in retrospect

« er, i guess they mean me | back to in retrospect | artsy fartsy »

February 10, 2004

it's quirky to be single?

during my morning commute last week, one of the top editorial stories for the morning news was announced, "is it possible to be single and happy? one happily single woman calls this idea, being a 'quirky single'..."

this disturbs me. not that someone can be single and happy, but that it has been coined as quirky.

as a single, professional woman in her early thirties, i have found myself surrounded by women, and some men, that are fixated on meeting someone that will make them happy. for the rest of their life. this idea frightens me a little. but what frightens me more is that so many people perceive "happy" and "single" as mutually exclusive ideas. which annoys me to no end.

now, don't get me wrong, i'd love to meet someone that i enjoy spending time with. if that enjoyment happened to last a lifetime, all the better.

but i seem to be surrounded by people who seem to have taken on a second job devoted to finding their perfect, lifelong partner. endless hours spent researching cosmo, preening, grooming and strategizing for how to draw this one person out of the faceless crowds. lately, every conversation seems to be dominated by finding that one person to complete us and make us whole.

behavior is analyzed and over-analyzed ad naseum. wracking brains about what this or that really means. a 300-pound yoke of expectation is hung around the neck of every first date, dalliance or interlude. ultimatums are given, rigid interpretations and compatability lists are made. it's fucking exhausting.

i'm not suggesting that i don't fall victim to some of these overanalyzations and obsessions from time to time, i do. it's part of the fun. but, i'm not trying to triangulate the position of that one person to determine whether or not they are a suitable for a lifelong attachment--i'm beginning to suspect that some people just aren't well-suited to that. what i take issue with is the prevailing notion that we are not, and never will be, completely whole until a mate is found.

i cling to the idea that if i am happy with where i am right now, and become comfortable in my own skin, only then would i be able to or even interested in sharing a bit of that with someone else.

what i want to understand better is why so many of us hang our hopes for happiness and fulfillment around the necks of other people that are, in effect, doing the exact same thing. do two unhappy, incomplete and dysfunctional people make one happy, fulfilled whole?

i suspect not. and i suspect that we are asking too much of other people and not enough of ourselves.

and the idea that choosing to be happy and single can be described as "quirky" is just one more indication that as a culture we have wholly unrealistic expectations surrounding coupledom.

which of course, might explain why 50% of men and over 40% of women cheat on their spouses. it also might explain why half of all marraiges end in divorce.

so why do we cling to these romantic ideals of marraige? and how is it that being voluntarily single and happy is something quirky?

i wonder.

Posted by heidijanet at February 10, 2004 11:30 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.inretrospect.org/cgi-bin/mt-ping.cgi/112

Comments

Perhaps the quirky thing among people is not needing a crutch of sorts (no offense intended re: your accident, of course).

Aside from the whole social expectation issue, some (most?) people find it easier to define themselves through associations and relationships than to define "himself" or "herself" through introspection and facing/conquering demons or insecurities. So, basically, to place so much credence and expectation on being "unsingle" is ultimately the path of least resistance for them; it props them up, and makes them think they're "happy" without any hard work or real effort to be a good human being (let alone happy). It's kind of like "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"; the "happy" relationship deserves the attention, not why that person isn't happy alone.

I think it's harder to be happy than anything else. If you're single, you really only have to worry about your own happiness. If you're married, you either have to take the other person's happiness into account w/ regard to all of your own actions, or choose to leech happiness from them by living vicariously.

I dunno... maybe I need to go get married or something.

Posted by: Gary at February 10, 2004 01:30 PM

I think both Gary and our hostess have hit the nail on the head. I find it kind of repugnant a show could even lead the line, "Can someone be single and happy?"

Personally, I don't think people give enough credit to their friends. Too many people lean heavily on friends when they are single and neglect them when they are not (yes, I have been guilty of this to a degree, at least at the beginning of a relationship), but do not realize that their friends often make them more whole, know them better, and see them through more than a lot of their more intimate relationships. With really good friends, the only thing usually missing is the sexual part (and even then, it sometimes gets into some friendships). No, it's not the same as a life partner, but considering a lot of the points you two have brought up, is that all that bad?

That being said, I'm currently pursuing the relationship I've been looking for for two years - I chose to be single rather than date for the sake of dating. I like to think that it just makes the prize at the end even more valuable. :)

Posted by: Ryan at February 11, 2004 11:29 AM

well, let's see, i'm not suggesting our relationships aren't important or that single is synonymous with isolated. friends are VERY important in my opinion, maybe the MOST important, we are designed to run in packs after all.

i guess the thing that i'm saying is that to think that there's one person out there that will "complete you" is a fallacy. and i hate to see that idea reinforced again and again on TV, movies, articles, books, magazines, holidays, and now...NPR.

Posted by: heidi janet at February 11, 2004 11:55 AM

Dear Girl: There are ancestors before you that were "quirky". I revel in the memory of the dear lady who made it ok for me also to be "quirky". Thanks to all those who become true individuals in this zone we call life !! Your cuz, karen

Posted by: karen at February 11, 2004 11:49 PM

Being social beings, what is introspective is reinforced by what is external. Cumulative experience has allowed, or forced (for the sake of happiness or contentment), one to come to terms with finding a match that fits their profile. Identifying that match is what Socrates would call "our innate drive after perfection" - which he claims is in all humans And since our modern society upholds monogamy - it could be perfected in marital union.
Our definition(s) of success are derived from our environments, no matter who or where you are. Our individuality comes from our ability to discern what is useful to our success or "self-preservation." And since we seek such, we believe we have to refer to what society upholds. Funny that individuals, not followers, are most likely the ones that define these standards.
But, if you were truly at ease in your lot and derived your happiness from your individuality, the headline should not have set you ablaze. Not unless what the masses deem as advanced are what you subscribe to as well. Then your happiness is determined by the very things that ticked you off. At least on some level. Just an opinion, my "two parts rude" side.

Posted by: Keenon at February 20, 2004 10:10 AM

Post a comment