other difference between the groups that she missed. That's why studies are repeated over and over again for confirmation and why most scientists are very, very careful when they talk about causation.

However, let's say the researcher is faced with two groups of kids, one that's already blue and one that's not. She wonders why some kids are blue, and she asks all the kids a bunch of questions and notices that the blue kids all used to eat gobstoppers. Well, that's interesting, and the researcher can say that she found a relationship or correlation between gobstoppers and blue kids, but she can't know with any certainty that the gobstoppers caused the kids to turn blue. Maybe the kids who turned blue were also eating snozberries, and maybe it was actually the snozberries that did the damage. Or maybe the kids who turned blue were suffering from a rare, unknown sugar deficiency that affects skin tone, so they craved lots of sweet gobstoppers.

Saying that marriage causes anything is like saying that kids who are already blue definitely got that way because they ate gobstoppers. We just don't know. And even if we could randomly assign some people to be married and some to be single and observe the results, it would still be hard to make causal attributions because, just like the researcher in the first example, we might've overlooked something.

For some reason, though, when marriage is the subject, researchers and clinicians fall all over themselves with eagerness to make causal statements. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's because marriage is popular and relatively easy to enter into, so it encourages people to hear that something they perceive as desirable and ubiquitous is good for their health. It's also possible that the reasons are more sinister and revolve around a research agenda that favors the status quo for economic or political reasons. Whatever it is, medical professionals like Lillis are highly irresponsible when they jump on the bandwagon and repeat these fallacies to patients and readers who don't know any better.

Towards the end of the article, Lillis plays devil's advocate for a minute, but even his counterargument, which posits that healthier, "more genetically appealing" people are more likely to get married, is insultingly singlist. No, Dr. Lillis, the problem is not that we singles are all Quasimodos compared to you strapping, married bombshells. It's that we singles are less likely to have health care. It's that we can't take time off work to heal from illness or injury because we have no second income. It's that we have more financial woes in general because we earn less and pay more than you marrieds do, and that's stressful. It's that we face a lot of social discrimination (the kind of discrimination you're guilty of right now), and that's stressful, too.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure Lillis can understand this logic because in the most presumptuous statement of his presumptuous article, he demonstrates an appalling lack of it. Check out this statement in all its singlist glory:

There is no real way to prove this [that marriage does not cause better health]; it is just a bitter, jealous theory of a loveless set of scientists who spend too much time in the lab to find true love.

Oh, dear, dear, dear. Doesn't Dr. Lillis realize that the burden of proof is on him? The scientific method always assumes no cause-effect relationship until one is proven. To return to our blueberry bunch, the researcher must assume that gobstoppers don't turn kids blue unless she can prove conclusively that they do. In direct contradiction to universally accepted research practice (and logic), Lillis says the exact opposite--that gobstoppers must turn kids blue unless we can prove that they don't. Good news for quack researchers everywhere! Now you can assume Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, and spontaneous human combustion exist until someone proves that they don't!

Lillis's lapse in logic might be forgiveable if it wasn't laced with all that singlist rhetoric. I'll tell ya what, Dr. Lillis, let's invert your statement so that it's both logically valid (instead of fallacious) and anti-marriage (instead of singlist) and see what we get:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just an ignorant, narrow-minded theory of a codependent set of scientists who spend too much time at home to get out and see what the real world is like.

Here's another good one:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just a desperate, envious theory of a bored-stiff set of scientists who spend too much time tied to the old ball and chain to have any fun.

Just gotta do one more! Here we go:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just a sad, pathetic theory of a lonely set of scientists who've wasted too much time in loveless marriages to admit they'd be happier alone.

Now, do any of those statements sound appropriate to make to a married patient? Would you, Dr. Lillis, want someone to make such a statement to you? Then why, I wonder, do you believe it's appropriate to talk that way to your single patients and readers?

Even if Lillis's interpretation is right on the money and marriage is the fountain of youth (which I don't think it is), I'm not sure what would be the point of saying so. A marriage certificate is not a drug that you can dispense when a single person straggles in with the flu, and if it were, it would have a pretty poor track record. If you think of marriage like a drug (thanks, Bella DePaulo, for this analogy), it doesn't work for at least half the people who try it (those who divorce), not to mention the unknown percentage who stay married unhappily. What doctor recommends a drug that's effective for less than half the people who take it?

In conclusion, I want to state for the record that I am single and in good health. I don't smoke, drink heavily, or have other substance abuse problems. I'm not a risk taker. I am not depressed. My blood pressure is so low that it actually causes problems occasionally. Despite what Lillis says about singles who don't take care of themselves, I go to the doctor when I'm concerned that something's wrong.

Interestingly, my dad, who is married, does not. In fact, when I noticed a worrisome skin lesion on his back awhile ago, my mom, his wife, said that she'd been after him to get it looked at for months. You know who convinced him to go to the doctor?

Me. His daughter.


What do you think about Dr. Lillis's article? Do you think married people are really healthier than singles?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

A Tribute to Single Dads on Father's Day

In 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 16% of single parents with kids at home were single dads. That adds up to 1.8 million American men shepherding their kids through the morning routine, ferrying them around after school, and serving as cook, maid, and homework helper at night. Day in and day out. Rinse, squeeze, repeat. A full 25% of these men were never married at all, and a frightening 57% of them struggle to provide for themselves and their children on earnings of less than $50,000 a year.

Single moms factor prominently in our collective consciousness since women in the single-parent demographic hold a comfortable majority. Undoubtedly, our cherished stereotype of the nurturing maternal figure contributes to this, as well. Mothers who go it alone are the recipients of our goodwill, not to mention charitable donations and community-funded programs. Men, on the other hand, are often assumed to be more interested in baseball stats and quarterly reports than developmental milestones. Not only do single fathers have to make do with fewer resources, but they also have to contend with disbelief and derision at their desire to parent. So let's dispel some of the myths that hound America's real heroes!

Despite the bias against single dads, research shows that they too are effective caregivers and that they balance work and home responsibilities with about the same competence as single moms. Kids of single dads are no less well-adjusted than kids of single moms, and they tend to have better relationships with both parents. Some studies indicate that children, especially boys, fare even better when they live with single fathers, scoring higher on measures of self-esteem, maturity, independence, resilience, and risk tolerance than those with only mothers at home. In addition, since men earn more than women, they may be able to provide greater financial stability for little ones. And, believe it or not, that extra testosterone doesn't translate into more misplaced aggression toward vulnerable sons and daughters; single mothers are five times more likely than single fathers to fatally injure their children. It's not a big leap from those findings to the realization that adult offspring of single fathers are just as happy, well-educated, and prosperous as those who grew up with their mothers. In short, a loving parent is a loving parent, and while the differences between Mars and Venus may forever intrigue, mystify, and infuriate us, they don't have much bearing on our child-rearing skills.

This Father's Day, Singletude celebrates the unsung single dads out there. Thank you for the tireless and often thankless work you do to raise the next generation. Because of you, 3 million children will sleep tonight knowing that they are loved, supported, and safe. Because of you, those children will grow up understanding responsibility, hard work, and sacrifice. Because of you, they will become adults who can truly say that you were their heroes.


Resources for Single Fathers

About.com
AskMen.com
fathers.com
Fathering Magazine
greatDad.com
Just4Dads.org
Single Dad
Single Dads Town
The Single Fathers' Lighthouse
singlefather.org


Are you or were you raised by a single dad? If so, what were some of the challenges and rewards you experience(d) as a single father or the child of a single father? Do you think children can thrive with single fathers as well as they can with single mothers?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Footloose Femails: A Yahoo! Group for Single Women

Singletude would like to announce the debut of the hottest, hippest email list ever to grace Yahoo! Groups. Okay, maybe I'm a little biased, but I'm allowed to be because this is a group for single women, so it automatically gets the Singletude seal of approval. (Sorry, guys, this one is just for us girls, but if I hear of a comparable group with more testosterone, you'll read it here first!)

Called Footloose Femails, the group was started in April by moderator Iolanda of Sydney, Australia, to give single women an online retreat for socialization, support, and general exploration of the joys and challenges of solo living. Right now, the group is still small, numbering 14, so new members are welcome. There have already been some intriguing discussions about everything from male-female friendships to self-commitment ceremonies, and the larger the group gets, the livelier the conversation will be.

For those who are unfamiliar with Yahoo! Groups, you will need a free Yahoo! account to join. As with all Yahoo! groups, you can choose to receive and respond to messages by email or log in to the Footloose Femails forum online. I hope to see you all there!

Also, apologies to anyone who couldn't access Singletude over the weekend. The robotic powers that be mistook my love of informative links for spam and put the blog on lockdown. Thankfully, we've straightened out that little misunderstanding, and hopefully it won't happen again. (This is where I'm supposed to haul some intimidating threats out of my arsenal, but everyone knows you do not threaten a multibillion Web 2.0 monopoly and live to blog about it.)


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

When Relationship Compromise Is Self-compromise

Relationships demand compromise. We hear it again and again from well-meaning friends, relatives, and mental health counselors. At the same time, a long list of teachers, mentors, and great philosophers remind us to be true to ourselves, to follow our hearts. When I was growing up, one of my favorite quotes was:

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away. --Henry David Thoreau

If there's a message of compromise in there somewhere, it's using a pretty good cloaking device!

If you do have hopes of one day sharing your life with a significant other, a certain amount of compromise will be inevitable to keep the peace. But when does it become self-compromise to the point that you are now marching to someone else's drummer?

I pondered over whether or not to publish this post for a good week since the question arises from a matter in my personal life, and I've made it a point that Singletude is not a personal blog. And yet, I think this question is so universally applicable that it would be a lost opportunity not to address it here. So bear with me while I invite you to step into my world for a moment.

Recently, I ended a relationship with a man I'll call Andrew. (Yes, a relationship. Didn't think I had those, huh? ;)) He was a beautiful person in many ways, so it pained me deeply when things didn't work out between us. But the problem was that he and I had numerous lifestyle and belief differences which would have demanded a great deal of compromise had we decided to build our lives together. As I began to realize how vast our differences were, I found myself sinking into depression due to both the impending loss of someone I cared for so much and the self-doubt and -criticism stirred by our disagreements.

Since there were lots of things that Andrew and I loved about each other, he hoped we could compromise, reminding me that that's what people do in relationships. But it hurt to know that there were so many aspects of myself that he wanted me to change. (To be fair, it probably hurt him that some of his life choices, values, and habits were hard for me to accept, as well.) I started questioning everything from my career path to my philosophy of child rearing to my artistic sensibilities, wondering if he was right that these were areas in which I needed to compromise in the interest of reaching a middle ground with someone who had different ideas. Andrew assured me that a willingness to compromise was a mark of maturity and dedication to a relationship, and I knew that, to an extent, he was right.

To an extent. Those were the operative words. My relationship with Andrew highlighted a question I'd been puzzling over for awhile on my own: When is compromise an appropriate sacrifice for the betterment of a relationship, and when is it too costly a self-sacrifice?

As time passed and I tried on some of those compromises for size, I felt worse and worse about what I was compromising. Although I thought the world of Andrew, I was less and less excited about us as the sacrifices I would have to make mounted and I felt increasingly less accepted for who I was. It occurred to me that my singletude was slipping away, and I began to feel like a hypocrite. (For those not in the know, singletude isn't the attitude that it's necessarily better to be single than coupled but that it's definitely better to be single than in a relationship in which you can't be a happy, healthy individual.)

To compound my confusion, I wondered if I was just unhappy because I had unrealistic ideas about relationships. Perhaps all long-term relationships would require this kind of compromise, in which case the problem was me and my own self-centeredness. After all, the compromises Andrew was asking of me didn't seem unreasonable in his eyes, just as the compromises I was asking of him didn't seem unreasonable in mine. Yet, in the end, neither of us was willing to change.

Some observers may see one or both of us as selfish, stubborn, or intolerant. Others may wave the banner of independence and laud us for following our own paths and refusing to change for anyone else. I suspect that for most relationships to succeed, a certain amount of compromise is a necessary ingredient. But there's a fine, almost invisible line between what you should and shouldn't compromise, and equally blurry is the degree to which you should compromise on it.

Let me clearly state that I don't think love should be measured by that line. I know there are people who believe that love should conquer all and that if you don't practically rip your heart out in sacrifice, you must not have valued the relationship enough. I say that if you rip your heart out in sacrifice, you have nothing left to love with. Selflessness is admirable but not when you give up so much of yourself that you become an empty shell. I don't believe that kind of self-compromise is indicative of love any more than any other act of self-hatred. So I think it's unfair and inaccurate to surmise that Andrew and I (or any other couple in a similar situation) could've made it work if only we'd loved each other more.

For most people, though, I think it can be difficult, as it was for me, to discern when you're exercising your heart, making it work a little harder for someone else, from when you're on the verge of sacrificing it. By no means have I come up with a foolproof method of distinguishing between the two conditions, but I think my recent experience did teach me a few rules of thumb about when to compromise and when to stand your ground. Here are some questions you should ask yourself before you compromise for your partner (and please be aware that these can apply to any relationship, not just a romantic one):



1. Will this compromise affect my day-to-day happiness?

Many compromises involve relatively minor changes to your daily routine that have little impact on your overall life satisfaction. For instance, let's say your alarm is set to a death metal station, but your mate doesn't like to be blasted out of a sound sleep every morning. He or she prefers to wake up to the gentle strains of Beethoven, which, while not your ideal, don't make you wish someone would knock you back out when you wake. Setting the alarm to a classical station is, therefore, a reasonable compromise. Yeah, you'll miss your Slayer, but it won't, er, kill you.

Other compromises concern situations or events that occur so rarely that they have little significance for your general happiness. For example, your families may live far apart, forcing you to compromise on where you spend the holidays. However, this is a conflict you only face once a year, so it doesn't even register as a blip on your radar of relationship satisfaction the rest of the time.

On the other hand, some compromises threaten to dig deep, permanent trenches in your happiness. Let's say a woman deeply desires a large family and marries a man who doesn't really want kids. They compromise and have one baby. The painful result is that every day the woman longs to have more children while the man resents the work he has to invest in just one. Maybe another couple can't agree on where to live. The man grew up on a ranch in Wyoming, loves it there, and can't imagine living anywhere else. The woman craves a fast-paced city lifestyle and favors Boston, New York, or Washington, DC. They compromise by settling in a small city in the Midwest, but the man always misses the big open skies of Wyoming, and the woman chafes for a bigger, busier metropolis. These are examples of compromises that impinge on day-to-day happiness. And the unhappier you are, the more stressful it will be to your relationship.


2. Will this compromise change who I am?

Some well-intentioned people may advise you not to compromise on certain values that they consider integral to who you are, such as religious practices or the pursuit of various career goals or hobbies. But really only you can determine how important something is to your sense of self. Someone might be fine with promising to raise his children Catholic so that he can marry a Catholic wife, whereas someone else might be so committed to her Muslim faith that she would have to turn off her conscience to raise her children in another religion. A young dental hygienist may not feel defined by her job and have no trouble giving it up if her significant other got a promotion that would take them overseas, whereas a college professor's position may be central to his identity so that he would be devastated if he had to leave his department due to his partner's relocation.

In short, you should steer clear of any compromise that would alter a core part of yourself that you highly value. I emphasize those last words because change is good when you're ready and willing for it. But if changing yourself is tantamount to revoking the beliefs, values, interests, or objectives that are most important to you, then you will end up unhappy, which will take an equally unhappy toll on your relationship, as discussed in 1. Besides, what does it say about your partner's love for you if he or she wants you to change the very things that make you who you are? Answer: Nothing good.


3. Is my partner compromising too?

This is a biggey, and the answer has to be yes. The definition of compromise is "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands." (italics added) A one-sided compromise is like one hand clapping. Compromise only deserves that label when both partners are meeting each other halfway.

How you accomplish that is up to you. You might agree to give up something this time if your partner will give up something next time, take on a new responsibility if your partner will help with it, or do something you both like instead of something just one of you loves. All of these are different examples of compromise, but what they have in common is that both partners are sacrificing.

If you're the only one sacrificing, or if you're sacrificing more than your partner, you'll be headed straight back down that road to Unhappyville. Granted, the equity of compromise is subjective, but what matters is that you and your loved one believe your compromise is equitable. For instance, if you're both okay with dividing labor along traditional male-female lines, fine. But if one of you thinks he or she is getting shafted in that role, then you have a problem.


4. Am I really willing to make this compromise?

The worst thing you can do when negotiating a compromise is to vow that changes are forthcoming only to relapse into old habits when asked to make good on your promise. For compromise to work, you need to commit to it. It may seem like the perfect solution to offer to cook dinner while your honey vaccuums the floor, but when you repeatedly "forget" to go to the grocery store or schedule too many business dinners, all bets are off, and your partner will be even more disgruntled than before because you reneged on your word. Before you agree to a compromise, be honest with yourself and your partner about what compromises you're really willing to make. To continue with the example above, if you recoil at the sight of raw chicken fillets and have convinced yourself by now that you like burnt toast, a compromise that has you wearing a chef's hat is unrealistic.

Instead, look for compromises that you know you can carry out with a little effort. So maybe you can't deliver in the kitchen. Okay. Then you might do the laundry or take care of the lawn or put the kids to bed every night. Whatever the compromise, you have to sincerely be willing to tackle and follow through with it.

This also means believing in the compromise. On some level, you have to agree that it's necessary and the right thing to do so that even if it wasn't your first choice, you know that it is, nevertheless, a good choice. By the same token, once you've settled on the compromise, you shouldn't feel resentful or regretful about it. If you do, that's a sign that you may want to return to the preceding guidelines to see how your compromise stacks up.

Ultimately, if you can't embrace the compromise and stick to it, it will be a sticking point for your relationship. There's no justification for spinning your wheels into the ground if you know that you can't get behind a compromise with enough faith and determination to push your relationship out of a rut.



Now, there is one question that you might think I've left out. On the contrary, it's the question that I hope you won't ask when judging whether you should compromise in a relationship: Do I love him/her enough to compromise?

People ask this question all the time, and I believe it contributes to many devastating choices. Why? Because, as I said earlier, compromise is not a measure of love and should not be used that way. If the compromise you're contemplating will have such a detrimental effect on you that you need to reevaluate your whole relationship, then it's a compromise that violates at least one of the principles above. And if you compromise under those conditions, you compromise yourself. Any decision made out of self-compromise is not a decision made out of love. It may be made out of fear (of losing someone), guilt (of seeming selfish), ignorance (of alternatives), or self-righteousness (another discussion in itself). But not love. Love is absent from any compromise that engenders chronic unhappiness, is inconsistent with one's identity, unfairly burdens one partner, or is insincerely made.

Please note that I'm not saying someone who makes such a compromise doesn't love his or her partner. But I'm also not saying that he or she does. What I'm saying is that love has nothing to do with it. The reason I'm so exacting about this is because too many people make untenable compromises because they've bought the lie that compromise is a measure of love, and the more you love, the more you compromise. Believe me, you can love someone more than a fish loves the water and still not want to compromise yourself for him or her, and, conversely, people who do self-compromise don't do it out of love. Yeah, I know that will leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone who has a martyr complex, so if it's any comfort to you, I was one of your number for years and am not pointing any fingers.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that love doesn't entail giving generously to your partner. But you shouldn't give yourself away in the process. When the potential for self-compromise threatens to become reality, sometimes the most loving thing you can do is walk away rather than ask someone else to change for you.


Where do you draw the line between healthy compromise and unhealthy self-sacrifice in a relationship? Have you ever been in a relationship in which you compromised too much? How did you recognize that you had compromised too much? Did you choose to be single, or did you stay in the relationship? What advice would you give to someone trying to decide between singlehood and self-compromise for the sake of a relationship?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

"Alone Together" by Jennifer Senior: A Singletude Response

On November 23, "Alone Together" was the cover story of New York Magazine. Since I love it when the mainstream media addresses singles issues, I dashed over here to tell you about it. Unlike those brief pop newsflashes with their useless trivia ("4 of 5 Single Women Say they Want to Get Married,"anyone?), this article has heft and meat, even if I got the sense that a few of the marital stats used to dress up this hearty fare had passed their expiration date. Overall, though, the article takes an in-depth look at living single in the country's most populated metro center and, in the end, reaffirms it as a natural and healthy condition.

The fact that singles now live alone in one of every two New York City apartments prompted writer Jennifer Senior to question the stereotype of the lonely, isolated cat lady. In the process, although she trots out the same overblown Waite and Gallagher statistics about how much happier and healthier married people are (see my review of Dr. Bella DePaulo's Singled Out to better understand how this data is manipulated to support an agenda), she ultimately uncovers the truth that has quietly shaped half the American population--that social health is about depth and variety of connection, not marriage. And due to that finding, it should come as no surprise that, despite their tough veneer, cities are often the most fertile grounds for establishing and maintaining all-important social networks. Here are some of the article's highlights:

*Even though people are more likely to live alone in urban environments as opposed to less populated areas, city dwellers are less likely to feel lonely.
*Singles feel more connected when surrounded by other singles and are therefore less likely to be lonely in the city than out in the 'burbs.
*The unhappily married feel lonely as often as or more often than singles.
*A large network of close friends and acquaintances increases happiness and health as much as a good marriage. Urbanites tend to have more friends.
*Singles tend to have more friends and leave home to socialize more frequently than couples.
*Intimate friendships aren't the only benchmark of emotional health. Casual acquaintances (i.e., friends of friends) and colleagues increase our sense of well-being, too.
*The Internet communication that so many in the young single generation favor, long vilified for its propensity to isolate, is, in fact, a valuable means of socialization.
*Living alone in itself may provide personal satisfaction due to its association with maturity, independence, and achievement.

Senior fleshes out these claims with research evidence, expert interviews, and some editorializing that seems mostly on the mark and singles-friendly. She also raises a point that resonated with me and might with you, too. Specifically, if you are among the millions of professional singles who never step off the workaday treadmill, you may be particularly vulnerable to loneliness because your--pardon the pun--single-minded attention to work may preclude developing social contacts. I have to admit right about now I'm hearing strains of "People who need people/Are the luckiest people in the world..."

Now I know there are some critics who will be offended by the article's unabashed crushing on NYC and cities in general. In its defense, when I lived in a semi-rural area, I did feel more lonely than I do now, although I suspect that was due more to a difference of perception than actual hours spent socializing. Still, the potential for connection, as desired, that teems right outside my door in a big city is itself a comfort that I didn't have in a small town, and perhaps that sense of connectedness is almost as important as time spent in the presence of others. Nevertheless, while cities may be hotbeds for happening singles, the most important factor in your social success is how dedicated you are to cultivating connections. Even in a city as enormous as New York, like Senior, I am easily isolated by my work if I don't consciously make time for family, friends, dating, and outside activities.

In any event, I am pleased to see a high-profile magazine put a mostly positive spin on singlehood, confronting the myth of loneliness head-on and discrediting it. I observe so many writers purporting to do the same, who instead end up infusing their articles with nagging doubts about whether all those seemingly happy singles are really just donning a brave facade, intentionally hoodwinking traditionalists, or disconnecting from their true emotions. Senior takes the opposite approach, addressing prejudices right away and dispelling them. Whether you're a denizen of Greenwich Village or the plains of Wyoming, I encourage you to read this portrait of the coming era for singles.


What do you think about Senior's assertions in "Alone Together"? If you live alone, do you feel lonely? Do you think any loneliness that you feel is either ameliorated or exacerbated by the size of the town or city in which you live? Do you think you spend more time socializing and have more acquaintances than your coupled friends do? Do you find your social network as emotionally satisfying as a romantic relationship?


Fun Link of the Day


(This is your reference point for the dubious marital stats.)




Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!