God knows it's a shame but it's always the way [purplerabbits]

You're viewing

purplerabbits's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

I really want to write an update than generates a witty and intelligent debate. My friends seem to manage it, but all I've been talking about lately is is things like "I'm broke", "I did stuff, it was fun", "who wants to do this things with me" etc etc. So it's no wonder I'm not getting many responses.

So in the interest of having something good to read (and hopefully of providing other people something to read) I would like to start a debate on what it means to be single (and am I it). For instance are you single only if you don't have a regular sex partner? If you live alone? If you don't have someone to cook with/for? Or what? I ask because I somehow feel single even though I have a regular sex partner and don't live alone, and yet I don't want to offend other people by calling myself single when they feel I'm not (And am therefore luckier than them, or something).

Whadda you all think?

Mood::

curious

←

→

There are 17 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Sorry, I'm going to give the cop-out answer which is that relationships can only be defined by the participants - so you're single if you think you are.

[link] [reply]

This is true, but what interests me is that individuals often have a different definition and that the popular societal view of being a couple bundles together so many separate issues; sex, living arrangements, shared finance etc, which don't always need to go together...

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, my personal definition of not being single involves some sort of mutual acknowledgement of coupledom.
Sex on its own isn't enough to create a defined relationship, in my opinion. Something has to be discussed and agreed.

Of course, I have ended up in some interesting situations because guys have assumed that having got me into bed once gave them ownership rights.
Not to mention one particularly surreal occasion where a guy assumed that having got me into his car to share the journey to visit mutual friends gave him ownership rights.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think you are what you feel. It's like lonliness. You can be lonely in a room full of friends. It's a state of mind.

Therefore, if you feel single, then by all means define yourself as such.

If you lived with your regular sex partner, would you feel less single?

Personally, I think of myself as single if I am not involved in a relationship with anybody. I have no intention of living with any partner until both my boys have left home, so that is never an issue for me (although can understand that others may see it differently), my partners always live apart from me.

[link] [reply]

I've lived with him in the past and it didn't make that much difference. It's not that I really mind about that: it's the right way for the two of us, but what I don't have is what some people would call a life partner - whether that means partner for life or partner you share every aspect of your life with. I prefer the latter definition, actually, as predicting the future always seems so optimistic...

[link] [parent] [reply]

i think the major thing is, does
being single bother you? if
you feel that you're single and
this bothers you/you feel lonely etc.
then i doubt people would be offended.

technically i am more single than you-
live alone, no sex partner, etc, but
i'm not offended..

i'm not sure being single is a bad thing
[sorry if that's a bit off topic] though-
right now i am really happy in my life
and having time alone to sort things out
is exactly what i need.. :)

[link] [reply]

I feel vaguely bothered by it, but that may be just because my life has changed so much and I'm trying to work out what I'm missing, whether I needed it and if so whether it can be replaced.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I tend to think of myself as single if I don't have someone I label as "boyfriend", "girlfriend" or "partner", but that may be a factor of my age and the fact I've never lived with a partner except on a short-term temporary basis.

I can't see why anyone would be offended by a slightly different use to their own though.

[link] [reply]

Your mention of age got me thinking: I think certain sections of society can load a hell of a lot of venom into the word 'single' when applying it to anyone over a particular age.

Somehow, at 22, I'm being congratulated for no-longer having a live-in partner, yet the same people who congratulate me pour scorn on any single woman over a certain age (this seems to vary, but is generally somewhere between say 30 and 45). Strangely this double standard only seems to be applied only to women. Yeah, it's nice to have a significant other of some sort, but I truly despise the use of a person's marital status as some kind of indication of their worth, the sort of 'ah well, at least I have a boyfriend' attitude.

Of course, I'm young, so this could be confined to my experience. Somehow I doubt it though.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, I consider myself to be single because I have nobody in my life in any partner like way at all. If there was someone that I was having a sexual AND emotional relationship with then I'd consider myself attached. If it ever came to pass that I was just sleeping with someone with no emotional attachment (very unlikely for me) then I would still probably consider myself single.

[link] [reply]

I don't think that singlehood is necessarily the same as aloneness or not-getting-any-ness. There is a freedom from obligation to others in singlehood that can be a very fine thing or a very scary thing depending on who you are. Right now, I am single too. I am glad you started this debate.

[link] [reply]

It depends on the situation.

Even when I was living with Roberta, I was still definitely 'single' particularly for some purposes you'll appreciate. But even without that, they'd have been elements of 'singleness' - her stuff meant I could only ever talk with her about the relationship in a very roundabout way, eg 'I like you' vs 'I love you'.

Plus the nature of the relationship was concealed by her from several of her friends. One mutual friend was shocked to discover, ages later, that it'd been a sexual relationship rather than 'flatmates'. I'd assumed he knew, she'd kept it quiet.

Now I have child, I don't think I can ever be 'single'. I may - ghod, I hope not - become a 'single parent' in the future, but not 'single'.

I'm not sure what I am now. I still have my flat, which makes me 'single' for some purposes (there are various useful rules which say you can only have one primary residence).

And I'm not married. So that means 'single' is usually the tickbox on forms.

But I am with someone in a committed (but open) relationship. And some things do get assumed by some people...

... so I don't think that I am any more.

To actually answer one of those questions, I think it has more to do with the emotional side of your relationship with someone(s) else. You can live with a sex partner and still be single. In part, that's because of society's idea that single = available, married = not.

I think of you as single, but not completely so.

(Noticing that I'm the first male to answer this!)

[link] [reply]

I think a lot of people confuse 'single' with 'available for a relationship' - you can definitely be one without the other. When I was living with my ex, I was definitely not single. Now, I'm in a committed emotional and sexual relationship, so I would not define myself as single - although we have separate flats, are financially independent of each other etc., so for the purposes of ticky boxes I am.

I guess is I was having a relationship which was more of a sexual friendship (I can't really imagine totally emotionless sex at the moment), or one which I cherished but knew could never be a 'partners' relationship, then I probably would define myself as single. I don't know the ins and outs of your relationship, as far as I can see if you both define yourself as single then I guess you are.

For me, to define myself as attached there has to be a pretty serious relationship there - lots of time spent together, moving in the same direction, able to just hang out together without driving each other batty. If I were say, just seeing someone once or twice a week for 'dates', whether there was sex involved or not, I'd say I was 'seeing someone' or even (blergh) 'dating'.

I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with you defining yourself as single just because you have a regular sex partner. If people get pissed off because they equate sex with coupledom, I'd say the problem is with their definition, not yours. All IMHO, of course.

[link] [reply]

I think single means "without a partner". For most people this means "without a primary partner". For others with more symmetric partnership arrangements I'm not sure what it might mean, presumably something like "without enough substantially committed partners".

It's also loaded with the sense of "available for a relationship". Again add "primary" or other modifiers as applicable. You would probably not worry whether you're single or not if you didn't think about starting another relationship. For example, if my relationship with Anastasia ended I would probably not want another one immediately, and therefore I would not call myself "single".

All this is unrelated to being sexually available, of course, except for the small minority of people who are really monogamous. Hmmm... Should we rename Nicky's gathering the "singles and sluts" gathering then?

Pavlos

[link] [reply]

Obviously there is already a double standard: a Political definition, and a personal definition.
Politically, if one is not married then (s)he is "single"
Personally, well, it depends. My defintion would be: One is single if they are not mutually emotionally obligated to interact (in the future) with another person. As a state of mind, "committed v. single" is a question of intentions. What are your intentions toward this person? Do you both feel that if you never saw each other again, you would be devoid of "closure?"
Maybe I should rethink.... by that definition, my relationship with my bestfriend causes me to ceasce to be single... Not that it matters as I'm married, but still...
Thank you for the topic!
(Male #2)

[link] [reply]

Like others who have posted, I wouldn't argue with people's self-definitions on this, but I thought of myself as single as long as I only had casual partners. Some of them were people I had sex with quite regularly, and some of them were people I had romantic feelings about, but there was no investment in the continuance of the relationship. That's what makes the difference for me.

[link] [reply]

Ian said never again single because he has a child. Someone mentioned age makes a difference. Someone said how committed any partner is is the decider. I think how you feel is probably the right one.

I've been married and am divorced so I don't think society sees me as single in the same way as not been married. I have two children but they are 28 and 30 so don't live with me and I don't see them daily or even weekly. I still see my ex-husband quite often and we call on each other for help because we both still care.

I have a sexual and emotional relationship with someone who cooks for me but doesn't live here. He lives with two other partners but insists none of us are primary, but all equally loved. He's here 3 or 4 times a week but rarely sleeps here. We do go on holiday together now though, which feels like coupledom. But that is partly because one of the other partners is not well enough to go on holiday now.

I'm never sure what to put on questionaires about how many in my household. I'm a single occupant.
Because he is here for a half a day, or an evening, or even when we are together for a few days going away somewhere, but he is at the place where he keeps all his things every day and goes back to sleep there it feels as if I am single, like you. I can and occasionally have had other sexual partners but they haven't felt like close relationships.

Do you get a council tax rebate for single occupancy? Perhaps that's the defining thing? Or maybe it is whether your finances are entwined? Whether you view things that happen as a unit. He doesn't share the shopping except occasionally. He doesn't have responsibility for household chores, but could do them when here. I think I feel lonely some of the time but glad to have nobody here others.

[link] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7 1	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

purplerabbits

God knows it's a shame but it's always the way

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Age

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Double Standard

(no subject)

(no subject)

August