Are Married People Happier Than Singles?
- Commitment, Marriage, Studies About Marriage
Brace yourself, single readers. Studies say the answer is yes. Before you attack me because YOU’RE happy, dammit, please read the rest of this blog post.
“Psychologists have pointed to marriage as the single most reliable happiness indicator. Across nations and ethnic groups, people report greater happiness from marriage than career, community or money [source: Seligman]. A 2005 survey from the Pew Research Center substantiates these assertions. Forty-three percent of married respondents reported that they were “very happy,” compared to 24 percent of unmarried individuals [source: Pew Research Center]. Those results were consistent for all age groups and genders.”
Now let’s clarify, so we can’t be misunderstood in the comments section*:
1. Marriage isn’t a guarantee of happiness. 48% of marriages end in divorce.
2. Single people can be very happy. In fact 24% of singles self-report as very happy.
3. No one here is judging you if you’re single. If anything, I’m just reiterating what you already know – life with love can be really, really nice – that’s why you ended up on a dating coach’s site. If you weren’t interested in love, you probably wouldn’t be reading this.
The article poses an important follow up to the observation that married people have greater potential to become very happy. “As any good scientist knows, correlation does not always equal causation. To close the case on whether marital bliss trumps the single life, we must deduce which comes first: happiness or marriage?” Here’s what the author discovered:
Humans are predisposed to certain happiness ranges depending on their genetics, personality and life circumstances.
“Michigan State University found that spouses exhibited an uptick in happiness soon after marriage. Then, those happiness levels gradually returned to their premarital state. This pattern is comparable to the effects of sudden financial improvement on people’s happiness. For people living with relatively low incomes, money can buy happiness for a while. Yet the longer someone gets used to having more cash on hand, the more it loses its luster.”
I thought this paragraph did a great job of summing up a possible reason that married people are happier, despite the possibility of divorce – they’re wired that way (just like extroverts, by the way): “This doesn’t negate the survey results that show higher happiness rates among married people. Rather, it has led some psychologists to conjecture that married people are merely more inclined toward happiness since they’re happier to begin with. Humans are predisposed to certain happiness ranges depending on their genetics, personality and life circumstances. Also, happier people are generally more social, and it follows that people who actively socialize will be more likely to meet someone they’d like to marry.”
Finally, the article points out that marriage isn’t a panacea and doesn’t, in and of itself, create happiness. It’s important to be a selfless and self-aware partner, fully cognizant of the sacrifices inherent in being part of a couple. You need to have realistic expectations, as I’m consistently preaching in this space.
Marriage won’t magically create happiness, which makes personal character development during the single years even more important.”
“A study from the University of Florida highlighted a relationship between the skills that people bring to a marriage and people’s anticipation for how much marriage will improve their lives. If partners have overly high expectations for marriage transforming their lives into in a joyous wonderland, they need to have the relationship skills to match. Otherwise, it’s like going to a spelling bee expecting first place without ever cracking a dictionary.
As we’ve learned from happiness surveys, wedding bells can portend happy futures. But happily ever after requires more than an “I do.” Marriage won’t magically create happiness, which makes personal character development during the single years even more important.”
That’s what we’re trying to do here. Learn to understand the opposite sex, how to date online and off, and how to make smart relationship decisions that can lead you to a happy marriage.
*Footnotes*
1. Marriage isn’t a guarantee of happiness. 48% of marriages end in divorce. Yes, but this statistic is highly skewed by astronomically high divorce rates for people who get married under the age of 25 and people who have lower education. If you’re a college educated woman who gets married after 30, you have over an 80% chance of having a lasting marriage.
2. Single people can be very happy. In fact 24% of singles self-report as very happy. Yes, but 43% of married couples do the same.
Chance says
EMK said:
“It’s important to be a selfless and self-aware partner, fully cognizant of the sacrifices inherent in being part of a couple. You need to have realistic expectations”
I like this point. If marriage is the goal, I think most people could make significant strides in developing the character necessary for a successful marriage by spending a lot less time assessing what they want in a partner and a lot more time assessing what it will take to be a great partner.
judy says
Maybe married people are happier but they were still single first! And presumably happy singles, otherwise they wouldn’t be married, would they?
Morris says
Don’t you get married to someone that makes you very happy? If anything this screams DON’T get married. You have a greater change of NOT ending up very happy(43 vs 57) even though you married someone who made you very happy before getting married.
And you can’t compare that to ALL people that don’t get married. That statistic would include the totally undateable, non-marriage material, etc. How about comparing it to successful daters vs married people? Or wealthy/attractive etc people to married people?
Just shows that sometimes statistics don’t mean much. Another way to look at it is:
100% of all married couples were very happy PRIOR to marriage. Only 43% remained very happy AFTER marriage. It’s all in the delivery.
Evan Marc Katz says
Oh, Morris. You’re completely making things up to suit your narrative. So let’s start over, shall we?
1. Don’t you get married to someone that makes you very happy?
No. It’d be nice to think that. But millions of people who shouldn’t get married do get married. These are people in emotionally and verbally abusive relationships, people who got pregnant accidentally and decided to get hitched, people who are infatuated for six months and get engaged, people who are afraid, lonely, or settling, people with family issues, addiction issues, depression issues, money issues, people who break up and make up, people who’ve been dating for seven years because he didn’t want to get married – ALL of these people get married, and they’re not necessarily happy, much less “very happy”.
2. 100% of all married couples were very happy PRIOR to marriage. Only 43% remained very happy AFTER marriage.
You’re twisting it to say that 100% of people were happy and then marriage itself made them unhappy. Not remotely true. As I just illustrated, lots of scared, lonely people get married. They are not necessarily happy to start. You’re acting like the institution of marriage destroyed the happiness of 57% of people. That is a blatant misintepretation.
3. The study uses the term “very happy”. Without doing more research, it also talks about “happy” and “somewhat happy”, etc. The point of my post is that the highest pinnacle of happiness “very happy” was reached by TWICE as many married people as compared to single people. That’s why people keep coming back to love, even though it has the chance to hurt them.
No more willful misreadings of my stuff. Go to RedState.com if you want to ignore facts and argue based on emotion.
Diane says
This year is my 25th wedding anniversary, and I am very happily married. but it has taken joy and tears, especially in the early years to get to this position. Of course marriage isn’t easy, it takes a lot of personal virtues from either partner for a successful relationship.
I have a single friend who says she is happy with her lifestyle choice. But she has also told me she is envious of my happy marriage!
Jackie H. says
As of today, I’ve been married for two months, and it’s been great so far!
Karl S says
So the actual question is – “Are happy people more marriageable?”
rachel says
Yes, I think you nailed it! That is my question too.
Ruby says
If millions of people get married for the wrong reasons, many of them stay married for the wrong reasons too, and not all of them get divorced. The fact that almost 50% of marriages end in divorce still doesn’t tell the whole story about people who slog it out, even though they are unhappy. And then there’s the fact that second marriages have higher divorce rates, and third marriages even higher than that, so it isn’t just a question of people getting hitched too young. Especially with the economic downturn, I’m guessing that many couples stay together mainly for financial reasons.
EMK is correct that those who are educated and have higher incomes have a greater chance at a happy marriage than those without. The crisis in marriage is hurting the less educated and the poor in greater numbers. But as far as early marriage goes, while marrying at 25 is greater predictor of marital happiness than marrying at 20, marrying at 30 rather than 25 doesn’t have much of an effect on happiness. Some researchers believe that those who get married in their mid-late twenties are actually happier than those who marry later. There’s also been a rise in co-habitation, and many of those people may be just as happy as those who are married.
I do think that stable people are more marriageable and more likely to be happy as a result. So while I’d agree that a happy marriage is a great thing, I have to wonder how many people really do achieve that. How can we ensure that more people do achieve relationship success?
Morris says
@EMK #4 – The point of my post WAS that I can twist it to fit my narrative. Just as the study does for IT’S narrative. How can you compare a group of people in a relationship(marriage) to a group of people who may or may not be in a relationship(un-married) people? At least compare the married to the people NOT married but in a relationship.
Jenn says
Not this old trope again.
(Refute the study before you call it a “trope” – EMK)
Ruth says
I’m having a Bridget Jones moment, stuck in a room full of ‘smug marrieds’. Morris is right, statistics can say whatever you want them to say, and that’s a fact!! I suppose the overwhelming feeling from this piece is, yet again, that being single is somehow wrong and a disgrace. Speaking as a 57 year old divorcee, whose much loved husband ran off with someone half his age, and who has been trying for the past 13 years to find a good relationship, I find it all upsetting and patronising. it’s wonderful that others have found marvellous relationships but others are not in that position. And, since women outnumber men, perhaps some of us never will be – statistics again!
judy says
Karl S – would you get into a relationship with an unhappy person???? (Excluding such things are bereavement and grief where support would be appreciated).
I like the mathematical equation
1 happy person x 1 happy person = + 2 happy people
(Now try the other mathematical variations!!!)
Ruby – if you have high incomes both of you, that doesn’t necessarily buy happiness in love. People have low incomes and can still be happy. I remember an old couple with a very low income and they loved each other dearly. They stayed within their means and bless them, used to cycle each day together.
Kiki says
I am a very happy person, I am married and I have children. I am not sure which of those is the cause and which is the effect.
Jenna says
My sister was just remarking to me the other day that there’s no joy in our parent’s marriage – they’ve been together for 36 years and from the time I was a child I remember them constantly fighting, shouting, snarling, and disrepecting each other. However, it’s not that they married the wrong person – neither was all that happy before marriage either, so they actually aligned quite well. It’s sad because they mean well, but simply don’t understand how to live a happy life in general – constant outbursts, complaining, negativity.
Seeing that has made me extraordinarily conscious of my mental state as a longtime single woman. I constantly visualize creating a happy, respectful family and after some rough times repeating some of their same patterns through depression, toxic outbursts, etc., I now consider myself an extremely stable, respectful, well-rounded and happy person at age 29. I know that it is very important to be happy now because we all can only attract partners who are on our level. By being stable and happy now, I will attract a stable and happy husband and we will have a stable and happy marriage (and happy, stable children). Walking around like a broken person because I’m single and thinking marriage will make me happier would be ridiculous. It wouldn’t work. I likely just would attract another dysfunctional person.
I suppose my happiness could increase with marriage, instead of just continuing, but I really have no idea how true love really works.
josavant says
Evan, this article you linked to doesn’t show that married people are happier. It said that married people have an uptick in happiness in the beginngin and then settle to their premarital levels of happiness after the honeymoon period. The article you linked to cites a study by Michigan State that is not linked to, and when you search for it, you can’t find the original. It also links to a Financial times article that doesn’t say that married people are happier, but that they value marriage at a certain price, which could have to do with higher incomes of married people (which may explain how they were more able to get married in the first place, and also explain happiness by financial security, not marriage).
What I take from the Financial Times part of the article is this. Married people have higher incomes, and place a value on marriage. that doesn’t mean they’re happier, but it could be the endowment effect- once you have something, like a spouse, you find it harder to hypothetically give him up compared with if you never had one. If they are happier than singles, it could be because they have higher income, which makes them more financially secure. But the higher income could have led to being more marriageable, not the marriage leading to the higher income. You can’t tell which came first.
I am not saying that marriage doesn’t make people happier. but this article doesn’t prove it. if anything, it hints at the opposite by pointing out that married people return to a premarital state of happiness after the honeymoon.
(http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/02/13/are-we-happy-yet/ and http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/02/13/are-we-happy-yet/17-3/ – EMK)
Goldie says
It depends. I am a team player, and a family-oriented person. I know I’m at my happiest in a healthy, functional family. (Even if it only consists of me and my kids.) I will probably also be at my happiest in a healthy, functional partnership. This goes for most of us humans. While some of us genuinely love solitude, most of us are, well, companionship animals. So I tend to believe the married couples that classified themselves as very happy.
That said, “healthy and functioning” is the key word. I was married, and was miserable in my marriage, and would never think of going back to it again. Just any warm body in your house won’t make you happy. And a really good marriage or partnership is incredibly hard to come by.
I’m not holding my breath. If it happens to me in my lifetime,great! If it doesn’t, I’ll be as happy as I can be on my own, taking care of pets and helping raise grandchildren.
Marie says
I think it’s great that married people could potentially be happier. Why envy them that? It’s a huge achievement to be able to get married and to the right person! People wouldn’t be trying to do it if there wasn’t some reward. Why all the bitterness? This miserable world needs more happiness in it and I’ll take it any way I can.
I’ve read this blog from the time I was single and I have to say it’s been a journey. I researched very hard what was the point of being married. But nothing beats actually being married. There are so many unnamed benefits to being married that I had no way of realizing before. I now get what all the hubbub was about. It’s not concrete. It’s just an overwhelming sense of well-being, is how I can describe it, and no I couldnt personally get this from being in a long term committed relationship. Its not really logical per se because you could argue what is it you get from being married that you can’t get from cohabitating? Yet it’s really different, at least for me! There’s a sense of permanence, commitment and actively building a future together stone by stone that I never got in any other type of relationship. I was never a miserable single and I would consider myself well-adjusted. But there is just something about marriage that is different. And I don’t think I’ve lost anything from my single life, but rather added another dimension to my life (well except the ability to have random sex which I could not do to begin with). Anyhow, to each their own but for those on the fence who are afraid and trying to think of marriage logically, if you feel like you are with the right person and you are ready, sometimes you just have to take a leap of faith.
Julia says
I think people take offense to posts like this because many people come here because they want to be married. So posting that they aren’t as happy as they could be is going upset people. I don’t need a reminded that I am single and want to be married. I remind myself about 20 times a day. Now I know some people here are sworn against marriage but they are the small but vocal minority.
marymary says
Marie
I’m not married but I agree with you. Indefinitely pursuing a relationship with no security is not for me. It’s not even about being happier for me. At some point just “going with the flow” loses its appeal.
50% of marriages may end in divorce (I think it’s falling in the UK) but the break up rate for “living together” or “LTR” must be way higher. If marriage was not that big a deal people wouldn’t bother arguing against it. I think a miserable marriage, though, is worse than being single. Even miserable single. It’s unhappiness squared.
PS here’s a random unrelated factoid. The break up of same sex civil partnerships in the UK is higher for lesbians than for men. I wonder why it’s women who seem to instigate most divorces.
Goldie says
Marie 17
“And I don’t think I’ve lost anything from my single life, but rather added another dimension to my life (well except the ability to have random sex which I could not do to begin with).”
I lost a lot from my single life in my last relationship, that I’m just now finding out about. Because he and I had such a good connection, and so much in common, and because I’m pretty easygoing in general, I was happy to have my life revolve around his – attending events in his town, hanging out with his friends etc. After he ended it, I found out that I’ve lost touch with most of the friends I used to have, after having had practically no contact with them for two years. Trying to reconnect is tough and, in some cases, impossible. He was my closest friend for two years; his friends and children were my social circle. I lost all of them overnight. For the first time in my life since I graduated college and moved to another town where I knew no one, I have hardly any friends. (But the few that I still do have are gold 🙂 ) It is much harder to make new friends at 46 than it was at 22.
This is not a statement against marriage or partnership. This is a warning. I agree with what Evan said that one should be “fully cognizant of the sacrifices inherent in being part of a couple”. But you have to also be able to evaluate long-term effects of the sacrifices you’re being expected to make, know where to draw the line, know when to have a conversation about meeting each other halfway. Don’t be like me. Even I I won’t be like me next time around
judy says
Ruth 11 – I can sympathize with you because I’ve been there – so they were all happy, smug couples? And they feel superior because they’re married? Or maybe you feel inferior because they seem to have it all together?
Heartache is a pig like that because we misconstruct our sand castles.
I do know a woman of 80, yes 80, who got married in white, yes she did!
Karl R says
Morris said: (#9)
“The point of my post WAS that I can twist it to fit my narrative. Just as the study does for IT’S narrative.”
You’re making up data that’s not actually true. You’re claiming that 100% of people are happy when they get married, and studies have shown that is incorrect.
Example:
http://www.prepare-enrich.com/pe_main_site_content/pdf/research/study4.pdf
You may be entitled to your own opinion about what the facts mean, but you’re not entitled to make up your own facts.
Ruth said: (#11)
“I’m having a Bridget Jones moment, stuck in a room full of ‘smug marrieds’.”
If the marrieds are just sitting around being smug, then we’re not providing helpful relationship advice … and providing helpful advice is the whole purpose of this blog.
Setting that aside, let’s see if any of the information provided could actually be helpful.
As a couple people suggested, happy people may find it easier to get married. That matches my personal experiences. My life started dramatically improving about 7 years ago. That primarily occurred because I stumbled into a career that turned out to be a great fit (so I can’t claim a lot of credit for the change).
But that dramatic change made me a lot happier. It also provided a boost in self-confidence. We all know that self-confidence makes dating easier, so the correlation between my increased happiness and my increased dating success may be purely coincidental.
Around that same time I dated two women. The first suffered from moderate to severe depression, and she was going through a bad time. All of those issues stemmed from things that were out of her control, so I can’t take any credit for being better off than her in that regard. But after 3 months of dating, I concluded that the relationship just wasn’t that enjoyable. Her circumstances weren’t her fault, but they were still a constant drag on the relationship.
The second woman was happier. She didn’t suffer from depression. She had lots of self-confidence. She was much more fun to be around. However, she was unhappy about her job. This was due to the administration at her job, which was truly screwed up. It wasn’t something that was under her control. (It was also something I’d experienced at previous jobs, so I could truly empathize.) Every time we got together, she spent 15-30 minutes venting about the latest idiocy that occurred at work (much like I used to). During the 8 1/2 months that we dated, she never had a good week at work. At one point while we were dating, I remember wishing that she’d have a good week, just for the novelty of something different.
When I’d had lousy employers, I’d complained and vented in a similar fashion to her. For the first time in my life, I realized what a drag that was to the people who had to listen to me.
Even within my marriage, my wife is a lot easier to be around when she’s happy. There’s a lot of truth to the saying, “Happy wife, happy life.” This is true even when my wife is mad about something out of my control (her job, her family). I suspect I’m a lot easier to be around when I’m happy too.
Just based on my personal experience, I would say that it’s easier to get married and stay married if you’re a happy person.
“The only thing over which you have complete control is your own mental attitude.”
– Napoleon Hill
The older I get, the more I realize that my happiness is influenced by my attitude, not just external circumstances.
And there are some studies that back that up.
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/selfesteem_positivepsychology/conversations/topics/1
(Read the entire article before critiquing it. One of the scientist who believed people couldn’t change their happiness later changed his mind.)
Trixie says
The pew studies that were linked above the conclusions were based on interviews with 3, 000 individuals, Now the population of the US is 300 million so how representative are 3000 people in a population that size. This study also states that Republicans and those who attend religious services are happier.
I think most people views on these issues are based on one’s reall life experiences. For me I was married once have no desire to do it again. My happiness generally does not depend on external factors such as marital status.
(@Trixie – You don’t much about statistics. A sample size of over 1000 will get you to a +/-4% accuracy rate. This – by the way – is how ALL polls are run, not by interviewing 300 million people – EMK)
Ruby says
Judy #17
<<Ruby — if you have high incomes both of you, that doesn’t necessarily buy happiness in love. People have low incomes and can still be happy. I remember an old couple with a very low income and they loved each other dearly. They stayed within their means and bless them, used to cycle each day together.>>
No, money doesn’t buy happiness, but having a decent income does provide relief for some things that can cause stress in a marriage. Also, people who have materials assets are more likely to get married in the first place. OTOH, people who are too materialistic tend to be less happy also, because they focus too much on things, rather than on each other.
Karl R says
Trixie asked: (#23)
“the population of the US is 300 million so how representative are 3000 people in a population that size.”
As Evan implied, a sample of 3,000 is the gold standard of statistical surveys.
“Generally, samples of 1,000 are well regarded for national surveys. (The layman, however, might be critical of samples of 1,000 or 2,000 considering an adult population of 180 million or so — particularly when their favorite TV show is threatened with cancellation because of poor ratings.) The key to good research, however, is not sample size so much as it is getting representative samples.”
Furthermore, Pew Research is one of the top research companies in the world. They know how to get a representative sample.
Morris says
@Karl R #22 – You realize I was exaggerating right? And you totally missed the point. Let me break it down so you.
The article was twisting things to fit IT’S narrative because it was comparing people in a relationship(marriage) with people who may or may not be in a relationship(un-married). And trying to infer that MARRIAGE was the difference maker. That’s not comparing apples to apples.
What if I said people who play SOCCER are happier than people who didn’t play SPORTS? Can I say playing SOCCER was the key to happiness? No. I should have been trying to compare people who play sports to those that don’t play sports to see if playing sports makes people happy. OR I should have compared people who play soccer to those that play basketball or baseball to see if soccer was the sport that makes people the happiest.
Back to the article. They should have been trying to prove being in a relationship made people happier.(Marriage or other) Or PROVE marriage was better than other relationship.
judy says
Ruby 24 – yes I totally agree but I do know of some very very rich people who don’t enjoy their money. Or the freedom it gives them. Having a huge income (or even a very comfortable one) does have a price tag.
I’m not being quarrelsome here – just thinking of possible other ideas.
Keep them coming Ruby, or anyone else.
David T says
Josavant 15
You hit the causal thing on the head. I did find the Richard E. Lucas (Michigan State) work on the long term longitudinal German studies. Here is a follow-on paper to the one referenced by the Time Magazine article referred to by the HowStuffWorks article Evan’s blog pointed us to. (*) In this paper Lucas addresses some oversights in the earlier work and still finds that it is a matter of happier people being more likely to get married in the first place.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-006-9001-x#page-1
and here is a link to the full original 2006 article since Springer is too to let us peek past the abstract for free.
(*)(This is how casual readers get into trouble with science. A Time article pulls material out of context from one paper, another popular press article draws from that, and then someone writes blog summary of what they gleaned from THAT article and that person’s readers have their takeaway from the blogger’s conclusions. It is a like a game of telephone only worse because it is entire papers, not just one sentence.)
Karl 22
“I would say that it’s easier to get married and stay married if you’re a happy person.”
Very well put. Happier people will be less likely to get divorced. That is intuitively obvious and at least one study backs it up. This means the married folk will pile up more in the happy column as the unhappy married people will be more likely to not be in their marriages as long.
Here is the paper, also by R. Lucas . http://pss.sagepub.com/content/16/12/945.short
My take is if you want to get married, you can improve your odds by being happy and making whatever life changes you need to be that way, and if you want to stay married, keep up your happiness AND choose a happy partner.
( Keep in mind all those studies were based on Germans, and you know how THEY are. 😉 )
marymary says
Trixie
I got happier from attending religious services. And maybe republicans have less angst, I wouldn’t know.
Morris says
I really should proofread before posting. Besides the ‘… break it down FOR you’. It should have read ‘What if I said people who play SOCCER are happier than people who didn’t play SOCCER?’
Goldie says
MaryMary 29, I was about to post that too. I was a church member for 20 years, I felt happy. Most people around me felt happy. That was kind of like the whole point, in a way. So whatever study it was that found religious people to be happy, doesn’t seem very far off to me.
Karl R says
Morris said: (#30)
“What if I said people who play SOCCER are happier than people who didn’t play SOCCER?”
Then you could justifiably claim that playing soccer was an indicator of happiness … which is exactly the same claim that Seligman and the Pew Research study stated.
You can’t claim that it’s the cause of the happiness (without additional support). But neither the article nor the underlying study make that claim … and Evan didn’t make that claim either.
Morris said: (#26)
“The article was twisting things to fit IT’S narrative because it was comparing people in a relationship(marriage) with people who may or may not be in a relationship(un-married). And trying to infer that MARRIAGE was the difference maker.”
Is that your only complaint?
Look up the following study:
Ellen Verbake, “Subjective Well-Being by Partnership Status and Its Dependence on the Normative Climate,” European Journal of Population 28.2 [May 2012]: 205—232
According to Ellen Verbake’s study:
“Subjective well-being varies by partnership status, with married individuals reporting the highest level of well-being, followed (in order) by cohabiting, dating, single, and finally divorced or widowed individuals.”
“Overall, the variation in well-being is quite substantial.”
Are you still going to claim that the authors of the article were “twisting things”? They could have supported their statement to your satisfaction just by adding one more study.
Morris said: (#26)
“Back to the article. They should have been trying to prove being in a relationship made people happier.”
It’s statements like this that convince me you have no understanding of statistical studies. The studies show a correlation between marriage and happiness. The don’t show that marriage causes happiness. Instead, the studies show that happiness may cause marriage.
If you’re going to complain about the article and the studies, at least read the article (completely) and the underlying studies before jumping to conclusions. This article was actually rather solid (largely because it didn’t draw many conclusions).
The biggest problem with the article is that it implied that the Pew Research survey showed that marriage was the most reliable indicator of happiness. While the Pew Research indicated that marriage was a reliable indicator of happiness, the most reliable indicator of happiness was the person’s health.
Yves says
Here are my issues with this post:
1) The Pew Research Center is a polling organization. It is not a scientific research organization, it is run by former media professionals, and it does not conduct studies on anything.
2) Pew hasn’t done a poll on marriage and happiness in many years. More recent titles of poll results include “Marriage Rate Declines and Marriage Age Rises,” “For Millennials, Parenthood Trumps Marriage,” “The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families,” “Barely Half of US Adults Are Married–A New Low.” Read a more report from this year on love and marriage:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/love-and-marriage/
3) What polls do: They give us a way to track the prevailing attitudes of people who are willing to reveal personal details of their lives to a polling organization. Polls can reveal trends in what people think.
4) What polls can’t do: Poll cannot tell you why something happens. They cannot verify the truth or falsity of people’s statements. They cannot tell you what will happen. They offer no diagnoses and make no predictions. Polls are not science.
5) A scientific study of marriage and its benefits, for instance, would have to study ALL people who are or have been married, not just people from certain demographics who get married and stay married. Such a study would include people who are divorced, widowed, and remarried however many times they are remarried. It would include people of all races, religions, and income levels. In long-term studies of marital status, the “always married” and the “always single” people score equally high on the happiness meter. The divorced and widowed score low on the happiness meter. This is why properly conducted studies are superior to polls: A poll would only ask currently married people to rate how happy they are. A similar poll of single people would include all of the formerly married people for whom marriage didn’t work and who are now more unhappy than the always-single people. But if you’re trying to gauge the effectiveness of marriage in making people happy, the widowed and divorced people should be included in the MARRIED group, not the single group. They were married, and marriage did not make them happy, it made them UNHAPPY. If you include them in the single group, as a poll does, their unhappiness unfairly drags down the overall happiness level of the single group. Biased studies trying to prove the benefits of marriage always try to disown formerly married people and push them into the single group, but this is phony science at best, dishonesty at worst.
6) When discussing the performance of a group, you cannot make assumptions about any one individual in that group based on the group performance. Thus, if you predict that 80% of a group will catch a cold this year, you cannot say that each individual in the group has an 80% chance of catching a cold this year. That’s illogical and bad math.
7) If you read the entire Pew report on happiness from Feb 2006 (from statistics that are at least 8 years old), you’ll see that the people who report being the “happiest” are healthy, rich, church-going, married Republicans. Read it for yourself and draw what assumptions you will:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/AreWeHappyYet.pdf
josavant says
David T thanks. That article you linked to shows that marriage does not make people happier. To reconcile it with the websites Evan links to, the explanation that makes the most sense is that though marriage doesn’t make people happier, people who rate themselves “very happy” are more likely to get married.
For that reason I think it would be disastrous to try to use the original article linked above (someone quoting someone getting a science article all wrong) to advocate that single people should get married because marriage makes them happier. There’s no evidence that that’s true. The bulk of the evidence is that however happy you were before, you’re the same level of happiness after marriage.
Sparkling Emerald says
I don’t know why anyone finds it so hard to believe that more married people report being happy. I see nothing here to suggest that the “trope” of ALL married people are wildly happy and ALL single people are utterly miserable, but just that overall, more married people report being very happy. Makes perfect sense to me.
My S2BX and I started out as happy individuals, and we were a happy couple for many years. Unfortunately, some life events happened, that battered away at our individual happiness, and that coupled with the fact that we were infatuated with each other and got married in the star struck mode, which obscured some basic incompatibilities as well, pretty much ate away at any happiness we once shared.
The happiest I have ever been is when I was happily married, the most miserable I have ever been is when I was miserably married. Now, single again in my late 50’s, I would describe myself as content with life, but something’s missing. (loving and being loved by a man) I know I can continue to have a contented life, despite that missing element, but I could be so much happier if I shared my life with someone special. However, I could also turn my contented life into a living hell, if I chose wrong again. I still struggle with, deciding weather or not to stay content and single or to go for broke and try to find that joy in love again, while risking my heart once again.
Evan Marc Katz says
Thank you, SE, for being a voice of reason.
I don’t see why it’s surprising that people who are in love are happier than people who are not in love. And that happy people who marry happy people tend to be the happiest of all.
But if you dissenters want to think that you’re just as happy without love, go on with your bad selves.
(Please don’t tell me that the study didn’t measure love, but marriage. People who are in love usually get married, so I’m making the two equivalent.)
Jenn says
Doesn’t seem to me that many people are buying the “marriage makes you happy” message. And many seem not to believe that marrieds are happier than singles. Even that 2013 that report says that. Sorry y’all!
David T says
@Jos 34
That is the the Michigan State study cited by the Time article which in turn was cited by the HowStuffWorks article that Evan started the thread with. Married people are happier, because happier people tend to be the ones who get married. What it says is that happiness spikes at the beginning and then returns to its pre-marriage baseline level. This is ONE study (albeit a big and heavily cited according to scholar.google.com so presumably reliable) study. YMMV, but it is the study that is the basis of this thread, so it is relevant.
People in love are happier, but that is because happy people are more likely to be and stay in love!
Evan Marc Katz says
No, David. You’re turning this into this black/white thing and it’s not.
People in love are happier not simply because they’re biologically happier, but because love is about the highest, most meaningful feeling in the world.
Why you think I have a job if love/marriage didn’t have the potential to make people infinitely happy?
No one is suggesting that a bad marriage makes people happy, but rather than twice as many people who called themselves “very happy” were married. You can ascribe all of that to people’s natural dispositions, but you’d be missing a large part of the truth – love makes the world go round.
I am a MUCH happier person in marriage than I was as a single guy – and I wasn’t a miserable single guy.
Sparkling Emerald says
EMK@37-
YW. I think there is a lot of “sour grapes” talk on this blog. This blog is specifically geared towards women who WANT to fall in love, but there are still a handful of commenters who ask questions such as “Why do you women think having a man is so darn important” and “Why don’t you all get a life” etc. I think I’ve even replied, “What are YOU doing on a blog like this if you don’t want any part of this.” Methinks some of the ladies (and gents too for that matter) doth protest to much. And I know I’m going to catch a boatload of carp for this, but I suspect the same “sour grapes” talk is going on with the women who spout off about how they just love casual sex, ONS, FWB and being a booty call.
For me, my reluctance to go back into the jungle isn’t sour grapes. I KNOW those grapes are sweet, juicy and delicious. They also seem to be just out of my reach. 🙁
marymary says
Sparkling
Go for it, sign up for the coaching. You only live once. You have to go for what you believe in. If you don’t, you don’t really believe in it. Take a break, there are great joys to being single. Then see how you feel.
I was VERY happy single for years. No dates, nothing. But there is something special in really knowing another person and being “seen”. It’s the acceptance. He says that he feels free to be himself with me. it’s about that for me, rather than having more, as in more money or happiness or success or sex.
It’s not that we are fake with other people but I am not intimate with them in the same way. That would be weird.
Yves says
People in love always get married? That’s such a weird statement. Maybe you only fell in love once and got married, but that’s you. I think most people fall in love many times during their lives and they get married if they’re both in a position to do so and want to at the same time.
I really don’t understand this desire to cram everyone into the same life narrative and judge everyone else who doesn’t follow it. Women do this (the usual lame stereotypes), men do this (the usual lame stereotypes), men and women together do this (the usual lame stereotypes)–and here’s the (whatever numbers we can find anywhere, from anyone, to support whatever lame stereotype we’re promoting today). And this is THE TRUTH.
If you’ve noticed, people and their choices do not “make the world go ’round.” The world continues to go ’round whether people “love” or not. And people love in whatever ways they love and and the world continues to go ’round whether people get married or not.
LaFoi says
‘The world continues to go ’round whether people get married or not.’
Yves, functionally speaking you are correct.
There is married love and also a myriad of ways of sharing love in the world. There are people who -through choice or otherwise – live without love.
A bird (with wings) can decide never to to leave the ground.
For others, the risk it takes to leave the ground and try their wings may be vindicated by the eternal soar of love and the glow it gives to their world which of course, as you rightly say, will keep turning without it, but it may be a less illuminated place.
Christoff says
This site is good and the advice is usually quite good. EMK’s all over thesis that women must be feminine women who think before they criticize and think before they become pro-active in their dealings with men is important to understand. It is about male psychology.
Concerning marriage I will say this: the most important thing for this girl is being passionately in love, with the chemical attraction (not just “lust” but intellectual-physical-psychological chemistry) and the same values. I have experienced this and there is nothing like it.
I was also in an eight year marriage with a wonderful man with great values–but I did not have this same sexual/psychological intensity, the same rapport that made me feel so very womanly. I felt loved but more like great friends. This affected me as a woman, made me feel “like wood” at times.
I believe strongly in marriage but there are also far too many miserable marriages, far too many people who feel “trapped” or marry for the wrong reasons. I waited to marry (though not really by design, it happened that way) in order to mature aspects of my personality and emotional health having seen bad relationships around me growing up. This was a wise thing to do and I still looked and felt very young. So ladies, do not rush.
All in all what is important is to find the one with whom you feel the most intense sense of shared identity. That is the best.
Julia says
@ SE 40
And I know I’m going to catch a boatload of carp for this, but I suspect the same “sour grapes” talk is going on with the women who spout off about how they just love casual sex, ONS, FWB and being a booty call.
Well, I am going to call you on your “carp” I am one of those women who can have a ONS or FWB but I ALSO believe in love and marriage and want it very deeply. I’m unsure why people find it hard to fathom that humans are deeply complex beings that can feel different things at different times or even at the same time. I didn’t protest any of this survey, I know its true. I just understand that some people are hurting and might lash out against a post like this. So yeah, your carp has been called!
Sparkling Emerald says
Yves@42-People in love always get married? That’s such a weird statement.
The statement actually was “People who are in love usually get married”.
josavant says
Evan I think you’re taking this more personally than need be, to the point that you are calling those of us who questioned the link you sent “bad selves.” That is a personal attack against people who were trying to clarify what the science really says and were not trying to attack you or anyone else personally.
David T and I said that two Michigan studies show that people are the same level of happiness before and after they got married, which suggest that marriage does not cause people to become happier or unhappier on the average. You may say, how does this reconcile with the Pew cites you showed. It does in this way, if you say that those who are more likely to rate themselves “very happy” are also more likely to get married. but you can’t reconcile them the vice versa way, to say that marriage makes people happier, because that goes against the other published studies. As for the article you linked in the original post, that wasn’t science itself, just an interpretation of it.
You say that your marriage made you happier. That’s great, but why find the need for scientific studies to support that more generally. That is your story, and we are happy for you, and a personal story is enough for your readers. If you try to force science studies to back it up, that’s where it doesn’t all fit together.
Sparkling Emerald says
Marymary@41 – Thanks for the sweet post. I plan on trying once again when my D becomes final (which will either be end of this year, or early next year) I don’t have 5 grand to spare for coaching (the finances of my D were NOT good !) I did buy FTOO online, and I have the online version,* and if I can find it on my computer again, I will use that as my guide to dating again. I did get VERY good results when I re-wrote my profile, using the practical how-to-advice in FTOO. I just recently lost 8 pounds after a 9 month plateau, and I have scheduled a professional photo shoot for next weekend. (I wasn’t particularly overweight, but now I can fit into some of my better outfits)
In addition to not having 5 thou to spare, I am 58 and I won’t be doing a major personality overhaul. I want to find someone who accepts me AS IS ! And I of course want someone I can accept as is. Flaws and all. I think I have some “flaws” that might make me “uncoachable”. Apparently my list of “flaws” doesn’t make me un-dateable, but I do seem to be un-relatable. Of course, if you read ALL of the dating advice in the dating advice jungle ALL FLAWS are unacceptable in women, and yet we are to accept a man AS IS (just no beating, cheating or emotional unavailable) The other worldly level of perfection that many men seem to demand is out of my reach.
Hopefully, when I can change my relationship status from “separated” to “divorced or single”, I will get more responses from better quality men. (not better looking, not smooth talking players, but good men who are a better match for me) Of course, if I change my status to “divorced”, the next question will be “So long have you been divorced ?”. I have a feeling that looking at my watch and saying “About 15 minutes” is not acceptable. 🙂 I am hoping that the judge will rubber stamp our D by the end of this year instead of early next year. Saying we were separated over 2 and half years, and the D became final LAST year, sounds longer than saying the D became final THIS year.
You have to go for what you believe in. If you don’t, you don’t really believe in it.
That’s the rub, I believe in love and marriage FOR OTHER PEOPLE. Especially if they desire children. Just don’t think it’s in the cards for me again. Not sure if I want to upset my contented single life to take a long shot gamble on a “very happy” life that could turn into a very miserable life if I choose wrong again. Not really sure if love without marriage is possible for long term. I have very rarely seen a long term pairing where BOTH were content to stay in the “in love, but never getting married” phase. I have seen it both ways, sometimes it’s the man who wants to get married, sometimes its the woman.
Have you ever seen a “let’s NOT get married” ceremony where couples exchange “I DON’Ts ? ” 🙂
Chance says
@Christoff (# 44):
“Concerning marriage I will say this: the most important thing for this girl is being passionately in love, with the chemical attraction (not just “lust” but intellectual-physical-psychological chemistry) and the same values. I have experienced this and there is nothing like it.”
Out of curiosity, what is the longest period of time that you’ve experienced what you described? I think that’s pretty hard to achieve for an extended timeframe. If everyone aspired for that in a marriage, while refusing to settle for less, hardly anyone would stay married.
Goldie says
SE
“The happiest I have ever been is when I was happily married, the most miserable I have ever been is when I was miserably married. Now, single again in my late 50”²s, I would describe myself as content with life, but something’s missing. (loving and being loved by a man) I know I can continue to have a contented life, despite that missing element, but I could be so much happier if I shared my life with someone special. However, I could also turn my contented life into a living hell, if I chose wrong again. I still struggle with, deciding weather or not to stay content and single or to go for broke and try to find that joy in love again, while risking my heart once again.”
Very well said!! Second every word. Except for your last sentence – because I already know I’ll be going for broke again, fairly soon. At a bare minimum, you’ll meet new people and make new friends and/or business connections (yes, this sometimes happens). I still stay in touch with some of the people I met online in 2010 and 2011.
Karl R says
Christoff said: (#44)
“Concerning marriage I will say this: the most important thing for this girl is being passionately in love, with the chemical attraction (not just “lust” but intellectual-physical-psychological chemistry) and the same values. I have experienced this and there is nothing like it.”
It’s called infatuation. It happens to everyone. It lasts one to three years, then it fades … for everyone.
If pulse-pounding infatuation is the most important thing for you, don’t waste your time getting married. You’ll spend more time getting divorced than you’ll spend happily married.
You’ll get better results if you hop from one relationship to another. Never move in with the man (or let him move in with you), so you can dump him as soon as the infatuation fades. It makes the breakups less messy, and it allows you to move on to the next relationship immediately.
christoff says
In answer to number 49:
Ten years.
Yves says
Whether the statement is that people in love “usually” get married or people in love “always” get married, it is a mighty strange claim. I can’t even imagine what place that claim comes from. Is the statement supposed to be that people who get married are usually in love? Self report being in love on a Pew poll?
I get the impression that on this blog the word “love” has a very limited definition. It seems to be understood here as this feeling for one person primarily, a feeling that is based on some sexual romantic pairing. That isn’t what love means to me personally. I am very happy that I am able to love outside the confines of the dynasty I’m supposed to be creating. But my way of loving is not easy to describe to people who don’t experience it. It isn’t happiness. It’s closer to joy.
Sparkling Emerald says
Julia @45-Perhaps I should have said SOME women. If casual sex floats your boat, then I’m happy for you. If you can enjoy casual sex on your journey to a deeply desired love filled marriage (and perhaps motherhood ? ), then good for you !
And you know what, I do believe that people are complex, and there are women who CLAIM to be all cavalier and casual about sex, but deep inside they are heartbroken, disappointed, and have been fooling themselves. I have sopping wet shoulders from hearing girlfriends cry to me about how their booty call guy broke their heart. I have heard the back and forth, from “I want a real relationship, I’m sick of thinking a relationship is developing, and then it turns out we were just f****ing.” Then the next guy she dates tells her from the git go that he wants to just go with the flow, and suddenly this “go with the flow” NSA sex, is just fine and dandy with her. Then six months later crying about the guy who was never in a relationship with her to begin with has “broken up” with her.
LOTS of people LIE about their feelings about relationships. I think mostly they lie to themselves. I think most people would rather say that they never gave a rat’s patoot about the guy (or gal) who humped and dumped them, and say that the “dumping” was just as much their idea. They would prefer to say it was no more significant than clearing their throat, rather than to admit that they had hopes for a relationship, believed one was possible, slept with a guy (or girl) hoping they would BECOME a couple, and then were dumped and are now feeling dissappointed about it. I would venture to say MOST (not all) women hate it when a guy pulls the amazing disappearing act after sex. But I am also sure that there ARE exceptions, and everyone one of those exceptional women post on this blog 😉
Now I will sit back and wait for the next “boatload” (you know what I mean) of “carp” (and you know what I mean)
Yves@42 “I really don’t understand this desire to cram everyone into the same life narrative and judge everyone else who doesn’t follow it. Women do this (the usual lame stereotypes), men do this (the usual lame stereotypes), men and women together do this (the usual lame stereotypes)—and here’s the (whatever numbers we can find anywhere, from anyone, to support whatever lame stereotype we’re promoting today). And this is THE TRUTH.
You got that you were being JUDGED, but someone REPORTING people saying weather or not they are happy ? You know what I got out of the article ? That there’s a lot of people in the world who are not “very happy”. Even tho twice as many married people reported being “very happy” the percentage of married people was still less than half. And for single people it was about a quarter. I wish I knew what the other choices were. Hopefully, those who weren’t in the “very happy ” category weren’t all miserable. Hope their were some choices like “reasonably happy” or “content”, which is how I would describe myself.
Happy people are more marryable in my opinion. So it doesn’t surprise that more married report being happy. This study does NOT say that ALL married people are happy, and I didn’t see anyone trying to CRAM anyone into a marital box claiming it would make them happy. I don’t condone miserable people getting married as a panacea for their unhappiness. All that will happen is that they will be miserable together and bring some miserable kids into the world. If I got anything out of this study, is that there is a serious happiness deficit going on, among people of all relationship statuses.
Other things to consider about how unhappy people are less marriagable. Poor health and poor financial situations can eat away at a person’s happiness. I think people looking for a marriage partner also tend to stay away from people with serious health issues or financial problems. (Of course this isn’t 100% true) So people with serious life issues impacting their happiness aren’t going to be sought out as eagerly for marriage (except maybe only by another unhappy person) Or unhappy people might opt out of marriage unless they can change their life circumstances and attitudes.
I know I wouldn’t EVEN consider dating the first year after my marriage dissolved. I was just too depressed to EVEN consider it. I didn’t even want to think what I would wind up attracting in that state. But now it is like a double edged sword. I worked on my self, I got out, I socialized, I got back into acting, I went after a promotion at work, I started working out, riding my bike, doing yoga, making new friends, etc. etc. And now I am content again. Feeling good about myself. So now I feel like I am in a good enough state of mind to find love again, but not so sure if I even want to risk it, because I could end up just finding more heartache, and then I would have to start building myself up again. Other times I just think I should go for it anyway, I’m pretty sure the BIGGEST heartache of my life has already happened and anything else will seem like small potatoes by comparison.
Sparkling Emerald says
Christoff@44 – Concerning marriage I will say this: the most important thing for this girl is being passionately in love, with the chemical attraction (not just “lust” but intellectual-physical-psychological chemistry) and the same values. I have experienced this and there is nothing like it.
Christoff- No disrespect intended, but passion blinds, and that white hot passion that many people feel initially, fades with time. The passion gives way to something more enduring tho, for those who can appreciate the gift of long term love. Caring, affection, warmth, kindness, companionship, compatibility, comfort, a shared history, seeing each other through hard times, having each others back and being there for each other is much more valuable IMHO than trying to keep the allusion of passion alive for 40 years.
I call my S2BX my “fair weather husband”. He complained that after 20 years of marriage he no longer had that wildly in love feeling with me, and that in the beginning things were “so easy”, and since that feeling is gone, he wants out. (But he gives me that tired old line that he “loves” me, but he’s just not “in love” with me.) Life isn’t always easy. In 40 years, expect life to deliver hardships. Ailing, aging dying parents, in-laws behaving badly, rebellious teens, career set backs, financial woes, spousal illness, etc. A different picture than 2 starry lovers wining and dining without a care in the world. Great memories, but that doesn’t last forever.
I CRINGE when I get junk e-mail from different “Love gurus” claiming to try and sell you the secret of “How to make the honeymoon last forever” How about learning to appreciate having a lifelong partner who genuinely loves and cares about you through thick and thin and will always have your back ?
That honeymoon feeling is GREAT. I just think it’s unrealistic to expect it to last forever. Just switch out partners every 2-5 years if that’s all you want. (serial monogamy, I’ve actually considered going that route) But marriage is not going to be a blissful 40 year honeymoon rolling around in satin sheets, drinking champagne and feeding each other chocolate covered strawberries. Life happens, some of it is unpleasant. Holding on to each other through the tough times, illness, financial upset, etc. is more important to me than the fleeting feeling of passion. Although I DO want it initially, the MEMORIES of the honeymoon can get us through hard times, but I have no allusions of a “passion” that last for 20 years.
Stix says
I would say the happiest i’ve been is now, within a healthy mutually committed relationship. The unhappiest i’ve ever been was in an unhappy marriage. I was briefly happily married and at that time probably nowhere near as happy as I feel now. Most of my happiness now, however, is independant of my relationship, amd the relationship is like gravy. I might consider getting married again. I believe I could do it. That said, parenthood (becoming a mother) is my priority, and marriage is low on the list. My bf and I talk about the possibilities of having children in a few years often, and have never talked about getting married.
Just speaking for myself.
Morris says
@Karl R #32 – You’re all over the place. I don’t want to copy/paste/respond to every point/insult since it would be/take too long.
Before I start. Let me be clear that I personally DO believe that if I get married I would be happier. But that’s besides the point. I take issue with an article(howstuffworks) that twists things(PEW polls and other source materials) to paint a narrative(marriage and it’s correlation to happiness).
You think the article is SOLID. That it doesn’t make conclusions. I’m ok with that. I’ll just tell you why I think the article is lousy.
The author finds(in order):
That marriage is worth $100k.[Financial Times]
That people are waiting to get married.[U.S. Census Bureau]
That there are now more single people.[Beckwith]
That married people earn more, live longer. That marriage promotes better health.[CDC][Stein, Song and Coady]
That 48% of marriages end in divorce.[CDC]
That people report greater happiness from marriage than career, community or money.[Seligman]
That 43% of married couples are ‘very happy’ compared to 24% of unmarried individuals.[Pew Research Center]
That there is a short term spike in happiness when getting married.[Stein, Song and Coady]
Happier people tend to marry.[Although not referenced I believe it comes from Stutzer and Frey]
People have a happiness baseline they gravitate to before/during and even after marriage. Although divorced people have a slightly lower level of life satisfaction.[Grohl]
(Adding [Becker] here as well since it is in the sources. Actually a few of the above and Becker are really just articles on the German study.)
Expectations for marital bliss play an important role in determining happiness.[McNulty and Karney]
I get it. The author doesn’t say marriage=happiness. And I understand the individual points listed above may be true.(Although possible taken out of context.) But it’s not relevant because it’s plain to me the narrative the author is trying to paint.
Maybe it’s just me. A bunch of positive things about marriage. A couple neutral things. And what? Not a single positive source/reference about singles in an article titled ‘Are married people happier than singles?’?
And to me that’s a lousy, lazy and poorly written article.
As far as the application of statistics and my lack of understanding them. The PEW report showed MANY correlations to happiness including marriage. To cherry-pick one takes things out of context. Is it true? Yes. Does it mean something? Beats me. As far as we know the vast majority of the ‘very happy’ people came from the same group.(White, church going married republicans.) Do happy people tend to be white? If you’re happy do you tend to become republicans? Maybe. But cherry picking like that just doesn’t smell right.
Gina says
HAPPILY married people are happier than single people. I have been married twice and was NOT happy. I am far more happier living my life as a single person. Without a doubt, being happily married trumps being happily single any day.
Stix says
I wonder…How do we know how happy “very happy” is?
The question is posed “Are married people happiER than single people?”
Not
“Are there more happy married people, than happy single people.”
How is a person to know that the married person who reports being “very happy” is happier than the single person who reports being “very happy”. And what is the comparison? My “very happy” might be only moderately happy to someone else, or over the top happy to yet another person. Someone elses “very happy” may look depressing, to me.
judy says
Gina 57 – you said it. I was married once too – and it was not a good marriage. We both chose the wrong person and try as we did, we could not make it work.
Happily single? Certainly these days, being single is not so much of a big deal but marriage with a good man?
Who wants to be single when you can have a loving relationship?
Stix says
I have an aunt (married) who is basically immobile, and a shut in. I know she would report being “very happy” if asked. She feels very happy with the way her life is. She has constructed it that way. If I were to live like that, I would feel miserable. When I was “single” (on my own) I may have reported being “moderately happy” though I guarantee I felt a lot “happier” under those circumstances than i ever would within her “very happy” circumstances.
I’m not entirely sure what point i’m trying to make…I just know that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, and the general concept applies here.
So, perhaps a greater number of married people reported being “very happy”, but when I see that (under the heading “Are married people happier than single people”) I want to know what their “very happy” looks like, and what does that mean as it relates to marriage? Perhaps these people are just very happy living a life I would feel miserable within.
Sparkling Emerald says
I clicked on the link to the Pew study to get some more info. A few things stood out for me, that make me take this study with a grain of salt. I was glad to see the survey also had “pretty happy” as well as “very happy” for a choice, but the narrative did not really address the “pretty happy” crowd. So going by the “very happy” group which only comprised 34% of those surveyed and ignoring the “pretty happy” group which comprised only 50% that is leaving out a very big piece of the picture. So that leads me to believe (and I could be wrong) that this narrative was deliberately written to paint a picture of married, religious, republicans being happier (and by implication better) I didn’t click on the link within this link to read the whole study because I am no math genius and I doubt I could slog through the whole thing. However, if you add the “very happys” and the “pretty happys” together you get a total of 84% and I think that’s a pretty good amount. And looking at the total group of people who answered either “Very or “pretty” happy, I am guessing that there wouldn’t be such a big divide between the survey respondents based on politics, religion or marital status.
Anyway, I’m not going to run out and get religion, change my party affiliation or get married based on what a survey says. My heathen, single self is pretty happy, as is.
The other thing that concerned me was that there was only ONE category for the less than happy and that was “not to happy”. Of that 15% percent who were “not too happy” how many were VERY unhappy (IOW, utterly miserable ?)
I suspect that in the 53% of married people who did not claim to be “very happy” that yes, there was a large segment of “pretty happy “ folks, but what percentage of the married were VERY unhappy ? We can’t tell by THIS survey, but I think if they asked THAT question, the UTTERLY MISERABLE folks in the married category, would outnumber the UM’s in the single group.
It really sucks being utterly miserable while single, but if you really want to maximize your misery, marry another miserable person and watch your emotional well being sink to new lows.
Also, EMK addressed some of these issue in HIS narrative, said he realized marriage is no guarantee of happiness, that single people can be happy and that he’s not judging anyone, so stop shooting the messenger ! The messenger added his own disclaimer to the report, and he is not suggesting that married people are better or that single people should just marry their way to happiness.
Direct link to the PEW survey.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/02/13/are-we-happy-yet/
Christoff says
To Karl #51.
No, it was not “infatuation”, it was a deep and profound feeling for this person that lasted a decade over many difficulties.
To Emerald #55
Passion “blinds” people who let themselves be blinded by it. Again, I am not talking “lust”, living in a haze of sexual attraction “only”– but the passion that is a sense of deep physical and psychological attraction, a desire that for me has never faded.
Others may not know what I am talking about. But I think few people are capable of the kind of impassioned love I have known. Cynics may say what they want.
Yves says
Morris, Stix–well put. This almost 10-years-old poll of 3000 people tells us nothing of value. Is this the best “empirical” data that is out there on how great married people are? I suspect so.
marymary says
christoff
I believe it can happen. But that it’s also like being struck by lightning. It happens to very few people, and even then – almost never more than once.
And of those (I’m not speaking of you, I know nothing about you), a significant proportion are propelled by something non-compatible with normal life (eg Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton).
Kiki says
@Christoff 63,
was he married to another woman? I have a couple of friends who reported having long and passionate love (+5 years) with men that could not be truly theirs, and I think there must be an element of impossibility and heartache (for lack of better word) to sustain passion over a very long term.
As someone who is long married, I must say that for me and my husband the infatuation cooled of in the first 6 months, but then again, it is such a lovely feeling that I remember it even today. I wish it could have lasted but I think it is mostly a matter of brain chemistry and not about any voluntary effort one could make to preserve it.
Goldie says
I think I know what Christoff is talking about. I have experienced some of it in my last relationship and it was truly an eye-opener. I was in love for the first time in my life at 45. It was just an amazing feeling of safety, trust, peace, total acceptance of the person with all his flaws. Meanwhile, this person was coasting on chemistry, which of course wore off at the end 🙁
When we first met, he had crazy chemistry for me, and I was “meh”. But he treated me well, cared about me, we had a good connection, so I figured, what the heck, let’s get together. Over time, because of how he treated me and how we connected with each other, I came to develop feelings for him that I had never had for anyone before. Both in my marriage and in the one relationship I had after it, we’d had crazy chemistry for each other.
With my x-husband, the chemistry wore off about the same time that our children were born. His wore off earlier than mine. He immediately proceeded to avoid my company half the time and treat me like dirt for the other half. It was by far the worst year of my life. Then one day I woke up feeling nothing for him. Then we stayed together for fifteen more years. Good times.
You can tell I’m not a big fan of chemistry in relationships. But being in love (I think Karmic referred to this state of mind on here once as “in-love-ness”) is pretty much the opposite of chemistry. I would say it is closer to what one feels towards their children, than to the red hot infatuation occurring at the beginning of a relationship. I hope, next time I develop this in-love-ness for a man, that it will be mutual. And I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility. All it takes is two patient, loyal people who have an interest in each other as a person, respect each other, and are willing to work out their minor issues in order to nurture the connection they have.
Jenn says
marymary@65: I was just thinking about Elizabeth Taylor this morning in the context of this blog topic, actually. I remember she said that she married for love each time she got married. She didn’t sleep around at all. And yet she’s been mocked and attacked for marrying multiple times. In her mind, she’s behaved morally and responsibly, and she’s completely pro-marriage.
I know people who just have to be married, and if the marriage sucks, they get out and find another one. I couldn’t do it that way, of course, because I really value my independence and I wouldn’t get married unless…well, I can’t imagine many circumstances that would compel me to get married. Anyway, people are different, and I do respect people who aren’t hypocrites about marriage.
I do mock the marriage hypocrites, though. 🙂
josavant says
Goldie and others, how is “chemistry” different from being “in love”, and depending how you answer that, how is being “in love” different from plain “love”? When we get to all these little differences, that’s where it gets confusing.
Goldie says
Cannot speak for the others, but here’s my two cents. That tingly feeling in your various body parts that you sometimes experience towards a person you’ve just recently met, and know next to nothing about… that’s chemistry. Some people also refer to it as being in love. I like to differentiate the two, for my own use. Higher up on this thread, I have offered the definition of love that I use, for myself. I have heard my own mom refer to being in love with my dad in very similar terms. She said she had not originally had any kind of overwhelming feeling when she married him, but that over the years, as they became close, he grew on her, and now she was feeling something safe and secure, that, she said, might be called love. Only reason why I mentioned it at all on this thread was that the commenter Christoff was pretty much being pummeled by everyone for saying he or she wants love in their marriage. So I offered my version of what Christoff might have meant.
Selena says
After many years of reading dating/relationship forums I think the definition of “chemistry” rather depends on the context. If it is a first meeting, particularly a blind date, or online date, I see it as purely a measure of initial sexual attraction. Sometimes there just isn’t any there. If the idea of kissing your date goodnight is repulsive…well, it is what it is. So when someone says, “I didn’t feel any chemistry” after 1,2 dates – I assume that’s what they felt – insufficient sexual attraction.
When I examine my own life, I see chemistry as something more than sexual attraction. I’ve been highly sexually attracted to men with whom conversation was stilted, boring, I felt like an interviewer with a really dull, reluctant subject. Because I was inexplicably on a hormone high with the particular individual, I would always discount this. How could he be boring when I felt such a zing being with him? Or just thinking about him (constantly) when I wasn’t with him? 🙂
These dating situations inevitably proved to be brief. He would end it and I would pine for awhile until at some point wondering what I ever saw in him.
In contrast, the men that I’ve loved and lived with, weren’t the ones I obsessed about at the beginning. Looks/hormone-wise I’d think -he’s okay. It was actually the conversations that drew me. It was what made us get close to each other. Sex was a bonus.
A few years ago a commenter on this blog named Helen wrote she thought personality compatibiltiy was the most important thing in a relationship. More than sexual compatibility, more than having similar values, or shared interests, or having a lot in common. I pondered this idea for months and felt she had hit on the real definition of chemistry. Compatibility of personalities.
It explains so much to me. I’ve had many different jobs, and have lived in many different places. There was always one co-worker, and one neighbor in any place I ever worked or lived that became a good friend to me – amongst the many others I knew from work, the neighborhood. Why was that? Sometimes our lives were similar, sometimes they weren’t, but there was that something indefinable that drew us to become friends. And the same with lovers. What is that indefinable something? Personality compatibility is what rings true to me across all the relationships I’ve had with people. Lovers, friends and relatives.
The difference between being in love and hormonal infatuation? Time. And living together as partners and seeing how that works out.
starthrower68 says
That’s interesting Goldie. I think for me the pendulum has swung too far the other way, I have allowed myself to be misled by chemistry, and so now I have detached from that part of myself. Now it seems I’m suffering relational apathy. Yeah, I know I’m a hot mess but my therapist left his private practice and I decided just to move on with life.
Goldie says
Selena 71, this is a great post! Thanks. Very helpful to me, as I am still relatively new to all this.
Compatibility of personalities being the defining point, is an interesting idea. I haven’t thought of it this way before, but when I look at my past experiences from this standpoint, it does sound right. I will certainly keep this idea in mind when I plunge into the dating waters again.
josavant says
Thanks Goldie and Selena. Maybe there is physical chemistry, mental chemistry, and emotional chemistry. And maybe it’s a mistake to think that one person is going to fulfill all these things. At least this is what I am learning.
Sparkling Emerald says
One thing I like about online dating, is the opportunity to meet someone by phone prior to meeting face to face. For me, what I call “conversational chemistry” HAS to be there, and no amount of physical chemistry can compensate for that. (I would hope that in any future relationship we would spend more time talking than . . .)
I have made the mistake of agreeing to meet someone with whom that “conversational chemistry” was missing on the phone, thinking I should give them a chance, and that perhaps we would do better in the conversation department in person. So far that has never happened. So I won’t make that mistake again.
In fact, I don’t think I have been really attracted to someone physically if we couldn’t hold a conversation with each other.
Goldie says
I am one of those weird geeks that find phone conversations awkward. One side always has trouble hearing the other, I can never figure out when it’s my turn to speak without seeing the other person, phone conversation with a stranger often ends up strained etc. Having an accent does not help; neither does the fact that I didn’t have a phone in my residence for the first 29 years of my life. My family/fiance and I would call each other long-distance on the pay phone in case of absolute emergencies. For one coin, you’d get something like three minutes, so both sides had to keep it brief and to the point. Tell the other side what the emergency is, get their response, and hang up because your time is up. Only time in my online dating experience when I had amazing rapport with a guy on the phone, the actual date was a flop. I used the phone to weed out the complete wackos. If anything triggered a red flag during the phone call, there’d be no date. Otherwise, even if the conversation wasn’t all that riveting, we’d schedule an in-person date to see how we’d like each other in person. With the man who eventually became my bf for two years, we didn’t have the phone conversation at all. We went straight to first date (which was amazing).
So SE #75, I agree 100% with your statement that being able to have a conversation is important, I just don’t think that, for me, a pre-date phone convo is a good indicator of that.
Karl R says
Sparkling Emerald said: (#75)
“I have made the mistake of agreeing to meet someone with whom that ‘conversational chemistry’ was missing on the phone, thinking I should give them a chance, and that perhaps we would do better in the conversation department in person. So far that has never happened.”
It can happen. It has happened to me before. I thought a woman’s online profile was okay. (She initiated contact.) I felt no connection on the phone. Our first date lasted 4 or 5 hours, and the conversation was terrific.
That experience was atypical. I felt that it was a long-shot before the first date. But even long-shots occasionally work out.
Selena says
I must be a weird geek too Goldie as I’m not fond of phone ‘chats’. I’m usually quite good at chatting up strangers in person, but on the phone I find I can’t think of much to say. Awkward. And so often it’s hard for me to hear what someone is saying when they/I/both of us are using cell phones. Which is the case most of the time these days. I found in the last 6 years I mostly only make (and want to take) short, to-the-point calls. Even with people I know well.
@josavant #74
Possibly there are different types of ‘chemistry’ – physical, mental, emotional – but I’d think someone would want a combination of all three in a partner; not just one or two.
We all know sexual attraction when we feel it. That’s one type of ‘chemistry’. But then there is the kind where we feel we “really hit it off” with someone. We felt “a click”. We can be sexually attracted to someone at first, but realize after a few dates, weeks, months that there really isn’t enough there to keep it going. That feeling that something is missing. Even though the person still looks the same.
By contrast, sometimes the ‘click’, turns into a genuine connection and the sense that this other person “gets” us. I think that’s the kind of chemistry most people looking for a relationship hope to find. The hormonal high is fun while it lasts, but that” click/gets me” thing is where (I believe) a connection actually develops. And what I consider to be personality compatibility, a/k/a personality chemistry.
One could have hormonal chemistry OR personality chemistry, but what do such relationships look like? In the former, possibly a lot of conflict while it lasts. In the latter? Friend zone. I believe passion and compatibility are not opposing states – they are a balance. It’s meeting the person to have that balance WITH …that feels like a long search sometimes. 🙂
Sparkling Emerald says
Thank you everyone for your response to my #75. I never hold “bad phone” against anyone if it is due to a bad connection. (sometimes cell phones have that lag — dead silence followed by both people talking at the same time, due to a delayed hearing thingy) And all the reasons you guys listed above, is why I gave guys who gave “bad phone” a second chance. But you know what, guys who were bad on the phone have NEVER worked out for me IRL. I’m all for not being “too picky” but one can’t go to the other extreme of giving every person who shows interest “a chance”. I don’t want to lead someone on, nor do I want to spend 80% of my limited spare time with people that I don’t think would be a good match with, just to prove that my initial assessment was right.
Here are some examples of “bad phone” followed by “bad dates”
One guy had an obnoxious sense of humor. His sense of humor was basically to disagree with EVERY word I said, of course he followed up with an obnoxious laugh and a “I’m just kidding” phrase but nothing he said was particularly clever or witty, he had all the appeal of an 8 year old who thought it was funny to reply to EVERYTHING with “Nuh UGH !! “. I agreed to meet him anyway. He was no better in person than on the phone, TEN TIMES WORSE !!!! I started to tell him something and the second word of my sentence was the word “almost” and he broke in with this obnoxious 8 year old voice with “ALMOST DOESN’T COUNT !!!!! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha”. The ENTIRE evening (and by evening I mean an hour and a half) went like that. He e-mailed me the next day and asked to see me again. I thanked him for his time (I didn’t order a bite to eat and drank water all night so there was nothing else to thank him for) but said I didn’t think we were a match and wished him well. He responded with something along the lines of “Well OK, I thought you were cute, smart and funny, but hey, I’ve learned to NOT argue with women. Give me a call if you just want to hang out and have fun”. I was SO tempted to tell him that he didn’t learn to NOT argue with women very well, but I didn’t. Who knows, the next woman he meets might find his brand of humor amusing.
********
I was matched up with a gentleman from India through a match making service. Very nice, polite gentleman, and as far as common interests go, we were like identical interest twins. I had trouble hearing his voice and understanding him through his accent on the phone PLUS, our cell phone connection wasn’t that great. I went out to meet him. Still had to strain, and strain to BARELY understand him. Luckily, the lack of chemistry between us was MUTUAL. We gave each other a warm good-bye hug, and never saw each other again.
*********
Another gentlemen I talked to on the phone, well, not to sound like a snob, but little miss barely finished HS and doesn’t have a college degree here, (that would be me) found him to sound rather dull and not too bright on the phone. I hate to sound so snobby, since I have no pedigree in the smarts dept myself, but really, all he could respond to my EVERY sentence with was, “HUH, OK”. And that was after a long,long, uncomfortable pause. And in response to one of MY answers to HIS questions. I politely declined to meet him.
Last, but not least, was the chiropractor who acted like I was just some dumb little doll who need him to help me find my way out of a paper bag. If his pictures were accurate he was VERY attractive, but my God, conversations with him were soooooooo heavy, like bowling balls falling out of his mouth. His e-mails were that way too, I decided to “give him a chance” in spite of his mile long e-mails, filled with links, dire warnings about worst case scenarios, etc. (He gave me a multi paragraph lecture on bicycle safety, since I ride my bike to work, and he’s a a chiropractor and he has seen accident victims, blah, blah, blah) And my son’s dog was an issue with him, and I was treated to links, and lectures about the dangers of that particular breed of dog, and blah, blah, blah) I gave him a pass when he interogated me about my separation status (and warned me of the DIRE consequences of dating while not legally separated or divorced) but everything else, I just couldn’t overlook. A feeling of DREAD came over me, after talking to him on the phone. I sent him a polite e-mail saying that for reasons I would rather not disclose I would not be meeting him in person.
So yeah, I MAY be throwing away a “long shot”, but I could also just be saving myself some wasted time. I don’t discount guys over a bad phone connection, or a little bit of getting to know you jitters, but if I get a dreadful feeling or am bored out my mind with our phone convo, I will no longer be taking a chance on a long shot.
Oh yeah, and then there’s ALWAYS, the AMAZING guy who I connect with in e-mail, by phone and finally, IRL. Of course, he doesn’t like me. That’s the dating game for you !!!! 😉
TheHonestTruth says
Well they really should be since their life is so very much complete which they were very Blessed by God to have the gift of life that many of us Single people were Never that Fortunate to have. And would they really care for us Single people? And i very much seriously doubt that. Many of them that are very Faithful to one another and are very compatible , really have so much going for them which certainly tells the story. And i only wish that we could’ve been that Lucky ourselves.
Single says
Single people would be happier if MARRIED people would get off our backs about marriage and stop being so doggone smug! LOL
Ane says
I so much agree that married people are happier. There is something about the security and the connection between two people that the marriage offers. I think is superior than being single and people at first place were not ment to be alone… I think the key for a success in marriage is to find the balance and the adjustment between other’ s needs and desires and yours…. Just an example: a woman should keep herself feminine, beautiful and understanding man’s desires while a man should start understanding that, sex addiction is bad for him, his family and the society and he does not need it, even when its easy to fall for it. With this above, leaving someone for someone else will be less needed for happiness and less likely to happen… And also small affairs would not happen this often or when they do, they won’t be a reason for a divorce… I see that feminism is destroying a lot for the women and men nowadays and is hard for me to see how some people are still supporting it a lot. I am only in my early/ mid twenties girl, I have not been married and I am a real woman ( and that of course includes real sexy), so i am not the typical feminist bitchy slut … so it’s a pain for me to see that this whole movement is destroyng it for all of us.. and for our childres. I am afraid that no man is going to fight for our love when a problem emerges one day ( of course I wont give him a reason to emerge) but will instead run for Tinder, because the feminism made it easy to exist… in the end no one will be fully happy…
Sue says
It would be more useful to compare never-married to married. ‘single’ includes many divorced who are almost all unhappy.
For all we know, never married were 60% happy which dropped to 30% happy after marriage, but after 5years of marriage most of the unhappiest ones had divorced, leaving 43% happy.
See how two simplistic figures are just useless?
James says
Well i would certainly say that overall married people are much happier since their life is very much complete since many of us other people weren’t that lucky to find the right good person especially for us men looking for a good woman to settle down with. There are many of us good men unfortunately that keep meeting very pathetic loser women that are so very stuck up with no good personality at all since most of these women really have a very severe mental problem the way i see it since many of us men didn’t do anything wrong when we will try to start a simple normal conversation with a woman that will attract us which then she will curse at us since i had this happened to me already and i know other men that had it happened to them as well unfortunately. I never realized that there are so many very psycho women nowadays that are so very disrespectful to us men which they’re certainly the problem since we really can’t blame ourselves at all either since there are so many women nowadays that have a real problem with us innocent men just looking for love today since many of us are still single when we really shouldn’t be at all. Well with all these reality shows now on TV which it really has corrupted many of these women’s minds now as well as the media that is really hurting many of us men looking for real love now since it is really making these women really hating us men altogether now. Of course married people are happier since they have so very much to be very thankful for by having one another with their children which tells the whole story right there. It is just a very bad shame for us single men that we weren’t born at a much earlier time when most of the women of years ago were very normal since finding real love in those days did come so very easy just the way that our family members had it which i can certainly say that the women back then really did put these women today to real shame altogether as well.
Evan Marc Katz says
Buh bye, James. You’re on the wrong blog.
James says
Okay which i will stay with James. But what i have said is the real truth though. I would say that most of the married people are a lot more happier especially if they’re very compatible and committed to one another and have a lot of respect and love for each other as well. And i am being very serious here now with my comment since many people that are single can be very depressed without any friends and family unless they have a lot of money and friends to keep them occupied. Peace.
Karl R says
James (or Jay, or David, or whatever alias you want to go by this week),
Every time you show up here you use a different name … and then you make the exact same post as the last half dozen times.
If women are still cursing you out, then you’re still doing something wrong when you approach them. Since you apparently didn’t listen to my advice three years ago (or two years ago, or one year ago), I’m not going to waste my time explaining it again. Find the old posts you made as Jay and David, then read my responses to those.
Everyone else,
I’m going to use James as my example for something I posted earlier. This post has the same negative attitude that characterized all of his posts over the last three years. If you read what he has to say about women, it’s obvious why any sane woman would flee from any man who holds that attitude.
Happy people have an easier time getting relationships. Unhappy people have a harder time getting relationships. If you ever find yourself sounding at all like James (or the female equivalent)….
Well, you’ll have the same lack of success that James does.
Tron Swanson says
It’s better to be alone and genuine than in a relationship and lying about your emotional state. Look, sometimes I’m happy, and sometimes I’m not…but I can always be honest about it. The idea of pretending to be happy in order to “market” yourself to a woman just seems insane, to me. I can’t imagine having to live like that.
Men and women should be themselves first, and focus on relationships second. It’s ridiculous to let yourself be an “emotional hostage” to someone else. Actually, it’s positively cult-like. “Everyone has to be positive, or at least pretend to be, and if they refuse to, cast them out!”
Karl R says
Tron Swanson,
There is a world of difference between being happy and pretending to be happy.
I do things that make me happier. That has the side benefit of making me more attractive to people. My wife does things that make her happier. That has the side benefit of making her a lot easier to be married to.
Practical actions I take to be happier:
1. I have fun hobbies, like dancing.
2. I focus on the best parts of my job, my wife and my life (rather than dwelling on my least favorite parts).
3. I have an electronic picture frame on my desk that scrolls through pictures that make me happy … like my honeymoon.
4. If something/someone pisses me off, I either fix it, mock it, or ignore it. Two of those make me happier, the third makes me less pissed off.
Based on your posts here, you spend a substantial portion of your time dwelling on things that make you angry or unhappy. That’s your choice, but it’s going to make you unhappier. Furthermore, it’s going to make you appear unhappier to everyone else.
There are people who spend most of their waking moments wallowing in their own misery. They’re not fun to be around. (Therefore I avoid them whenever possible.) But a large part of the reason they’re so miserable is because they persistently wallow in it.
Similarly, there are people who are persistently pissed off, because they focus on everything that pisses them off.
These people don’t have to be positive. But I don’t have to hang around with them either.
External forces will affect my mood, but so will my choices, my internal focus, and the people I choose to spend time with.
Callie says
The fact that you assume that “happy people” = “people pretending to be happy” says a huge deal about your attitude about the world at large.
Nowhere did Karl suggest faking anything. He said being a hateful miserable ass like James is less likely to get you a partner in life. Which, I mean, I think is pretty obvious. Nowhere did he say someone has to be always happy, nor pretending to be happy. But isn’t it interesting that that’s what you thought.
Tron Swanson says
You caught me, Karl–my ability to get sex directly affects my life, so I do spend about half an hour per day reading or posting on sites like this. Sometimes more, sometimes less (or not at all).
Regardless: once you’ve taken the position that happy people do better than unhappy people, when it comes to relationships, the pressure is on you to be happy all the time. That may very well be true, and an effective strategy…but, personally, I don’t think that it’s any way to live. Yes, I realize that there’s a difference between actually being happy and just pretending, but that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the pressure to control one’s emotions in order to appear more “appealing” to others, or to keep a partner happy. You’re basically shaming people for being depressed or what have you.
I like thinking about better ways to get sex, and that means thinking about reality. Sometimes it encourages me, and sometimes it doesn’t…but either way, I’m not going to stop thinking about something just because it’ll make me less attractive. I prioritize my identity over sex. I’ve had too many women try to control my thinking, telling me that if I adopt this attitude or that attitude, I’ll do better with women. Not only did it not work (I was younger back then, I actually believed them), but they only did it to help women, not me. They gave me advice that would ultimately benefit women, and didn’t care whether it’d improve my chances or not.
I’m happy, most of the time…but, when I’m not, I see nothing wrong in being open about it. Is that odd, for a man? Being willing to admit weakness, sadness, and even negativity? I’ve never gone in for gender roles, admittedly. I just wonder why this sort of honesty makes so many people uncomfortable.
Karl R says
Tron Swanson said: (#81.2.1.3)
“I’m happy, most of the time…but, when I’m not, I see nothing wrong in being open about it. […] I just wonder why this sort of honesty makes so many people uncomfortable.”
Before a first date, what is dishonest about watching your favorite stand-up comic to get into a better mood?
When you’re on a first date, what is dishonest about steering the conversation toward your favorite hobbies, rather than venting about the things that piss you off?
For that matter, what is dishonest about keeping your mouth shut, rather than complaining?
You’re pretending that this advice has something to do with “honesty” or “identity”. That’s just self-deception on your part.
When people complain about how miserable they are or vent about how angry they are, I’m not uncomfortable. It’s just boring. If they keep at it repeatedly, it’s annoying.
If you really want to make people feel uncomfortable, don’t whine, don’t vent, don’t be negative. Suggest they change. For their own benefit.
Of course, then they’ll be so uncomfortable that they’ll start giving every possible excuse why they don’t need to change.
Tron Swanson says
Hello again, Karl!
I’ve never dated in my life–and never intend to–so I have no earthly idea what someone does before a first date.
On the other hand, I feel very confident in the following: namely, that I was not put on this earth to be someone’s entertainment. I’m perfectly fine with being boring. Annoying, even. Compared to the way that others have treated me, “annoying” is extremely mild.
You telling me that I need to change does not make me uncomfortable at all, btw. I’m used to it. I’d be more shocked/uncomfortable if you embraced who I am, because I’m just not used to that.
Nissa says
What Karl said. I’ve also discovered that by making a choice to focus on what makes me happy, I’m making my own life better. It’s not because some other person forced me to do so. It’s because I have found it to be a successful life strategy for enjoying my life. And, when I’m happy with myself and my life, other people find it easy to be happy with me and attracted to me too.
Anumeha says
I’m just reiterating what you already know — life with love can be really, really nice — that’s why you ended up on a dating coach’s site. If you weren’t interested in love, you probably wouldn’t be reading this.:-D Great 🙂