Living Single

People who have been divorced always seem to get the shaft in these studies. It's like the Dark Aura of Singlehood squared. It's hard to even think of myself as "divorced." I'm single now. I got married a long time ago, I got divorced. Am I supposed to wear a black arm band for the rest of my life? When I see forms that ask my marital status, I always wonder why the put "divorced" and "widowed." Either you're married or you're not. Does checking "divorced" somehow assure them that yes, I did get married once so I'm more assimilated? Or am I voluntarily identifying with the divorce stigma? Does checking "widowed" comfort the widow somehow by allowing him/her to still identify as married? (And notice that all the options assume heterosexuality!)
I can only speak for myself, that once I acknowledged my single-at-heartness and started living in a way that's authentic for me, I became happier than at any time in my life. I've had chronic health problems since birth but I manage do long-distance bicycle touring on my own (sending the occasional postcard to my horrified team of doctors). I'm healthy, I just have to work a whole lot harder at it than most.
So, sorry, marriage studiers. I'm muddying your results by failing to become some shell of a former person. Neener neener. >: )

that when I got on the site to check for comments, the sponsor bar above the blog had an ad for a dating service. >: )

I should start using "indies" instead of "singles", and try to start a trend - heh :)

But back on topic: as a middle-aged married man, yet single at heart, I started turning around my health trends (nothing bad, just a downward trend) by consciously acting more as I did in my "indie" days. Examples: don't eat when "expected", eat when you're hungry. I made an uncompromising (and unpopular) decision to return to habits of working out from my "indie" days. Less time spent in compromised "together" activities, and more time spent on what's right for me personally.

Results: My blood labwork went from "watch out for this, work on that" to "stellar!", as my physician put it.

It's just one anecdote from one person, but I have a hunch I'm not unique. The married lifestyle is one that pulls down your physical health. The moral of the story is, if one feels obligated to stay in a marriage (kids, etc?) one can make the best of it by emulating a single "indie" lifestyle as much as possible.

Someone might disagree, saying anyone can adopt healthy habits. My counterpoint would be, anyone "can", but what is the default state that people will tend to drift into? As an unmarried "indie" person, healthy habits just sort of happen, it's almost effortless. As a married person, I had to make a determined push against societal and spousal resistance to re-establish those same healthful practices. I doubt that I am that unique.

That might explain why we don't see many studies comparing them with stable marrieds: Maybe, even today, there aren't that many of them.
I mean, most people today still get married at least once, I think the statistic I saw was 94%. So most people are going to be married, divorced, and separated.

And then you have to take into account that not all of those lifelong singles will be happy about their situation, reducing the number even further.

Granted, that isn't the only type of single person. For many being single will be a phase in life, either early on or after a marriage ends. And among these, some will like it, some will tolerate it, some will hate it.

Read the "New Old Age" column in the NYT and you'll always find an anecdote or two in the letters about women who are *glad* their husbands have died. One woman wrote in about her mother - incontinent, in a wheelchair, and yet "these are the best days of her life" because she was "liberated" due to being widowed! Imagine, life spent marinating in your own excrement, unable to care for yourself, is preferable to being married. Hmmm. Who benefits from marriage here?

Kate Chopin wrote a rather famous (or at least widely anthologized for English majors) story, "The Story of an Hour" with this theme. The protagonist rejoiced when she heard that her husband was dead, imagining the freedoms this afforded her.

I don't think this kind of long-term miserable marriage is as common now, thanks to no-fault divorce and the feminist movement. But honestly, how healthy can a marriage be when the reaction to your spouse's death is "Ding-Dong, The Witch Is Dead?"

True, I had a dear friend I met when she was 64, and her husband died 6 months later. I watched her go through a second teenagerhood. They had a good family but marriage was definitely confining for her, and she loved going out with her friends any time she wanted and doing the activities she was still strong enough for, but hadn't done because it would have meant leaving her husband behind. One of our co-workers set her up with his widowed dad and was horrified when they decided to just get together occasionally for overnight visits and not have a Relationship. >: )
Now my former mother-in-law is going through the same thing, she's 80 and you wouldn't guess she was a day over 65. She loved her husband, but he was a stubborn, difficult man, and she's going to have a few years of freedom while she's still vigorous enough to enjoy them.
Back in 1988 when I got married, my now ex-husband's best friend's 88-year-old grandma pulled me aside and said, "You know having kids is a choice now, right? It's not like it used to be, when you just had to. Do you know all about birth control?" I just laughed to be hearing this from an 88-year-old woman. How deligtfully refreshing.

I was glad that for once we saw some research about singles, though I was disappointed that Dr. DePaulo's research wasn't mentioned, since she's at the forefront of that research.

I also noticed that in the magazine there was an article about a woman on estrogen and another article about what blind men find attractive in the female form. I couldn't stand to read much of either, just suspecting that one would be "estrogen=female=crazy" and the other would be "female form+male=not responsible." No mention that both genders have the same hormones, just in different ratios, and that the links between hormones and crazy/aggressive behavior aren't clear.

How this relates to Bella's work: I sometimes think that the gender stereotypes are a form of matrimania in that they push people into boxes of behavior--traditional marriage roles most specifically.

But really, I was heartened that at least more balanced reporting on singles is starting to happen. Maybe someday we'll see science articles on "hormones+personal responsibility=happy relationships, no matter what form they take."

Dearest Bella, as a former lit major and single woman, I cannot suggest strongly enough that you read Chopin's "Story of an Hour" (Thanks Anon for bringing it up). I thought of this story, specifically, when I got married at 19 and wondered if I was making the right choice. I wasn't. This story has single-handedly kept me from wanting to consider state-shackling ever again (especially since where I'm from, wives are still legal property of their husbands, as well as their paychecks and pre-marriage property, yeah, really, it is still LEGAL state-wise). The mental stages the character passes through in a span of an hour is brilliantly and beautifully done. If you do not cry for several different reasons at the end, I will be beyond surprised.

Us poor divorced folks! by Psyngle: omg! I am so glad you wrote that. I (intentionally) skew results when I need to toggle that question because I always (ALWAYS) toggle single regardless. It is none of X's business whether or not I have been divorced especially when the form's purpose is to categorize the now.

Besides, it is complicated since an NC divorce court threw out our case and nullified all communal property because the minister turned in our license after the deadline. According to all relevant governments, I "am" and have always been, "single". If I had known that, I wouldn't have sweated all those thank you cards. I guess that red and green christmas wedding was a figment of our imagination, all 200+ of us. At least his second wife gets to be his first wife. How often does that happen? :)

There is speculation amongst the psych community as to what constitutes a "control freak" personality disorder. I say labels are created by and for these people who must box the rest of us into readily identifiable portions in order to keep their own anxieties at bay. Whatever the disorder, I'd say it is rampant in government circles and the increase of the DSM a symptom.

....the court threw out the marriage after TEN YEARS of cohabitation. This wasn't: married for two years then tried to divorce only to find we weren't on the books because the minister turned in the license three years after the deadline (it was in the dead-license file). We "thought" we were married ten years and spent two more years legally separated per our state's requirement for divorce trying to NOT get divorced with counseling et al.(that was lost legal money--I wonder why it wasn't discovered by the lawyers in this phase that we "weren't" married)

So, for the 10 million dollar question (and same-sex couples everywhere wait for an answer)....

Was I ever "married" and how do I determine whether I fall into the "single" or "divorced" category now? For psych studies, am I a happy single woman, a happy divorced woman, a happy co-habitating woman, or just a happy woman? (why is there never a "just happy as I am" answer?) Where would I be counted in the various studies? Married psychologically but not physically? There's not a slot for that. The government is wrong and I was married because I thought I was married (for psychological study purposes)?

Hmmmm, could be an argument for anyone in a committed relationship and the government might not like that competition in designating marital status....

Thanks to Gena and Natalya for sending links to the NY Times article discussed here!

I just came across this article (and then your post about it) -- and to be honest, I was simply thrilled that the answer to the title's question wasn't "yes"!

But of course you've brought up many good points here too :)

-- Lisa

For me, the positive takeaway from the NYT article is that the quality of important relationships affects people's health. I wish scientists would study (and the media would report on) non-marital relationships and bring this conversation into the realm of reality instead of the fantasy world where 'everyone is married.'

If a person's happy, healthy, and married, he'll be a happy, healthy married person.

If a person's unhappy, unhealthy and married, he'll be an unhappy and unhealthy married person.

If a person's happy, healthy, and single, he'll be a happy, healthy single person.

If a person's unhappy, unhealthy, and single, he'll be an unhappy and unhealthy single person.

It's about the individual's attitude - not the relationship - which determines happiness or unhappiness/healthy or unhealthy.

If you're a happy person but with someone who's unhappy - change it. If you're unhealthy - change it. The fact that you're married or single has nothing to do with it.

Glenn