- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
Not sure about contrarian arguments being fun...
at least not when it involves your own personal life. It's one thing when you're arguing with someone about an abstract issue that has no direct relevance to either of your lives. It's another when the thing being debated is actually an important aspect of your own life.
I wonder why Prof. Regnerus
I wonder why Prof. Regnerus cares? There seems to be a basic pattern. A scholar, leader, or expert writes that somehow that there is something wrong with being single and then singles must go on the defense.
I know Prof. Regnerus does sociological research on Christianity so I suspect he is a Christian, but I believe that someone can be Christian AND be single. It is hard to believe that singles somehow lack faith or spirituality.
Every church I have been a member of is full of singles.
I don’t know why this topic of singles matters so much to him. If he is married and happy, why does he care what the rest of us do? If we aren’t harming anyone shouldn’t it be okay to spend your 20s traveling, and moving from place to place, or trying to see as much of the world as possible? He mentions singles as clubbing and facebook, but being single isn’t always about that. Also, just because people get married doesn’t mean that stop partying. A partier is basically a partier, married or single. That person may have just exchanged clubbing and cocktails to big back yard BBQs with beers and margaritas (which sometimes just ends up as the same club behavior but at home).
I hope maybe Prof. Regnerus can find some single friends who are contented with their lives and then just leave this issue alone. As a fellow sociologist, I know that there are so many social problems that we can bring light to. With all the problems today it is so hard to comprehend why a fellow sociologist would use his voice to criticize singles. However, if he wanted to attack a single for creating a Ponzi or AIG scheme, I would be all for it : ). But to use his voice to criticize people who wait until 28 to get married? This just seems so inappropriate right now. I just don’t get it.
I'm an environmental
I'm an environmental economist and here are my two cents. I don't have any studies or actual evidence to back up my claim, it's simply observation, but here it goes: even if they live alone, single people are more environmentally responsible:
Married people, though they don't have to, live in bigger houses, which they of course have to heat, cool, and light. They are more like to live in SINGLE-FAMILY houses. They often live in the suburbs, which for about a million reasons, is the scourge of the environment. Married people also seem to spend more time in their isolated single-family homes alone or just the two them. Single people, while they are out "bar hopping" are sharing heat, cooling, and light with hundreds of members of their community. Single people are more likely to live in cities, where they walk, bike, or take public transportation. Not only are they likely to have roommates as Bella points out, they are likely to live in apartment buildings and multi-family houses in densely populated areas. This is so much more efficient it is crazy. When you take up less space you reduce the need for transportation of not only yourself but also the gas for your house, the transmission of your electricity (less is lost along the way), and there's less ecosystem damage such as habitat fragmentation. Single people, in their multi-family homes, often go to the park and public areas. Those large homes in the suburbs have individual yards, taking up space and introducing invasive species. Children are horrible for the environment. If you have kids, chances are you're driving more (my neighbors even bought a second car when they had a baby). Diapers are landfill nightmares. Kids' products are wasteful- how many single adults you know buy juice boxes? Juice boxes are completely non-recyclable, by the way.
Also in terms of consumption, where is this guy getting his data that married people save more? If there is one thing I have noticed about married people, they spend money- on junk. First there's that bigger house, that "better" car. Then there's all the little stuff married people "need." And again, if married people are more likely to have kids, that's not exactly a fantastic way to save money. In terms of just pure consumption- which to me is a huge environmental issue- married people kick singles' butts. Anyone who has been to a bridal shower can see this. Here's a couple that already has two sets dishes, but no, now they need a third, plus a waffle maker. Because, as my mother puts it, "when you're married, you need nicer things." And of course, all the packaging this junk comes in.
of course, none of these generalizations are true of every married couple. But I guarantee that if a study was done on which lifestyle was more environmentally friendly, being single would win hands down. This hilarious op ed piece from the Onion a few years back sums it up well:http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/we_must_preserve_the_earths.
I'd also like to comment on the op ed's title question: what are you waiting for? Well here are a few things young people might want to wait for:
-a graduate degree
-a good career
-self confidence/esteem
-finding out who you are truly compatible with
-traveling
-living in different areas of the country
-making new friends
-barhopping (why is this a bad thing? It's fun, and you're out in public, rather than sitting around your house)
-dating numerous different people (this is also fun and interesting, and makes you a better person)
And um, yeah, my married facebook contacts update their status A LOT. And it's always about naps and diapers.
-a graduate degree - marriage
-a graduate degree - marriage precludes this? My wife has a law degree
-a good career - ditto
-self confidence/esteem - ditto
-finding out who you are truly compatible with - they are married, they know.
-traveling - marriage precludes this? In fact, what is better than traveling with someone you love? I have been on cruises, etc.
-living in different areas of the country - we have lived in Florida, Virginia near DC and Alabama.
-making new friends - marriage precludes making friends.
-barhopping (why is this a bad thing? It's fun, and you're out in public, rather than sitting around your house)- how do you get from bar to bar?
-dating numerous different people (this is also fun and interesting, and makes you a better person) Perhaps, but is it better than sharing time with one special person?
And um, yeah, my married facebook contacts update their status A LOT. And it's always about naps and diapers. Because they don't have to express the feeling of having a child... or rather they don't. There is a divide, when you have kids you will understand. You can not understand until you do. There is no need to convey the joy of having the kids. Think of it like a college student complaining about exams. he doesn't talk about all he learns or does.
marriage does not preclude a
marriage does not preclude a graduate degree, but I have seen many married folks have to cut a corner on something they were planning on achieving for themselves, if not abandoning it all together. For example, one might plan to go to law school, but they might have a constraint on where they can go due to their partner's situation. So, even if it's your dream to go to say, harvard law, you might have to go somewhere else because your partner can't leave his/her job. Furthermore, from what I have seen, there's a big difference in how married people and single people experience these things. Sure, both groups are equally capable of getting all the work done, etc., but it seems the married people were less available to socialize with colleagues, etc, and really become embedded in the whole culture, which is not without value (and can really add to the enjoyment of the experience).
Get real, of course getting married young is better than...
Simply put, why wouldn't you want to get married?
Responsibly comes with marriage - not hedonism.
Married people generally have children, married people have to think of others rather than themselves on a constant basis. Thinking of others makes up better people. It gives us manners. In the South we have manners.
Married people don't go home and think, what CD will I buy, What club will I go to.
Married people with children think completely different than single people. Married people think about the future because they have a legacy, children.
Children change everything. Until you have one you won't understand. Don't believe me? Ask you father or mother.
I walk the walk. I am 41 and have been with my wife for 23 years.
I do not understand why being
I do not understand why being married is better. What you describe does not sound better to me, and millions of other people. I don't go to clubs, but I do buy CDs. Because I love music. Why is your love of your own genetically-related children any better than my love of music? I like thinking about what CD to buy. I like thinking of where I'm going to go when I get home. Why wouldn't I want to be married? Because I've never met anyone I liked enough to hitch my wagon to. I've been in relationships, I've met a lot of guys I liked very much and still like to this day- but do I like them enough to devote my entire life to them and see them every day? No, I have better things to devote my life to. And I like my privacy. I don't feel the need to live with another person.
I also don't want children. If, like millions of other people, you don't want children, then getting married and having them is not "better." Better is what YOU want for yourself, not what society dictates you should have. How many people do you think are out there who's lives would be "better" if they weren't married? Millions. Marriage is a decision like any other, and making the wrong one can have all the same negative consequences.
Step back and think about what you are saying. "Marriage is BETTER than being single." How can you possibly make that statement and it apply it to everyone on earth. Is marriage better for the woman who is beat or cheated on by her husband? Is marriage better for the guy who rushed into and now feels trapped by a wife he doesn't love? Is marriage better for the woman who gave up becoming a pediatric oncologist just to care for children of her own?
Oh Henri..
Come now, Henri. Do you seriously think that singles only think about which CD to buy or what club to go to? Or think only of themselves? I have to think that you are only trying to be an instigator here. It's just too absurd. I'm in my 30s and have never been married. All of my siblings, cousins, etc. are all married. I ABSOLUTELY think about others much more than my married family members. Sure, they spend plenty of time thinking about their own spouse or spawn.. to the point of forsaking all others in their lives if necessary. I have a hard time understanding how that kind of life is better.
I have to think some of your problem with singlehood is jealousy. Apparently, you (poor thing) gave up your life to get married at 18. You don't even know what it's like to be an adult on your own. But, you know, good for you and your walk. You are absolutely entitled to your own life choices, as are others.
This argument is so bad I don't know where to begin
So the only options are marriage and hedonism? What a narrow way of looking at the world.
What does having children, manners, being married, and being from the South have to do with thinking about others? Whether or not you are considerate should be judged by all of your interactions with the world, not on where you live or with whom you live.
Why would one think about the future only if one has children? Didn't the above post on environmentalism demonstrate that singles are concerned for the future too?
And what does "children change everything" have to do with anything? We're talking about marriage, not raising children.
You need to read Dr. DePaulo's book and learn some truths about those of us who are single. And while you're at it, learn how to make a coherent argument.
Such an ignorant argument...
And what does being from the South have to do with anything? Throwing in that phrase doesn't support your point, rather it bespeaks a provincialism and even bigotry on your part. You're simply "better people" by virtue of marital status, huh?
Beyond that, I've always said that many marriage-scolds don't seem to radiate the joys of togetherness and commitment, while happily encouraging others to follow the same path. Rather, it's often this same sour tone as they lecture on "responsibility" and how they're "better people." It makes me wonder if they're as satisfied with the course they chose as they'd have us believe.
I'm not married. (I have been
I'm not married. (I have been cohabiting for a while, but I digress.) I have a college degree, hold a full time job, pay bills on time, own my car outright, commit time to projects both social and personal from my activism to taking care of friends and family.
You're assuming such "responsibilities" come just with marriage. And you know what they say about assumptions.
Single people don't think about the future?
Gee. I've planning my education. My career. Where I'd like to travel. What activism and projects I'd like to commit to. What kind of mark I want to leave on the world. Etc, etc. Ad nauseum. Why didn't someone tell me I wasn't supposed to be thinking ahead?
so responsible married people.
I love, love, love it when married people assume that they're superior and more responsible because they married and procreated! Are you serious? I live in a state where you can marry at a drive-through wedding chapel and divorce six weeks later. Thousands of us here wouldn't have jobs if marriage was such a panacea of joy and responsibility. The nastiest cases are the ones with kids by the way. You want to talk about how many ways people can hurt their children or each other?
Good lord, as if married people who have kids are exempt from human weakness: cheating, lying, stealing, blowing their tops or their savings on stupid stuff, drinking, or having sexy sex? (Or is this one of those "sexy sex is only okay when married otherwise it's hedonistic" positions? Hilarious. I personally know of several men who had sexual affairs shortly after their brides became pregnant.)
When single people have lovers it's generally truthful and not harmful to the extended family. My married sibling had five lovers and several rendezvous out of town last year while the kids were at home with my mother (who I might add is financially assisting them all). I had one, briefly, and it was far from a hedonistic experience, nor did anyone suffer for it.
I'm not judging, I'm just saying that marriage & kids hardly prevent people having sex, drinking booze, eating too much or wasting ridiculous amounts of money on gigantic houses and cars and stuff, especially toxic plastic. Our culture is full of hedonism- hell, just check out the people and the yard-sales in the suburbs!
And I seem to recall hearing that the South boasts the highest rates of divorce & domestic abuse. So, that thing about manners; besides opening the door for women and old people, does that mean apologizing before or after taking a swing at the wife, or the Decree is signed by the judge?
This beef with CD's and bars? Then my friends who own and run a brewery in town are off the hook because they have wives and kids? That only the single people at the bar playing video poker are hedons, not the ones who are married? That's just silly. It was further suggested by the snatchy CD comment that it's more responsible to come home after a long day at the job and listen to Sesame Street duets with Barney or begin flipping through t.v. channels rather than "contemplating" listening to one's favorite band or composer. Again, pure silliness. Music is vital and will outlast all other trends in entertainment. Most of the people I know who have cable do so mainly because they have kids who will throw a fit if not. I can't count how many single or childless couples I know who don't even own a t.v., or if they do, have it only for DVD rentals and PBS. (like me)
Meltdown after divorce is one wonderful result of marrying too young, before establishing a means of supporting oneself, let alone babies, and before one knows who they are and who is better as a life-partner. I see it all the time in my job: the most imbalanced and lost people are the ones who married before they had a strong sense of self, who then forfeited any remaining independence and strength by identifying themselves solely by the marriage and kids. Thus, when the marriage ends, they have to figure out who they are as Single Individuals, many without any means of supporting themselves financially, let alone emotionally. People lose friends in divorces. Often they try to reclaim their youth by spending money wildly, acting wildly and partying- kids or not. There is huge justification for living like a twenty-something when you ARE twenty-something rather than doing so when you're 35 or 45 and have three kids waiting to be picked up from grandma's.
For other takes on this op-ed
Check out the blogs Tapped, Feministing, and Matt Yglesias's blog at Think Progress
I have never been married,
I have never been married, nor had children, but I take the responsibility of caring for the children in my family very seriously. For 8 years, I had my two second cousins three days a week and did all the caretaking parents do.
I agree with a previous commenter, this hedonism versus married/children doesn’t apply to me. If fact, it probably doesn’t apply to most singles.
I feel a connection to all kinds of different people singles, married, and divorced. But, if push comes to shove, I would say I feel the most connected with people who caretake for people that aren’t their children. I am not saying that people with children are selfish. I am not saying people without children are selfish. What I am saying is that there is something completely special and unique about the experience of raising other people’s children.
It sometimes really bothers me when people with children smugly allude to their advanced maturity because they have biological children. I am not trying to be smug but it is really hard to explain how profound this experience can be.
In some ways I am “stereotypical” 30-something single. I don’t spend a lot of time at the club, but I do spend a lot of time at the gym (which some people consider stereotypical “single behavior”). But I think in other ways I share a lot with grandmothers who take in the children’s children and foster parents.
Bad things happen. Parents go to jail, abandon their kids, or die. When that happens married and single people just like me who pitch in. I might have children and get married one day, but I have a feeling I will probably adopt. I did realize through this whole caretaking thing that I don’t think I could love a child more just because they shared my DNA. I just don’t think my love works that way.
Prof. Regnerus is right. Fertility decreases with age. I don’t mourn it. I have been so used to caring and loving my second cousins who look nothing like me (we are racially different), that it has completely wiped out any desire for biological children who I can see myself in.
This isn’t a cut down on people who have biological children and want to spend time with a person who they can see themselves our their spouse in.
Unlike Bella, I have no evidence about the motivations of why people don't procreate. But, I have a feeling that if we really wanted create people with our same eyes, hair, nose, laugh as us we would have done that a long time ago.
So Henri, I walk the walk too. In fact, if we were to met, we would probably have more in common than you think.
America is one big night club
I just posted, but I wanted to write something about clubbing.
If more than 50% of Americans are single and if singles went to clubs all the time, wouldn’t America be packed with clubs?
I mean if all we did was go to clubs there would be clubs EVERYWHERE!
There would be a club inside Walmart. There would be another club in the Walmart parking lot. The family owned hardware store Walmart took over would be a club.
Starbucks wouldn’t have to shut down so many stores because ½ of those stores would have been clubs. Of course, we would have to order our Cosmos is “tall” because the baristas would still give you the same dirty looks if you ordered a “small.”
Rush hour wouldn’t be at 5pm, but at 2:00am when people were getting out of the club. Freeways at 2:00 am would look like parking lots.
You couldn’t buy a sweater or jeans at the Gap because it would be filled with cocktail dresses and tight black man shirts. Of course the back of the Gap would also be a small club.
I mean singles now make up the majority of Americans, and all we did was club then every the smallest American town would look like South Beach.
Honestly, I have NEVER
Honestly, I have NEVER enjoyed "clubbing," not even when I was of "clubbing age." I've always enjoyed "going out" though- to bars, restaurants, rock clubs (which isn't "clubbing"), etc. As much as I have always hated the "clubbing" thing, I still have to ask why it is such a bad thing if someone likes to do it. It's not hedonism. I've known plenty of nice people and good citizens who enjoy going dancing on weekends. Yeah, those places are pretty meat-markety and not my thing, but I would never say that a married couple sitting home at a quiet dinner party on saturday night are better people than the group of friends that goes out to the club. I totally agree with everyone's point that not all singles are into "clubbing," because I'm not either, but I don't understand why it would be so horrible if we were. It's just a weekend activity like any other. It's not some horrible thing to go to a club. I really don't understand this guy's insinuation that somehow sitting at home on saturday makes you a better person than going out.
Marriage
For a guys' perspective of why Marriage no longer works, check out this essay written by Lee Raconteur:
http://www.dont-marry.com/
My Single Life
I am not a hedonistic fool. Nor am I irresponsible nor do I pollute. In my single family home there are four single individuals. We only fill up the super small sized garbage can every two weeks. None of us worry about what DVD to buy. We worry about our families, getting good jobs that will also make the world a better place. We foster dogs, grow an organic garden and carpool to the gym. And for heaven's sake. We do not twitter or facebook all day long. We are all fully developed individuals.
I am not going to trash married folks.
But pro-marriage people, please do not trash me or make shallow assumptions about my life based on my single-ness. I have given a lot of my life in caring for family members and for non-relatives so I find it incredibly insulting to be told that because I am single, I sit around thinking only of myself. As a single person I have made the choice to sacrifice things in my life to help others. I would not have been able to do this had I been in a relationship.
If you are a hard working
If you are a hard working professional, man or woman, then Marriage 2.0 is a bad deal for you. What is Marriage 2.0? It is the end product of legislative tweaking of the marriage/divorce laws in the 1970s-80s which has given us today's crop of laws.
Under Marriage 2.0, a hard working professional that has carried the financial burden of the household is utterly vulnerable to adultery and desertion by the other spouse. Your under-employed wifey/hubby can commit adultery, file divorce on you, yet remain in the house, keep the kids, and get a nice check every month. You have no recourse. Advising men and professional women to marry under these circumstances is setting them up for personal disaster around 1/2 of the time.
It is amazing how religous conservatives when they are "Defending Marriage" against such "evils" as gays and late-marriage (I am being sarcastic here) usually have NO CLUE as to how Marriage no longer exists, and only a beast called Marriage 2.0 is impostering in its place. They have no idea what they are defending, or why.
The net effect of this recent transmutation? Here are 40 year trend charts for the net-new marriage rates for the US and the UK:
1. US:
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/2008update.pdf
2. UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7314435.stm
See a trend? This is the trend of intelligent men and women avoiding the beast. Why shouldn't they?
The subjective experience of
The subjective experience of Happiness makes it difficult to define. That for me, would render any attempted definition for the purposes of research, as close to meaningless.
Post new comment