Singles Sleep Better

It's National Singles Week! Happy holidays to all you Singletude readers and to the 96 million Americans who live without the help (or hindrance) of a spouse every day and are just as happy, healthy, and wise as their coupled counterparts! A special shout out to those who are not just unmarried but unattached, standing totally on their own, since we know that discrimination against singles is social as often as legal.

In honor of National Singles Week, Singletude is holding its first ever giveaway contest! The drawing is quickly approaching on 9/28, so make sure your entries are in by 9/27. The prize is a gift basket overflowing with more than $150 in prizes sponsored by SingleEdition.com, so hurry and submit your entry before time runs out. Now, on to today's topic...

If you've been single for awhile, the days of sharing your bed may be like a distant dream or, more accurately, a distant nightmare. Ah, yes, now it all comes back to you! Tossing and turning while your bedmate's snore drowns all but the sound of your teeth grinding in the dark. Quivering in the frigid night air as you cling to the four square inches of blanket that your beloved spared you. Rousing from your happy place again so you can make way for your honey to reach the lamp, the tissues, the water, or the slippers. Jerking awake as your sweetheart's alarm blasts the robins right out of the trees outside. Stumbling out of bed on jello limbs that lost their circulation beneath someone else's butt, your shoulder cradling your neck, which can't stand up straight after eight hours wedged over someone else's arm. You call it "The Quasimodo in the Morning Show."

A couple of weeks ago, a commenter called Autonomous on the blog Onely directed readers to a BBC News article entitled "Bed Sharing 'Bad for Your Health.'" The article reports on research by Dr. Neil Stanley of the U.K., who found that sleeping with someone (in the literal sense) increases sleep disturbances by 50%. This makes sense, he says, because our ancestors only recently traded their single straw mats for cushy queen-size mattresses. We weren't really meant to sleep together at all! So, presumably, the single state confers a great advantage in the bedroom that most couples miss out on. This advantage has far-reaching effects, too. As the article notes, sleep problems are associated with heart disease, stroke, depression, and, yes, even divorce, among other potentially fatal consequences. So...does this mean we can say that singles are healthier than marrieds?

If so, the media doesn't want us to know about it. While the major news outlets are all too happy to showcase studies claiming that married women sleep better than singles or that married couples have lower blood pressure during sleep, they're less eager to report findings that indicate singles might be better off. Besides the Huffington Post, no prominent American news site featured Stanley's research even though it's not unheard of for American news shows, papers, and web sites to run stories on medical breakthroughs in the international community. If Autonomous hadn't spotted it, I would've missed it altogether. My Google newsreader didn't pick it up, and, to my knowledge, it didn't make the rounds of hub sites where it might've caught the eyes of readers checking their email or the daily forecast. So why no love for this story from the American media? Is it possible that the powers that be in the U.S. want to suppress research that doesn't cast marriage or intensive coupling traditions in a flattering light? Research that indicates remaining single can be not only as healthy as but healthier than pairing off?

British sociologist Dr. Robert Meadows was also quoted in the article as saying, "People actually feel that they sleep better with a partner, but the evidence suggests otherwise." Years of drumming biased headlines into people's sleepy heads have obviously hypnotized them to believe that significant others glued to their sides are always better for their health, even when their own bodies scream otherwise in the morning. The article states that a mere 8% of forty- and fiftysomething couples sleep alone. (Statistics for other ages weren't recorded.) The other 92% apparently suffer through night after night of disrupted sleep. And for what? The perception that couples should sleep side by side because they must never be apart? Are we so entrapped by The Cult of the Couple that we would sacrifice our rest and ultimately our health because society dictates that those who have sex together must sleep together?

Undoubtedly, some people enjoy whispering in the dark, drifting off to sleep in another's arms, rolling over into a warm, inviting body on a cold night. But just as undoubtedly there are people who would always or at least sometimes prefer "to have a cuddle and then...toddle off down the landing," as Stanley puts it. If this study is accurate, most of them, like it or not, will share their beds anyway.

Luckily, we singles don't have to lose sleep over matrimaniacally approved sleeping habits! During National Singles Week, as on every night, we get to...

...decide when bedtime is.
...indulge in whatever bedtime rituals we prefer such as reading, watching TV, or having a hot drink.
...choose what goes into and what stays out of the bed including food, books, laptops, phones, pillows, blankets, real animals, and animals of the stuffed variety.
...adjust sleeping conditions like temperature, amount of light, and background noise as needed.
...sleep anywhere in the bed in any position, occupying as much space as desired.
...sleep through the whole night completely undisturbed by another human being.
...decide when to wake up and what to wake up to, whether an alarm, music, cell phone, TV, dog or cat, morning songbirds, or pure silence.

On that note, I think I'll turn in early!


Do you prefer to sleep by yourself or with someone else? Why? Have you ever had trouble sleeping with someone else? If so, why? What things do you like about sleeping alone? Did you know about the British sleep study before you read about it here? If so, where did you hear about it? Why do you think the media didn't publicize this study as much as some others that promote marriage and/or diminish singles?


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.

Poll Results: Are You Single by Choice or by Circumstance?

Thanks to all those who participated in the second Singletude poll! Response more than doubled since the last poll, and with 50 of you chiming in, we now have what would be considered in the research community a small but decent sample group. :) Of course, this was hardly a scientific study. Nevertheless, the results give us a peek into the minds of singles who would seek out a blog that's supportive of the single life and hints at how the attraction of the single state stacks up against the allure of relationships.



Poll: "Are you single by choice or by circumstance?"


I am single by choice. I would rather be single than in a relationship even if I could find a suitable partner.
16% (8)

I am single by circumstance. If I could find a suitable partner, I would rather be in a relationship than single.
50% (25)

I have no preference. I equally enjoy being single and being in a relationship.
20% (10)

I prefer not to define myself by any of the above.
14% (7)



At the end of the day, it seems that the overwhelming majority of singles (50%) would prefer to come home to significant others as long as those "others" are right for them. At least, that's what it looks like at first glance. However, if you combine the singles by choice with those who are equally happy single or coupled, you get a substantial minority (36%) who are just fine without a partner keeping the home lights burning, thank you very much. Not to be misleading, though, you could just as easily interpret this statistic from the opposing viewpoint and argue that 86% of singles surveyed enjoy relationships, while only 16% voice a strong preference for a spouse-free life. The remaining 14% fall into an undefinable category, and I'd be interested in hearing whether they just don't care for the terms "choice" and "circumstance" or have more complex definitions than this basic poll could capture.

Thanks again to everyone who voted, and I hope the results proved educational in a totally unscientific, non-academic way. ;)


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!

Why I Am Single by Choice

I am single by choice. I'm still getting used to saying that after years of considering myself single by circumstance. In "Single by Choice or by Circumstance?" I promised that I would explain the change of heart, and I will. But first, I want to address your response to the last post, which spawned a revealing dialogue about how we define "single by choice," "single by circumstance," and the variant "single by chance" suggested by several readers.

When Singletude has used the term "single by choice," the intention has been to describe singles who prefer to be single rather than coupled. Conversely, the phrase "single by circumstance" has been used to denote singles who would prefer to be coupled given suitable partners. However, some of your comments rightly alerted me to shades of "choice" that aren't acknowledged by such black and white classifications. Some readers proudly claimed "single by chance" as a more accurate and empowering self-descriptor, associating it with a conscious refusal to settle or give in to matrimania while keeping an open mind toward future prospects. Others pointed out that some people don't think in terms of preference, just accepting and relishing whatever life brings, whether single, married, or something undefinable. Although Singletude will continue to reference "choice" and "circumstance" for the sake of simplicity, I greatly appreciate all the nuanced perspectives that everyone has contributed to our understanding of how singles perceive themselves.

Today I am unabashedly a single by choice in the sense that if the perfect boyfriend fell in my lap, I couldn't dump his bum on the floor fast enough. That is not to say that I will never be in a relationship again. I stand behind healthy relationships as sources of love, support, companionship, and inspiration in the lives of many and encourage anyone who wants a relationship to pursue it. However, I'm now realizing that just because a romantic relationship can be a positive force in one's life doesn't mean that everyone should have one. I'm one of those people who shouldn't, at least not right now and maybe not ever.

STOP.

Was your first reaction to that last sentence a sympathetic "awwww"? Did you instinctively think, "Oh, she'll change her mind"?

If not, congratulations! Singlism can't fool you, and matrimania has no hold over you! If, however, you were just caught in the act, don't feel too bad because your reaction just proved my next point--that lots of people, even those who think it's possible to be single and happy, can't fathom that anyone would be happier single than paired. But right now, that is exactly the case for me.

Like many singles, I didn't imagine this life for myself when I was growing up. At around 14 years old, a friend and I swore that we wouldn't marry and have kids before age 25 so that we'd have time to get educated, build our careers, and see the world. From the time I was a teenager, it wasn't a question of if, but when. Then 25 rolled around...and disappeared in my rear-view mirror...and I was no closer to marriage than I'd been at 14. Somewhere along the way, I noticed that I didn't mind the interludes of singleness between relationships, but I still assumed I'd rather be married if the right man showed up.

As the years passed without a ring on my finger, it occurred to me that I couldn't keep waiting for someone else to give me a fulfilling life. I was going to have to find fulfillment for myself. While questioning how to do that, I began to deconstruct my concept of a good relationship and what it could provide me that was worth continued pursuit. However, it wasn't until I was mentally sweeping up the fragments of my most recent relationship that the answer winked back at me, bold and undeniable: not a whole heck of a lot.

For some time, the three major draws of relationships--romance, companionship, and physical affection--have been losing their charm for me. As far as romance is concerned, it's not that I don't still thrill to a poem written for me or a candlelit picnic awaiting me at the lake. But now my heart merely flutters instead of thumping right out of my chest like a car stereo at full volume. By now, I know that sweet nothings in my ear mean just that--nothing--and I've heard most of them before. To me, this isn't some tragic loss of innocence but a mature awareness that flowery words and extravagant gestures straight out of an 18th-century court don't necessarily foretell long-term compatibility or genuine commitment. It's also a kind of experiential satiation, a feeling that Ive been there and done that, enjoyed it, and no longer have a craving to be serenaded by moonlight or waltzed around under the stars. Sure, romance is exciting, but if it never swept me off my feet again, I wouldn't feel like I had missed out or been deprived of something.

Companionship, too, is somewhat overrated for me. A dyed-in-the-wool introvert, I used to yearn for that one person who would understand me better than I understood myself, my best friend and soul mate with whom I could withdraw into a little cocoon world. What I've learned in the intervening years is that no one can be the whole world to someone else. Even someone who has an uncanny connection with you will, at times, misconstrue, disagree, differentiate. Despite the poetic tradition of becoming one in matrimony, you will continue to be two separate people, and where there are separate thoughts, beliefs, and desires, there will also sooner or later be conflict. That's why it's imperative that we don't invest our entire emotional well-being in one person. We need to have other family members and friends to open our hearts to, have fun with, learn from, rely on. When lengthy spells of singleness drove me to seek out and strengthen that web of relationships, I found that they gave me the emotional and mental sustenance I longed for. At the same time, I got accustomed to making coffee runs, strolling in the park, and poking around museums on my own. To my surprise, I didn't have to have someone alongside me to delight in these activities. A book, earbuds, or my own thoughts were companionship enough.

And then there's physical affection, the cornerstone, we're led to believe, of relationships. Such a double-edged sword for me, a source of both pleasure and pain. One of the most common complaints I hear from singles is that they miss the high of sex, the closeness of sleeping in another's arms, the relief of a foot rub or neck massage after a long day, the simple comfort of a hug to remind them that they're loved, appreciated, wanted. But for all the joys of physical intimacy, there are also annoyances, frustrations, dissatisfactions. Meditating on the dark side of sex, I think of all the times I have felt pressured to offer the use of my body to someone, not because I wanted to but because I didn't want him to reject me or feel rejected. I think of all the covers pulled off in the night, the muscle cramps from sleeping in positions contorted around someone else, the snoring slicing through my peaceful dreams. I think of the hours I'm obliged to spend on shaving and personal care, the sexy lingerie I'm supposed to keep my drawers well-stocked with, the risks of pregnancy and disease and the side effects of birth control. I think of these things and remember that physical love exacts a price of its own.

Of course there are other perks that relationships offer. Convenience, support, security, social standing, the chance for children. Some people marry for these reasons alone. But I believe that a man should be more than just a woman's handyman, paycheck, or sperm donor. A woman should be more than just a man's housekeeper, arm candy, or incubator. I believe that two people should be together primarily because they love to be in each other's presence. Those other bonuses like the guaranteed Saturday night date, the shared rent, or the extra pair of hands in the kitchen are not good enough reasons by themselves to dedicate one's life to someone else. To be with someone for just those reasons is tantamount to using that person.

So I can't, in good conscience, enter a relationship for the wrong reasons, nor do I really want one for the right reasons. The benefits of relationships simply don't outweigh the drawbacks for me. They are just not enough. And drawbacks there are in spades.

I know somewhere out there someone is reading this and thinking, "She just hasn't found the right person yet." I used to believe that, too, so that's probably why I only reached this conclusion, finally, after my last relationship ended. It was then I discovered that no matter how deep the connection or intense the passion, no matter how stimulating the conversation or enriching the shared experience, no matter how compatible the interests or complementary the personalities, relationships are still work. They demand compromise and sacrifice and adjustment and accountability. And all that work just isn't worth it to me. The pain of argument is not overcome by the satisfaction of making up. The loss of self-direction is not justified by the gain in synergy. The reduction in personal time is not compensated for by the increase in companionship. The irritation of quirks and foibles is not offset by the ease and comfort of familiarity. Even when a man is everything I could want, the sweetness of a relationship is not enough to counter the sour.

Before you roll your eyes and go back to sucking face with that hottie you met at the bar, please remember that I'm just explaining my own rationale. I don't expect it to apply to everyone or even to most people. I'm well aware that I'm a rather unusual person in somewhat irregular circumstances, which affects my attitude toward relationships. For instance, if I wasn't self-employed and trying to expand my own business, my personal time might not be so important to me. If I didn't live a fairly bohemian lifestyle, self-determination might not be such a sticking point. In fact, maybe one day my life will be different enough that I'll change my mind. After all, if it's changed once, I'd be foolish to think it couldn't change again.

Nevertheless, this is the way I feel right now, in my present situation, about this particular lifestyle decision, and this is why. Although I respect and blog about other lifestyles, this is the perspective that I write from. I am single by choice. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of it, neither thankful nor resentful, neither champion nor protester. It's just the right choice for me.


If you haven't already answered this question, do you consider yourself single by choice, single by circumstance, or single for other reasons? If you are single by choice, why? If you are not single by choice, why? Do you think it's better to be one way or the other? Why or why not?


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!

Single by Choice or by Circumstance?

Increasingly, the single population seems to be dividing into two camps--singles by choice and singles by circumstance. Maybe you've noticed it, too. Maybe you've eagerly aligned yourself with one side or the other, or maybe, like me, you've been hesitant to label yourself and even a little concerned about the repercussions of divisive language.

When I started Singletude, I intended to serve both audiences indiscriminately. The idea was not to push singlehood as preferable to marriage or coupledom but to celebrate its unique advantages, as you might celebrate any other stage of life--childhood, adolescence, parenthood, late life. Singletude was designed to meet singles where they were, regardless of how they got there, offering resources, support, and a positive attitude toward the unattached. I believe in making the most of the lives we're given and wanted to help people recognize that, whether or not they chose the single state, they could be happy living it. Furthermore, I hoped to expose discrimination against singles in its many insidious forms and mobilize others to speak out against it.

That said, I don't mind telling you that when I began blogging, I was single by circumstance. I didn't state this overtly because I didn't want to alienate those who were single by choice, although I'm sure some of my posts spoke for me. At the time, I'll admit I even thought that while it was the bees knees to be single, it was their whole honeypot to be married. I had bought into the shoddy popular science that claimed marriage was a panacea for depression, loneliness, ill health, poverty, and socks with open-toed sandals. Moreover, while I firmly believed it was better to be single than sorry, which is more than one can say for a lot of matrimaniacs, a relationship chock-full of chemistry, romance, and commitment was something I very much wanted. And, yes, dear readers, I hoped it would one day lead to marriage.

Go ahead. Lob your tomatoes at me. Just make sure they're fresh-picked organic, please.

I still don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to be married. In fact, I think monogamous commitment is the best context in which a relationship can grow. (Yeah, I'm familiar with the argument that we're biologically programmed to hook up with multiple partners, but we're biologically programmed to do lots of things we no longer do, such as spear those we don't get along with.) The desirability of marriage (to some people) does not make the single state undesirable, nor does it make unmarried people any less worthy of the perks and protections currently enjoyed by those who are legally wed. That's what this blog has always been about, not an attempt to glorify the solo lifestyle above all others or convince everyone who wants a mate to repress that longing.

In fact, I'm a little disturbed when I see what I'll call militant singles bashing those who are or hope to be partnered. True, there's a fine line between living with that hope and living for it, and I think that line trips up some well-meaning singles who worry that their peers will put their lives on hold until marriage. But they miss the fact that a single person can have a full, exciting life and yet also want to add a spouse to it, just as he or she might want to add a child or another friend. The difference, I suspect, is that the child and the friend don't provoke our resentment because people aren't rewarded in a way we perceive as unfair when they have children or make new friends. Nevertheless, our justified resentment of singlism should not justify berating singles who seek relationships, whether or not we're interested in the same thing.

I include myself in this reminder because in the past few months, I've crept over the line into the league of singles by choice. I can't tell you when exactly it happened. I didn't desert the ranks of singles by circumstance and make a mad dash for it. It was more the culmination of lessons learned in my third decade of life--not lessons that apply to everyone, but to me. Regretfully, more than once I've caught myself trying to generalize those lessons, to urge other singles off the path to joint filing and his-and-hers wash towels. But that's not right. In pressuring others to conform to my idea of happiness, I'm no different than the majority who insist that I can't be happy single. So, as I find myself changing my stance, I want to recommit myself to representing all singles at this blog, not just those who do or don't want to be.

Nevertheless, the cat is out of the bag now. I have become a single by choice. I hesitated to reveal this because I don't want to be divisive. I don't want singles by circumstance to feel that they aren't welcome here or promote a mindset that some singles are different and better than others. Neither do I want to sign up for a lifetime membership in the single-by-choice club so that I can never change my mind without feeling like I have betrayed someone. But chances are that although I will still cover all topics that I believe are relevant to singles, including dating, there may be times when my own beliefs will influence what I write, whether or not I'm aware of it.

By now you must be itching to find out why I've made a philosophical 180. If so, get some calamine; it must be poison ivy because nothing I have to say is that exciting. :) However, for the gossips, the rubberneckers, and the bored workers waiting for summer hours to kick in, Singletude will dedicate its next entry to the premature demise of my relationship-seeking days.


Have you observed a division in the singles community between those who are single by choice and those who are single by circumstance? If so, what do you think the cause might be, and how should it be addressed?


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!

Are Married Couples Happier Than Singles?

Maybe. A little bit. And not in every case.

Confused? Check out "Are Married People Happier Than Unmarried People?" at the American Psychological Association (APA) web site. This 15-year longitudinal study of 24,000 subjects reports that marriage increases life satisfaction...but only about one tenth of a point on an 11-point scale. In addition, most currently married individuals were happier people even before they tied the knot.

Interestingly, the study also found that those who are happiest before marriage have the smallest boost in life satisfaction after the wedding. Although that may seem counterintuitive, the authors concluded that singles who are already content with themselves simply can't get much happier with the addition of one person to the mix.

"An event such as marriage or divorce does not have the same implications for all individuals. A person who is very satisfied with life probably has a rich social network and has less to gain from the companionship of marriage. On the other hand, the person who is lonely and, therefore, somewhat dissatisfied, can gain much by marrying," the researchers explained.

For years, various social organizations have been ramming down our throats that marriage makes people, especially men, happier, so it's refreshing to read some research to the contrary. Of course, one could object that this study was conducted in Germany and isn't applicable to Americans, but 7,000 of the participants were immigrants, so this isn't a culturally limited phenomenon, though it's possible that certain aspects of German government or culture don't reinforce marriage as much as ours do.

In any case, this study is groundbreaking because it's the first I know of to prove that marriage is not a cure-all for social ills. People react differently to nuptial bliss. For some, the wedding bells ring in new heights of happiness. For others, not so much. But at the end of the day, your happiness compass is set where it is, and your contentment level returns to its true north.

That's why it's so important to stop waiting for someone else to make you happy. Take your happiness into your own hands. Have you always wanted to move to California? Have dreams of directing your own film? What are you waiting for? One tenth of a point?

As Bobby McFerrin put it if you're old enough to remember, "Don't worry. Be happy." And you don't need anyone else to do that. I think Bobby knew it, too. He was a one-man band.


In your experience, are married couples happier than singles? If you've ever been married, were you happier married than single? How about unmarried couples? Do you think they're happier than singles? Were you happier when part of a couple? Do you think that being in a relationship or marriage in the future will make you happier than you are now? Why or why not?


Fun Link of the Day

Commit to Yourself

For awhile now, a close friend and I have bandied about the notion of throwing self-commitment parties if we choose not to marry. In other words, I would marry myself, she'd marry herself, and we'd have a double self-commitment ceremony. For awhile, the deadline for abandoning the prospect of marriage and committing to lifelong singlehood was 30, but now that 30 is not just a hypothetical state but a reality bearing toward us in the mirror, the minimum age has somehow been raised to 35.

Of course we're half joking. And we're half serious.

It seems like a gutsy thing to do, throwing a party in your own honor. But why should it? In the last blog, we talked about how the average wedding is more a homage to the self than to the love of another person. Given that fact, celebrating yourself in style almost makes more sense than sparing no expense for what should be one of the most selfless commitments of your life, the promise to place another human being's needs before your own.

Fans of Sex and the City may remember the episode entitled "A Woman's Right to Shoes" in which Carrie's designer stilettos are stolen at a baby shower when the yuppie mother insists that all footwear be removed at the door. When the mom-to-be refuses to compensate Carrie for the loss and accuses her of indulging in a self-centered, high-priced lifestyle, Carrie rightly counters that shelling out for a wedding or a baby is no more virtuous than forking it over for anything else that's won your heart, including shoes. She argues that singles are expected to bankroll couples' weddings, homes, and children but receive no financial help for their own dreams. In response, Carrie sends word to the self-righteous mama that she's marrying herself and has set up a gift registry for her Manolo Blahniks.

Although it's played off tongue in cheek, Carrie's turn of the tables is a respectable move which affirms the value of single people. Take a moment to think of all the ways that you, as a single, have funded the lives of your coupled friends. No doubt, you've given gifts to the couples you know for all of the following:

--Engagement party
--Bridal shower
--Bachelor or bachelorette party
--Wedding
--Housewarming
--Baby shower

Quite likely, you also give Christmas presents to your friend and his or her spouse as well as to each of their children, while you get just one present in return. The same probably goes for birthdays.

And if you've ever been in a bridal party, you've also born the cost of your formal attire, the bridal shower if you're a woman, the bachelor or bachelorette party, and other miscellaneous expenses along the way (i.e. your transportation to and from the wedding, your lodgings if necessary, your stylist and/or makeup artist, etc.). Then when your friend gets pregnant, you're responsible for throwing a shower for that, too.

In a time when almost everyone got married, it was assumed that in a few years your turn would come and your friends would return the favor. But the marriage rate has declined by 50% since 1970, and it's no longer a certainty that a single person will ever tie the knot or have children. I don't have any statistics on how much married couples take home in gifts over a lifetime, but I'm sure it's thousands of dollars.

I know some people will argue that the spoils of a wedding or baby shower are tempered by the costs of the wedding and the baby, but how the money is spent isn't the issue. The role of the married parent and its attendant expenditures is a lifestyle choice. So is the choice of a single person to start a business or go back to school or travel...or even buy a pair of quality shoes. The choices of a single person aren't less ethically valid than those of a married person, but for some reason, society doesn't fund those choices.

Sometimes, singles are even labeled "self-centered" even though they're ultimately spending money the same way married people do--on things that make them happy. If those things are cars and clothes and gizmos for themselves instead of for a spouse or child, what of it? Married people attain these same things through the rounadabout method of requesting them from their spouses for birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and Valentine's Day. Single people cut right to the chase and buy them outright. So what's the difference?

Carrie Bradshaw had the right idea about "marrying herself." While the prospect of reciting vows to love, honor, and cherish yourself might sound silly, the principle is anything but. As singles, we should all be committed to our own growth and betterment. We should promise to take care of ourselves, to treat ourselves with dignity and respect, to stand up for and protect ourselves when necessary. We should vow to be honest with ourselves, to learn from our mistakes, and to push ourselves when the time calls for it. Most of all, we should commit to accept ourselves for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health. No matter who else makes or breaks these promises to you, you should always keep them to yourself.

And if you reach a point in life at which you know that you're not going to or don't want to be married...heck, throw a party! Go ahead. Rent out a huge facility, wear an elaborate gown, feast on catered delicacies, collect presents. Make it known that you're celebrating the person you've become and the person you're still becoming. Everybody needs a day to bask in the love of family and friends and be the sun of their universe. The act of committing yourself to someone else shouldn't be what makes you worthy of that.

But if you do get married a year later, just don't expect anyone to go out and get you another set of Lenox. ;)

How do you feel about the expenditures singles are expected to make without receiving anything in return? Have you had trouble affording the costs associated with special events for your married friends or family? Would you ever throw a party for yourself? Have you made a commitment, formal or informal, to yourself?


Fun Link of the Day

It's a Wedding, Not a Coronation

At my age, you think a lot about weddings. Every time you turn around, one of your friends is wearing a rock the size of Gibraltar, tearing out patches of hair over whether to go with the Baby Blue napkins or the Robin's Egg, and, finally, stuffing you into a dress you'll have to fork over several hundred dollars to never wear again. How could you not think about them?

Luckily, I haven't yet encountered a real-life bridezilla. My engaged friends have managed to keep their calm, reason, and wits about them and not exchange them with the rings. But even the most relaxed bride-to-be doesn't let a conversation go by without inserting something about "the wedding," which somewhere along the line becomes her second full-time job.

Let me clarify that I'm not blaming brides for their single-minded focus. If you have a full-time job, paid or unpaid, you have to be devoted to it. And if the fulfillment of your childhood dreams rides on this one day because it's the only day that will ever be "Your Day" and therefore must be "perfect," planning it had darn well better be a full-time job. And that's where the trouble lies.

If you were married in, say, 1850 and weren't a Vanderbilt, the ceremony was held in the town church, often after Sunday service. The couple got there on their own steam, usually in horse-drawn carriages. The bride wore her best dress or a dress handed down from her mother and maybe carried a fresh, handpicked bouquet of wildflowers. Although there wouldn't have been a bridal party if the bride wasn't wealthy, she might have had a flower girl, sans color-coordinated dress, sprinkle a few petals in the aisle. Someone with a fiddle handy would have played a simple hymn, though not the wedding march since it wasn't in fashion yet, and after the exchange of vows and a plain gold band, often a modest family heirloom, they might all have retired to someone's barn for some folk dancing and homemade plum cake before the happy couple drove away in a buggy festooned with cans and noisemakers and a "just married" sign. Their "honeymoon" was a trip back to their new residence to consummate the marriage. (See "Sources" for more on wedding traditions.) The whole affair cost nothing more than the price of ribbons for the bride's hair and ingredients for the cake.

In contrast, in 2005, the average cost of a wedding was nearly $30,000! And that's just the average. I regularly hear of weddings totalling fifty, sixty, even ninety thousand dollars. Today, if you told a bride she'd have to sew her own dress, forgo shower and wedding gifts (a bride in 1850 was expected to provide her own trousseau, accumulated over the years), and hold her reception in a barn, she'd burst into tears faster than Hillary Clinton at a primary. Yet, despite their lack of grandeur, the weddings of yesteryear were as highly anticipated and joyous then as they are in the 21st century.

That begs the question: Is all the modern wedding hullabaloo really necessary? And, if not, why are single women so bound and determined to eventually walk down the aisle to the tune of $30k shaken from their pockets?

I think the answer lies in the tag lines of the contemporary bride:

"This is my day!"

and

"I want to feel like a princess."

Our current generation was raised on fairy tales. And not the bloody Grimm translations. The sugary, gauzy, soft-edged kind. The Disney version. And at the end of every fairy tale, the leading lady married a prince and became--well, you know the deal--a princess. It's no wonder that American women have come to associate marriage with elevation to elite status and fulfillment of grandiose childhood fantasies. Tragically, this shifts the focus of a wedding from the public celebration of a couple (Their Day) to the public celebration of a woman (Her Day). (Note that you will never hear a groom refer to the wedding as "His Day" or exclaim that he feels like a prince!)

Every time I hear a bride whine, "It's my day," I want to scream, "No, it's not! It's not about you! It's about vowing your lifelong commitment to someone else." This day of all days, the day that you devote your life to another human being, should be a day to be selfless. But the modern bride's insistence on turning the wedding into a lavish parade in which she is the showpiece distorts and dilutes the meaning of the ceremony. When you consider that most women approach a wedding with this attitude, it's easy to understand why wedding expenses have ballooned like a war budget in recent years (though perhaps not inappropriately since many weddings will end in a battle of divorce attorneys). After all, if you're going to become a princess, you have to show everyone you can spend like royalty, and that may include a $5,000 couture dress, imported vintage Champagne, and a private fireworks display.

I have to wonder if these weddings-cum-coronations aren't hurting single people, especially single women. We all know single women who are more wrapped up in planning their future marriage ceremony than in finding someone to marry. Could it be that what these women really long for is a no-holds-barred day to celebrate themselves?

Everyone has a natural desire to be recognized once in awhile, to have their fifteen minutes of fame. It occurs to me that, other than the wedding ceremony, we don't have a universally acknowledged rite of passage to honor women (or men for that matter) for who they've become and what they've accomplished. Sure, we have prom and graduation, but those are group events shared with many other deserving people, and although some people have 18th or 21st birthday parties, they're usually not the formal affairs that weddings are.

I wish that our society would institute something akin to the South American quinceanera, the coming-of-age ball that is often compared to an American wedding minus the groom. The young lady's family throws a black tie event, and the birthday girl's escort presents her to the world in her sparkling finery. Then, she dances the night away with her friends, family, and hundreds of dollars worth of gifts. I don't know if a party on this order would make a difference to an American girl, but I have to think that it might take at least some of the edge off that longing to track down a husband just to have a "special day." As it is now, engaged women are so intent on glorifying themselves that it's no wonder weddings have less in common with the primitive bonding rites they represent than with the coronation of a queen.

What do you think? Are wedding celebrations today too focused on self-glorification and not enough on the meaning of commitment?


Sources
Early Victorian Wedding Dress
Georgia Girl's Wedding Traditions
The Wedding Cake...history, customs, and traditions
Weddings Then & Now
Wedding Traditions


Fun Link of the Day

No Sleep For Singles: Singles Are Twice as Busy

Singles are twice as busy as their married counterparts if you think about it.

Tonight I'm beat. Totally, completely wiped out. So exhausted I fell asleep for three hours before bedtime. I feel like a creature that should be hibernating right now. And this is by no means unusual. It happens with some frequency.

It occurs to me that part of the reason I'm so tired all the time is because I'm single.

Wait, wait. Before you write this off as a "poor Elsie" rant, let me explain. It's not that I'm under the impression that couples do nothing but enjoy the glow of each other's presence all day. I know all people are busy, coupled or not. But couples get to "share the busy" by dividing the labor much as they do the rent.

Consider this list of tasks I had to accomplish alone this weekend, most of which I made time for, a few of which I didn't:

1. Go grocery shopping.
2. Go to the post office for stamps.
3. Go to the bank.
4. Go to Staples to get packaging for a return item.
5. Go to Home Depot to pick up a birthday gift for a party.
6. Go to the pharmacy to pick up a birthday card.
7. Go to the stylist to get my hair cut.
8. Go to the department store to replace a shirt which literally fell apart on me.
9. Attend a birthday party.
10. Go shopping with my friend for her bridal gown.
11. Sort through mail and pay bills.
12. Buy a new computer monitor.
13. Research the current value of my car, which I'm selling, prepare paperwork for the sale, and write a description to post.
14. Send reply emails to friends who wrote to me.
15. Write a business plan for a new web site so that I can discuss it more coherently with a potential contact.
16. Write my blog posts.
17. Work on my CafePress.com site.
18. Water the plants.
19. Do the laundry.
20. Make myself three meals a day.

Obviously, some of the above stops on my itinerary were fun. I enjoyed the birthday party. I'm glad I got to help my friend pick out her wedding dress. Shopping for a new top and getting my hair done were not unpleasant errands. But I spent so much of the weekend running around that I'm actually relieved it's over and the work week about to begin.

When I was growing up, weekends were an oasis of inactivity at the end of a busy week. My mom and I woke up late and shared biscuits with honey while I watched Saturday morning cartoons. My dad usually went out to breakfast with his friends and ran errands to the post office, the bank, and the pharmacy, etc. Before he left, he'd generally ask my mom what she needed him to pick up while he was out. In the afternoon, Mom went to the A&P to "do groceries" if she hadn't during the week, and Dad probably brought home lunch from the deli. Perhaps he'd "do the bills" after lunch while Mom continued on to the mall with me to try on some clothes, or maybe we'd go have some ice cream or--gasp--just come back home and not do much of anything. My parents might call some friends to say hi; chances were I'd be in the play room for most of the day. The evening would find us gathered around the TV or reading to each other, and Sunday, with the exception of church, would be more of the same bumming around the house punctuated by the occasional trip to the movies or a family restaurant.

Okay, so I should probably check my contacts and make sure I'm not wearing the rose-tinted ones. ;) But the idyllic description of my childhood notwithstanding, my parents' marriage had a clear division of labor which allowed for those relaxing weekends. By splitting the chores, they doubled their free time.

Singles don't have this option. If you're without a spouse or live-in lover, you must take care of everything that's screaming for your attention, all day, every day. No exceptions. It doesn't matter if it would be more convenient for a girlfriend to pick up lunch while you call the phone company about your long-distance plan. Too bad if it would save you time if you had a husband to take the car for gas while you're writing out the checks of the week. If you get sick, deal with it. If there's an emergency, that's yours to handle, too. All by yourself.

Now, since this is a singles-friendly blog, you must be wondering when I'm going to get to the positive part. Your wait is over. Here it is:

Short of renting a robot, you won't be able to replace the helping hands of a marital partner. But the good news is there are some shortcuts you can take to minimize some tasks and double up on others so that your life will be only half as busy. Which is exactly how it should be.

Tune in tomorrow for Singletude's tips and tricks for busy singles.


Fun Link of the Day

How to Know You're Enmeshed and Reestablish Your Boundaries

Now that we know what enmeshment is, why do some couples become that way, and how do we recognize enmeshment when it happens to us?


The Roots of Enmeshment

The concept of enmeshment has a long tradition in a psychotherapeutic movement known as Family Systems Theory. This theory asserts that parents teach their children unhealthy ways of relating when they don't have clear boundaries within the family. In other words, the parents don't respect their child's individuality.

Crossing boundaries can happen in lots of ways. Maybe you've heard a frightened child whisper, "I'm scared" to her mother, only to have the mother answer, "No, you're not." Or perhaps you had a friend who missed football practice all the time because his newly divorced dad would imply that he was going to spend the whole night drinking if his son didn't stay home and keep him company. Anytime a parent violates a child's autonomy by imposing his or her own desires, emotions, or attitudes onto that child, that's enmeshment.

When children grow up in an enmeshed family, they learn that interpersonal relationships shouldn't have boundaries, and they carry this into their romantic couplings.

Another root of enmeshment is downright neglect or abuse in childhood. This doesn't even have to be neglect or abuse of the criminal variety. A fragile child can feel neglected if her parents work all day and have no time for her when they come home. He can feel unloved when his older brother is the golden boy and he's the black sheep. If a child doesn't have his needs for closeness and validation met when he's young, he winds up with a deep yearning to have those needs fulfilled in his adult life. One of the ways he may try to fulfill them is by entering a relationship with no boundaries because it feels like closeness.


How To Know You're Enmeshed

So how do you know if you're in an enmeshed relationship? Here are some signs to watch for:

1. Your partner monopolizes your time. It's natural to spend a lot of time with a new love interest in the first three to six months of dating. But if the six-month mark has passed and your friends are referring to you as that girl or guy they used to hang out with, it's time to reevaluate how you spend your time. It's not healthy for your whole social life to revolve around one person.

2. Your beliefs have changed since you started dating. Sometimes new people introduce us to ways of looking at the world that we never considered. But if you've done a 180 from your former perspective on religion, politics, or some other core belief, check whether it's because you're really convinced of your new viewpoint or because you want to believe and support what your partner says. Here's a test: If you broke up with your sweetheart, would you still attend his or her yoga class/Sunday school/Young Republicans rally/Alien Abductees Anonymous, etc.? If not, maybe you shouldn't be attending in the first place.

3. Your interests have changed since you started dating. As with your beliefs, your interests may be broadened by someone new in your life. Maybe you never knew you liked blindfolded pogo sticking until you tried it. But does it seem like you're now spending all your time pogo sticking and none doing the things you used to like before you started dating the world champion pogo sticker? If you answered yes, it's time to ditch the pogo stick.

4. You look different since you started dating. Your friends tap you on the shoulder, then giggle with embarrassment when your significant other turns around. In your matching outfits, with your coordinated haircuts, they can't tell you apart. You've morphed into Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. The same test applies: If you wouldn't be wearing that propeller beanie if Tweedle Dee wasn't, you need to dig deep into your closet and start wearing your own clothes again.

5. You never disagree with your partner. Do you find yourself biting your tongue every time the love of your life spouts an opinion that doesn't sit right with you? Do you rationalize his or her points even when they don't add up? If you can't agree to disagree with your partner, maybe you're too preoccupied with maintaining an illusion of unity.

6. He or she is the barometer of your emotions. If your boyfriend or girlfriend has had a bad day, it's natural to have sympathy pangs. But if you hurtle into the depths of despair every time he or she is in a bad mood, be careful. You shouldn't have to act out someone else's passion play.

7. The two of you make statements to each other like "I'd die without you" or "if I didn't have you, I'd have nothing." Statements like this aren't evidence of love. They're evidence of enmeshment. When you express sentiments like this, you're treading in Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake territory. Being entirely dependent on someone for your well-being is what babies do, not healthy adults.

Enmeshment can happen to anyone at any age and doesn't just affect romantic relationships. You can also become enmeshed with a friend or family member.

If you realize that you've become enmeshed with someone, there are steps you can take to reestablish your boundaries. You don't necessarily need to end the relationship, but you do need to develop a sense of who you are within and apart from it. And you need to insist that your partner do the same. Which brings us to...


How to Overcome Enmeshment

1. Rediscover yourself. Spend some time doing the things you used to do before you started seeing your partner. Did you like hiking? Pick a sunny day and go. Were you really into ambient music? Pick up some new CDs and listen to them while you go for a drive. If you still enjoy these things, you'll know that you only abandoned them for the sake of your girlfriend or boyfriend. Now, here comes the hard part...Make sure you set aside time to participate in activities you like every week. If your partner protests, you need to put your foot down and explain that you miss those things, that they're part of who you are, and that if he or she really cares about you, they'll want you to have things in your life that make you happy.

2. Introduce yourself to your partner. In enmeshed relationships, there's often an imbalance in which one of the members tends to adopt more of the other's beliefs, interests, and style. If you made yourself over in someone else's image, now's the time to introduce him or her to the wonderful world of you. The next time you make plans, invite him or her to do something that you like to do. Start sharing music, movies, and books that you love. If, on the other hand, you're the one who's been calling all the shots, you need to reach out to your sweetie and ask her where she'd like to go or what he'd like to do.

3. Speak up. If you disagree with your boyfriend or girlfriend, say so! It doesn't have to turn into the next Cold War if you do it gently and respectfully. If he or she can't handle that you don't share their love of sardine sandwiches, you're going to have a lot more problems than deciding where to go to dinner tonight.

4. Spend more time with your friends and family. Today, we assign way too much importance to romantic relationships. This is a historical aberration. Up until the beginning of the last century, the community was central, and a network of strong relationships was the norm. Many enmeshed couples neglect their friends and family. If this is you, you've probably been hearing about it for some time. Take action and surprise your long-lost friends with a call. Schedule time to hang out with them, with and without your significant other.

5. Talk to your friends and family about your relationship. Respect their opinions. Obviously, if one or two people haven't warmed up to your other half, you don't have to drop him or her faster than Britney Spears can drop a baby. But if there's a consensus that you've changed since meeting him or her, they could be onto something. Ask them how you've changed and pay attention to their answers. Sometimes an outsider can be more objective than you can. Remember that these people love you as much as your S.O. does--maybe more--and usually want the best for you. Let them be your reality check.

6. Seek professional help. If you can't seem to un-enmesh no matter what you do, you may need to talk to a counselor. A therapist can advise you on how to change or end an enmeshed relationship and can also help you figure out why you became enmeshed in the first place so you can avoid it next time.


Have you or others you know been involved in enmeshed relationships, whether with a dating partner or somebody else? If so, what signs of enmeshment did you see? What did you do to help yourself or the enmeshed person reestablish boundaries?


Other Sources
Blogs About: Enmeshment
"Enmeshment: Collusion & Toxic Relationships"
"Good Fences"
"Love, Marriage, and Enmeshment"

Fun Link of the Day

Enmeshment: The Story of Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake, Part II

So what lesson can yesterday's story of ill-fated lovers Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake teach singles about enmeshment?

Let's start by defining what enmeshment is. (Yes, it's more than just a good SAT word--it also makes an excellent play for Balderdash.)


Enmeshment

Enmeshment, simply defined, is the state of being so entangled in someone else's identity that you become indistinguishable from them, even to yourself. When you're enmeshed, your values, your activities, your decisions are so wrapped up in someone else's that they aren't your own anymore. You like what they like, want what they want, believe what they believe, do what they do. It's a sadly common dynamic between parents and children and, perhaps more disturbingly, between romantic partners.

These are the couples who we affectionately call "attached at the hip." Yes, I'm talking about your gal pal who has to "check in" with her husband every hour on the hour when you go out for girl's night. This is also your office buddy who used to crack jokes about Trekkies and now builds model Enterprises and attends conventions every weekend with his new girlfriend. It's our "golden couple," Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake.

Before you protest, I fully agree that relationships require compromise, and sometimes that involves participating in events that one half of a couple isn't keen on. It's also true that the beauty of getting to know someone includes learning about his or her interests, and sometimes those interests will interest you, too. In fact, relationships can really broaden your horizons if you let them.

The problem is when you deny your own proclivities or opinions and adopt your partner's for the sake of unity. This is usually done unconsciously and may not be noticeable for a long time, but sooner or later, you'll realize that you've become a different person--a carbon copy of your partner. And if you don't, other people around you will.

Unfortunately, while a lot of people find it annoying and even distressing to watch a formerly whole friend or family member morph into half of someone else, many others, including the couple in question, consider it romantic, evidence of a couple's lasting love. The divorce rate, which is currently at 40-50%, begs the question of what happens to people who submerge their identities only to find that love didn't outlast the struggles of daily life. It's a rocky road back to any semblance of self-fulfillment when you've stunted your own growth and development for years to be more acceptable to someone else.

The romantic aura attributed to signs of enmeshment helps explain why we're obsessed with the Theresa Duncan-Jeremy Blake saga. We misread their unhealthy attachment as "true love" because our culture, by and large, endorses enmeshed behavior. We're mystified that it all could go so wrong when it seemed so right. It shakes our belief in the motto "love conquers all," compelling us to unravel the mystery and restore our faith.


How Enmeshment Killed Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake

It doesn't really matter whether Duncan and Blake's persecutory fears were grounded in fact or were the products of psychosis. They died because they were so enmeshed that they couldn't see beyond the protective bubble they'd created for themselves.

Instead of two single individuals living and loving together, Duncan and Blake willfully merged themselves into "Theremy," becoming incapable of independent thought. When one of them became incapacitated by anxiety, the other was swept right up in the current, unable to independently assess the validity of those fears or take the necessary steps to get help.

You have to be small-minded if you want to fit in the tight space that is a microcosm for two. The more insular Duncan and Blake became, the more they cut themselves off from the stabilizing influence of their friends. In the little greenhouse of their private bubble, their fears grew and multiplied, feeding off each other, until they choked out the golden couple themselves.

Ultimately, enmeshment killed Duncan and Blake. When Duncan finally succumbed, Blake couldn't imagine himself without her, tragically robbing the world of a beloved son and friend and of a visionary artist. In the world's eyes, he was a brilliant individual with his whole life ahead of him. In his own eyes, he was just half of a lifeless couple.


Originally, I thought this would be a two-part series, but I'm going to continue tomorrow with one final installment--how enmeshment happens and what we can do to make sure it doesn't happen to us.

I'm also thinking of starting an occasional series called "What Not to Do," profiling strong, capable singles on the world stage who've lost their mojo by embroiling themselves in messy, unhealthy relationships. Any feedback on your interest in this would be welcome.


Other Sources
Blogs About: Enmeshment
"Enmeshment: Collusion & Toxic Relationships"
"Good Fences"
"Love, Marriage, and Enmeshment"


Fun Link of the Day

Enmeshment: The Story of Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake, Part I

Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake. Completely in love. Completely devoted. Completely enmeshed. Singletude's two-part series examines their story and what they can teach us, as singles, about the dark side of relationships.

They were the antithesis of the singletude philosophy, a couple so entangled in each other's joys and, ultimately, sorrows that as one faltered in the grip of depression and possible psychosis, they both plummeted into an abyss from which they never found their way out.

Their cautionary tale is in Vanity Fair this month despite the fact that its tragic ending is old news. When Blake undressed and walked into the sea less than two weeks after Duncan ODed on a cocktail of over-the-counter drugs and alcohol, every life and style section ran its own investigation into the motive and method of their double suicide. That was in July 2007.

But for some reason, the media is still captivated by the intellectual belle and her rising art scenester boyfriend. Each profile lights the story of the star-crossed lovers in a different thematic hue--mystical union, all-consuming passion, heroic devotion, merciful sacrifice, and, more darkly, pathological envy, paranoia, and midlife crisis. But what everyone seems to have missed may be the key not only to why their deaths are so compelling but to why they were compelled to death.


Who They Were Apart

Duncan was the girl from the wrong side of the tracks who made good. She was raised in tiny Lapeer, Michigan in a poor, working class family amidst vague rumors of abuse and more concrete ones of mental illness on her father' s side. Duncan rebelled against her upbringing by fiercely cultivating her intellect, reporting long hours spent in the library to escape her dreary life.

Like many young girls who grow up in troubled homes, Duncan seemed to have an unquenchable thirst for attention and admiration as well as an abiding distrust of "the system." She dressed provocatively, involved herself in the punk movement, and was known for displays of abrasive bravado. Initially, her self-confidence and raw talent rocketed her to fame as an up-and-coming video game designer and landed her several Hollywood film deals. But the deals fell through, and her career became a glamorous facade shielding long dry spells of unemployment.

Blake hailed from suburban D.C. His father died of AIDS when Blake was a teenager, and relations between him and his mother were said to be distant. A friend, Malcolm McLaren, described him as a "troubled soul" who was "screwed up."

Nevertheless, he was the far more successful member of the romantic partnership dubbed "Theremy" in art circles. As a prominent painter and digital artist, Blake was known for work that was inventive and moody and was hired for such projects as Beck's album Sea Change and the critically acclaimed film Punch Drunk Love. More laid-back and self-effacing than Duncan, Blake was sometimes seen as her sidekick despite his greater achievement.


Who They Were Together

Duncan and Blake met when she was 29 and he was 24, a five-year age difference that may have enabled Blake's emotional dependence. The two became instantly inseparable, to a degree that some found romantic and others found odd or off-puting. Where one went, the other followed; they claimed that they'd never spent a night apart in their twelve years together. She promoted his work ceaselessly, never missing an opportunity to mention him in interviews, and he was always quick to defend her from critics, with startlingly out-of-character threats of aggression if necessary.

As Duncan became increasingly convinced that her lack of success was due to a Scientology conspiracy, these threats intensified. Soon, the couple was demanding that anyone who wanted to work or even associate with either of them should sign a contract of loyalty to both of them. In an outburst of paranoia, they began to harass their own friends and neighbors and were eventually evicted from their Venice Beach, California home. They moved to New York City, but peace eluded them there, as well. They became reclusive, had shared precognitive visions of disaster, and alienated more friends. Finally, at the age of 40, Duncan committed suicide in their East Village apartment, and Blake, despite declaring himself ready to move on, followed suit almost two weeks later.


The real life story of Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake isn't very glamorous. It's a story of failed ambition, obsession, and probable mental illness. Yet it's also portrayed as the height of romance.

To its detriment, our culture can't distinguish between the healthy love of two individuals and the enmeshment of floundering souls who can't maintain stable identities on their own. The biblical phrase "two become one," so often intoned at wedding ceremonies, has entered our collective consciousness as the ideal towards which we should strive. That's where enmeshment enters the picture.

Tune in tomorrow to find out what enmeshment is and what the suicides of Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake can teach us about its dangers.


Other Sources
The Independent
LA Weekly News
New York Magazine
Theresa Duncan Central

Fun Link of the Day

Note: Apologies again that Singletude has been suffering from Internet connectivity issues in the past two days. Again, if you'd like to be notified of new posts, please subscribe to the RSS feed.