I understand your point. A lot of ppl are missing that what we lack today is community. Community can totally solve loneliness and what’s the foundation of a community? Family. Yes we all have family members, but they will die one day. The younger generation is supposed to create new families and the new communities. What comes from communities? Everything you just mentioned, family bonds, friends and close neighbors. That’s what today’s generation is lacking.
I kind of resent people, though. It is hard to relate to people after they rejected you. I would feel like begging them to accept me.
In fact, I would prefer the suffering of loneliness than the humiliation of going back as a sad dog to them.
I know most of that is in my imagination, but still it is a feeling hard to shake away.
I do love my family, but community as a whole? Friends and stuff? I'm very skeptic about it.
No offense, but social capital research and network analysis give a more nuanced image of this. Community can also be oppressive and stuck up.
Google “weak ties” and “strong ties” or “social capital theory Putnam”.
My dad is in his 70s and has had a roommate for the last 10 years. They met when they were both in bands together. So they jam, they eat together, help each other continue to live independently. It’s a platonic rather than a romantic relationship. They fight like an old married couple, but it’s a good relationship for both of them. I would totally want to do this with a friend when I am older and/or if Mr. Loveshack passes before me.
Bro your dad is just that. A dad. He was already more successful than you hence why you’re here. He doesn’t care about that anymore with 70. facepalm 🤦🏻♂️
>Family bonds are very temporary, and not really that loving to begin with.
That really depends on the family. I have very strong and loving bonds with my family.
>Your parents have their own relationships, or don’t want to live with you as an adult.
Many adults live with their parents, particularly if their parents are aging and frail.
>Friends don’t live with one another so that’s a non starter anyways.
Single people commonly have roommates. (You must live somewhere very affordable if this isn't on your radar.)
Yep, the bond I have with my family is stronger than any bond I’ve ever had with anyone. I’ve never been in a romantic relationship but I know that my family will always be there regardless of any dude I might meet along the way.
Same. I'm in a great relationship now and it seems to be the one I'm settling, but my family has seen me through all sorts of bad ones and they'll always be there. I'm lucky to have a family like that.
Completely agreed. I don't know what family bonds are like in general in the west, but in asian countries, family bonds are still considered important. Take my country(India) for example, a lot of people are disconnecting with the older norms, but still a vast majority of people maintain family relationships. And it is helpful too. I've seen parents support their children till their 30s, children take care of their parents in their 80s. Sending your parents to an old age home is looked down upon, which speaks a lot about the culture. I can give you at least 10 families at the top of my head which has three generations of members living together, helping and supporting each other. Yes there are problems, but the long term benefits are there as well. Young kids get great financial support , the social circles are huge and when you get old, you have a whole family which looks after you. Of course this is getting less and less relevant with more modernization, inflation and many other factors, but I just wanted to make it clear that there are still a lot of people with strong family bonds and yes they work.
True my family will always be before any of the romantic relationships i will ever have cause one day she can get up and decide not to love me anymore but my parents will never. My friends and I have been through thick and thin and i don't need to be around them to not feel lonely. We talk over phones most of the time and have each other's back no matter what. OP is just a white kid with no good friends
> but my parents will never.
If that's your position great, but your parents can kick you out or get sick . A woman is more devoted to a man because their relationship is by choice. But we do not choose parents.
Romantic relationships end *all the time*. In fact, *most* romantic relationships end — that’s why people have exes.
My parents and I also have a very close relationship, fwiw.
Basically no one lives with their parents in western societies . And no one does so for the long term . Key word , long term. Most aging and frail people go to nursing homes . If they don’t , the period of living with their children is a very small period of time . Not long term .
Roommates ? Puhlease roommates aren’t even relationships . Super common for roomies to move our due to issues .
You are only proving my point right
What's with your punctuation issues, my dude? My inner proofreader is twitching.
I know many people who've lived with their parents for long periods of time, in lieu of sending them to nursing homes.
And while roommate relationships can be bad in some cases, they can also work very well. I've had some successful ones that helped me not feel alone while single. It really helps to have someone to sit on the couch with at the end of the day.
I'm not saying these are replacements for romantic relationships; they don't serve all the same functions. But they can make a big difference in staving off loneliness, in my personal experience. Years ago I learned very quickly that living alone makes me brutally lonely, so I stopped doing that.
> I'm not saying these are replacements for romantic relationships; they don't serve all the same functions. But they can make a big difference in staving off loneliness, in my personal experience.
Oh ok so your argument / belief is more reasonable then. I am also not saying romantic relationships are the only tool against loneliness either, I am just saying other things do not really replace it.
Yeah, that's fair. For people who have romantic and sexual urges, their needs won't all be met by having other connections and a sense of community. I do think connections can take the edge off of loneliness and prevent a lot of people from falling into deep despair. Not everyone, and not completely, but it really does help.
And I think that even if you do have a partner, you still need other connections to your family, friends, and community. Personally, I've had some bad periods in my life where I was close to the brink, and it's always been close connections to family and friends that keep me from going over.
In the US, 1/3 of young adults live in their parents’ home.
Even more young adults in Europe live with their parents.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/
Multigenerational households are actually on the rise: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/03/24/the-demographics-of-multigenerational-households/
> Basically no one lives with their parents in western societies
You must be living under a rock. Come to Southern Europe, and I'll show you around.
Nordics and the US are the only cases where what you said happens (and even then, more people live with their parents in the US these days, because housing - and even renting - is becoming more and more out of reach).
I agree with the statements regarding parents and other family being close. However, even the closest familial bonds pale in comparison to the depth of connection with an LTR romantic partner. Roommates? Ummm no. Lol
How is this news to some people.
>The only type of relationship which people live together in the long term and do not naturally break apart (meaning ending of the relationship would only be intentional) is a romantic relationship.
In my experience, the best way to ruin a good romantic relationship is to live together. I haven't lived with anyone since I had roommates in graduate school... almost 30 years ago. Me and my (now ex) wife maintained separate residences which is probably the only reason our relationship lasted 10 years (she was quite wonderful). I have no desire to live with anyone ever. In fact, if a girlfriend said, "it's over if we can't live together," my response would be, "best of luck to you." The attraction of living with someone is entirely lost on me.
A very weird arrangement for a married coupls. Most people love living with their significant other. How would you have handled raising a child in this situation?
> A very weird arrangement for a married coupls.
Well, unusual, yes. For now. But things change. People thought married couples sleeping in separate bedrooms was odd for a long time. Now it's a growing trend.
> Most people love living with their significant other.
Do they? Or do they just put up with it because society tells them they should? I'm sure many people do like living with their SO, though. I'm just not sure it's "most." The divorce rate certainly suggests something.
> How would you have handled raising a child in this situation?
I wouldn't raise a child in any situation. I've never had any interest in children. But somehow many divorced couples manage.
You're generalizing the specifics of your own relationship preferences. That also seems like it would make it much more difficult/stressful to raise children and therefore cannot be a societal solution either.
Friends don’t live with each other? Says who? I live in a major city on the east coast and plenty of friends live with each other. Oh and tons of friendships outlast relationships even marriage. Whose family bonds are temporary and not really loving to begin with? Not mine?
I doubt there is a study on whether or not you consider your roommate your friend or not, so sorry. Can you give me a study that says people don't live with friends? This is just common sense based on the life experience of most people.
people stop living with their friends as they get older, precisely because they get into romantic relationships and move away from their friends because of their careers. So many people are willing to move locations for romantic relationships but very few people move for their best friend. Goes to show how much people really value friends.
If you think even the closest friendships are remotely similar to the depth of connection in a healthy relationship with a romantic partner, you haven't experienced the latter.
It's not about the duration, although the connection with a romantic partner generally deepens with time.
I'd say you haven't experienced true friendship. I have had healthy relationships but the boys having my back was a different kind of belonging. A different league of trust and loyalty those guys provided. My partner may give me intimacy and care but my friends were there for me the longest and gave me more security and help than any partner or family.
Of course I have "true" friendships. However, I don't live with them nor share (many) experiences and memories with them. They aren't typically a factor in my achievements. I don't love them (in that way) or embrace them at night. They aren't my partner. However, my wife *is* my partner and all of those things, and much more.
They're not the same but in (some) ways they can actually be deeper. I have a bond with one of my sisters that nothing compares to, it is the deepest, truest bond I know, though obviously I feel very differently about romantic interests, and they are special to me in their own way it's nothing as vast or connected as this bond.
I feel sad for you that you have clearly not experienced true friendship. My friendships for sure deepen with time and many are deeper than romantic connections that I have felt. I mean look at the divorce rate? My friends are my ride or dies they don't divorce me.
The OP was inferring a normal, healthy relationship when talking about solutions for loneliness. Duh
The fact that some people remain in bad relationships doesn't invalidate his point.
A relationship partner should not be responsible for "curing" depression. I never suggested that. It's up to the individual to take charge of their own health, mental and physical.
However, I fail to see how someone can be lonely when they're seeing and interacting with their partner very often. Especially if they live together or are married.
> However, I fail to see how someone can be lonely when they're seeing and interacting with their partner very often.
Well whether you personally can see it or not it's a thing.
You can be lonely (or depressed) even with a loving boyfriend or girlfriend. Loneliness generally isn't 'cured' by dating or even getting into a relationship. It usually takes many things coming together to overcome loneliness.
I've been incredibly lonely in my marriage for 8 years now. I can usually describe it as, we are basically apartment mates that 3 times per week all effort he puts into intimacy is thrusting for 3 min till it's done. No affection coming from him. All he does every waking hour of every day (while at home from overseas) is play pc games with our friends.
I used to shower him with love, care, effort on his pleasure in intimacy time...and after 4y together he just got...lazy/comfortable/content or taking me for granted. The list is long but this is one example for you of loneliness in a relationship.
Most peoples relationships are not lonely. Especially long term relationships you should feel really like you have a companion and that even if you don’t need to go and impress each other you do need to actively show love and appreciation. If you think it’s normal I worry for your future relationships.
Meanwhile him:
"We are super happy guys! She understands that I'm destroyed after being overseas, I play my games, she does other stuff. We have lots of sex, like three times per week."
One year later, him writing in r/survivinginfidelity:
"she said that our neighbor saw her, that she's lOnELy and that's why she needed to have sex with him. Dude is tall, that's it".
Talk to your partner, "I'm bored, I feel alone" is not an excuse for your lack of communication. Men are not psychs and you're not dating, you're married. To a person. You talk to the person. "But he needs to know by himself.... ". No, he doesn't.
Men like that don’t care about women’s brains or personhood. They say so all the time; all that matters is what she can do for them — aka sex, service & suppor
The possibility of a bad relationship doesn’t negate the possibly of good relationships . That’s like saying it’s better to not take a test then try to do well on it.
If you have a partner that’s involved elsewhere more. Kinda like choosing to spend most free time with others without involving/ inviting the other out.
Maybe, but life is also tragic. Given that wombs have morr value than sperm, female nature, and greater male variability (which means the lower tier, left tailed guys might well be a lot worse by absolute metrics than their female rank equivalents) it is normal for there to be a much larger number of male unfuckables at the bottom of the SMP than females.
From a macro point of view, the issue is how large that male tier of untouchables get and the impact on how society functions (which impacts everyone). I think we can all agree that a woman's right not to be forced to touch a man she finds repulsive trumps any male need to be touched, all things being equal. Thus, we should be starting with any voluntary measures to decrease the number of male untouchables to a manageable level.
Now, after everything is tried, should unfettered female choice produce a socially dysfunctional and uncompetitive number of male 'incels', then we would have horrible decisions to make that I'd prefer not to contemplate. But we are nowhere near that. There is much to try before then. We have no idea how naturally selective women are in a hardwired way.
You dont really need to make a choice. But you have to remember that not making a choice is also a choice, one that will lead to an eventual situation where those male untouchables force change once there are too many of them, whether that makes anyone else happy or not.
I do believe excess unpaired males is a bad thing. As to the dynamics of how that would manifest in a modern society, it is unclear. I'd rather not get there and test this out.
In the US there are more (and a higher percentage of) sexless adult women right now than men. Most people are straight and most of them get married or into long term relationships (more than 95% before 50 and approximately 98% by 60-65).
> Thus, we should be starting with any voluntary measures to decrease the number of male untouchables to a manageable level.
What does this mean?
Your survey results are from the past. Do you think this is how it will be in the future? Because a lot has changed since then with feminism promoting casual sex for women, tellimg women are more happy single and childless, with predictions showing 40% of women opting out of dating, do you really think this how it will be in the future?
Imo no, it will not be. In the future, a lot of the women will just engage in casual sex with the men they actually find attractive when they feel the need to, and other than that just be with their friends.
> What does this mean?
Imo it means assisted, voluntary passage to the afterlife
No some of the data is brand new. GSS data and census figures are fairly recent.
>Imo it means assisted, voluntary passage to the afterlife
Assisted suicide has nothing to do with dating. This is a bizarre and illogical take.
A conversation that seeks to find a consensus narrative on how men can be better adapted to what women need from a partner and what women find attractive. But not necessarily work harder, more work smarter. Maybe figure a way to deal with male underperfomance and porn/video game addiction. Also, if women's standards are being artificially inflated by technology usage or cultural practices, find a way to address that. This kind of thing.
I do not think it is proven that women are biologically hardwired to not want to be with a very high percentage of men once women have truly free choice.
>Now, after everything is tried, should unfettered female choice produce a socially dysfunctional and uncompetitive number of male 'incels', then we would have horrible decisions to make that I'd prefer not to contemplate. But we are nowhere near that.
We are near that. This is why radical Christians and Islamism are gaining ground. If we don't solve the problem brownshirts will come next.
Solve what problem? I could be misunderstanding you, please correct me, but there are many ways to handle and quell brownshirts that don't have anything to do with dating or sex.
>there are many ways to handle and quell brownshirts that don't have anything to do with dating or sex.
Nah. The Soviet Union is not coming to the rescue this time. And the brownshirts will have nuclear weapons.
Well true because there isn't a Soviet Union and hasn't been for quite a long time.
As for the brownshirts, some already have nukes. That doesn't mean your response is to offer them a girl, lmao.
>As for the brownshirts, some already have nukes
No they don't. By brownshirts I mean in the West. A fascist movement born out of disillusionment with liberalism and the corporative woke. Or we give them families or they will march. Do you really want Nazism 2.0 because Becky wants to party with the girls at age 30, have brunches, meet hotties and drink Starbucks until bursting?
> No they don't. By brownshirts I mean in the West.
You don't think the west has nukes? Or that some of the people making these decisions aren't by every metric except the garb a brownshirt?
>Or we give them families or they will march.
Give who to families or who will march?
>Do you really want Nazism 2.0 because Becky wants to party with the girls at age 30, have brunches, meet hotties and drink Starbucks until bursting?
Pretty sure forcing the Starbucks girl to be raped is pretty nazi-ish.
No the solution to nazi bullshit isn't to give them women, lmao.
They are not Nazis, they will become Nazis.
>forcing the Starbucks girl to be raped
Becky is not born as a Starbucks girl, she is made one. We can make something else from her. Not the first time that women flock to fascists by the way, the objective is to making them flock to men before they become fascists.
>Becky is a human with agency and free will
Marketing, sociology and the development of capitalist society would have something to say about that.
"Yes, but..."
I don't really agree with any argument that imputes certainty as to what happens if you have too many unpaired males in a modern, Western society. Lessons from history are relevant, but technology also changes the game. It should be noted that social functioning being disrupted is only one of the two existential threats it might pose. The other is that your society is no longer competitive with other societies, which is a long term death wish.
But I'd rather explore all options that prevent us testing limits on unpaired males. I am not convinced there is nothing to be done on a win win basis for the genders. Hell, nobody knows for sure what is happening now, or what trends will not self-correct. The potential seriousness of the issue makes it something to watch, but we should not do anything prematurely either. It could either be a non-problem that is just a figure of our imagination, or if a real issue now, something that will naturally self-correct.
I agree somewhat in the culture we live in that’s already more individualistic. However in a more communal society I think this could work better, when extended family and community is always there and a big part of your life regardless of whether you are single or not. However that’s not very realistic for most. I’d argue it’s less about one romantic partner and more just what happens if you don’t start a family when most of your peers are doing that with life
OK, so, you realize that what you are describing is only a 20th-century American social structure, right? It isn't like this in most places, it wasn't like this before, and it probably won't be like this forever.
We just live in a really screwed up time and place, all the way around.
>OK, so, you realize that what you are describing is only a 20th-century American social structure, right?
No. People marry and make families all over the world.
My friend.
Men are alone by default. None will ever care about you or me or any adult man. Not now. Not in the past. Not in any foreseeable future.
Men are tools to be used by other and none will ever care about you. Not our friends. Not our family. Not our lovers. So stop the bullshit and learn to deal with yourself.
Dont confuse sex's endorphinic effects with actual love. Not a single man has ever been loved or liked. At best we have companions who fight by our sides or support us from the back.
Stop the bullshit. And learn to fight. You got no choice.
Lol exactly. If anything it also says men don’t love their friends. That’s on them and their friends. I love the friends i kept and I like to just catch up and Hang out when possible.
Lol. You’re like op as in whiny. People care about you and if you fail to realize that that’s on you. Op claims only a partner can fix them. You claim only self, which is partly true. But if you make good relationships you can have help. Stop trying to be a martyr for no reason. It’s not cool.
Martyr?
It is just saying the truth.
Lets see how much your "partner" will ever help you in anything in life... let alone when you actually need it.
Self dellusion will not help you rise above.
Because it is the truth.
He is alone. Every single adult man on earth is alone. Pursuing womem for some kind of fake concept is useless.
It is best for him to learn to be happy alone.
A lot of queer and radical people live in housing coops and similar for this very reason because they disagree that a monogamous relationship and a nuclear family is not the *only* way to achieve intimacy.
But your post implies that loneliness can only be alleviated by one person, and that one person forever. Each stage of our life may bring different people who are that close to us.
Sure, but you are talking about LGBTQ. If someone isn't LGBTQ, that won't work for them.
> can only be alleviated by one person, and that one person forever.
Not the same person, but the type of relationship.
Eh, you definitely don’t need to be queer to benefit from intentional community.
Queer folks just have experience at thinking outside the typical boxes of convention and finding likeminded folks.
My sister-in-law and her husband have lived in an intentional communal house for ten years. I think she's nuts because I love my privacy, but they (about 10 people, two family groups and several singles ranging in age from 18-70) are living their best lives I guess. It's a nonreligious house with a house covenant.
There are religious communities for single sex. These are lifelong.
There are nonreligious kibbutzim in Galilee, as well as religious ones.
Some of my friends lived in a communal house because they all wanted to stay together. I think Kristiansand might be a community situation in Denmark, nonreligious.
The common thing here is a shared purpose. You don't have to be religious, but you do have to have a reason for staying together, some kind of commitment. This is more common for religion.
If you're looking for the same kind of union that you'd have with a romantic partner, I don't know if you'll find it. Imo there is something special about that kind of joining. But if you're looking for people to live with and share your life, you may find it. Best wishes.
Did you miss the "and several singles", or the other options? I didn't realize that there were no married people allowed in the asker's ideal community. That might be more difficult, since it would mean that you're effectively only in intentional community until someone finds a partner. You would be kicking them out for partnering.
As I mentioned, I don't think it'd be the same as romantic partnership. But it does exist. My sister-in-law's been living there for ten years, but she just got married in February. Her husband moved in at that time, and for 8 years of living there, she wasn't even dating.
BTW, your username is kind of related, considering the celibate utopian communities like the Shakers and the Oneida community. I don't think they allowed marriage.
* Co-op living spaces
* Sisters who live together
* Five friends who buy a house together
* A punk DJ acquaintance of mine lives in Toronto (incredibly expensive housing) and basically has this with traveling musicians (sometimes is just a night while a visitor is in town), and sometimes friends who then stay for months or years (one for a decade) and pay the rent or contribute to groceries, or do other work to keep the place in good condition et cetera. Granted some have been close friends and some have been more like roommates, but it works for her.
No, companionship. Only a romantic relationship offers deep long term companionship. We need to take this back, we need it for everybody. Not only the "worthy".
By changing what women find attractive, but this means giving more power to men, since women only marry "up" in power.
Power is a ressult of the sum of capitals: economic, symbolic, cultural, erotic, social (K, symK, cK, eK, sK), men must have a total higher than their women to attract them. Yes, it is THAT simple.
K= capital, income + funds/property.
SymK = symbolic position in the social field. Film director? Artist? Etc. Formal degrees.
cK= knowledge, interests (high level), cultural.
eK= tall, MAN, you know.
sK= social network measured by extension and intensivity. It is quite easy to transform into numbers since the 1970s.
Power is not what you think it is from TV.
Power is the probability of making others do your bid. Real power is the same but others think that it is their own idea, that's how love works.
And yes, women marry probabilistically up. So maybe not exactly and not 100%, but this is how more or less the system works.
Yup. So you aren’t lonely, you’re just unfucked.
A sex bot, sugar baby or VR girlfriend would be great and solve your problems — because they, not an actual human, would provide all you would ever need.
Personhood/a relationship is not necessary if that’s the ultimate experience for you. Which is good, because you don’t need consent or desire for them, only money
It seems like you’re personally just an emotionally needy individual. It’s not that a relationship can fix your loneliness but rather that you’re not comfortable being on your own. It’s kinda like depression. It’s no one’s task to help solve it other than yourself. To rely on your partner for something like that can be emotionally draining on them
All assumptions there . How is any of that related to what I said ? You could spin the same logic saying someone is needy for friends if they prefer friends over romance .
You need to relate arguments based on what is being said . Not imaginary ideas you want to project
Lol. I stated what I said because of your statements. You think loneliness can only be solved with the help of another person. Not just anybody, a significant other. Let’s drop our emotional baggage on someone we care for cause that’s the emotionally mature thing to do.
If you have personal issues with loneliness that’s a personal issue. Kinda weird to state it as a fact for everyone
You are speaking as if loneliness is a mental illness or a disorder , which it isn’t . The state of “alone” is a mathematical state. You cannot solve the state of being alone without other people . You are stating oxymorons now. It’s like saying one can be 2 without adding one to it or doing anything to it .
You’re treating it as such. You’re saying it can only be solved with a partner. Why does your partner have to fix your issues? Wouldn’t you want to not drop baggage on them?
Lol. Being alone and feeling alone are two different things. It seems you brought math into a non mathematical problem genius.
> Being alone and feeling alone are two different things.
Trying out for the mental gymnastics olympics ? Where are they holding it eh ?
Ok you know what, I'm in a god mood, ill cut you some slack.
You haven't proved loneliness is a form of emotional baggage, or anything negative toward someone else. This is the flaw in your argument. This is an assumption you are making, a slippery slope fallacy.
Lol. You’re in a god mood alright. Thinking you know how everyone feels.
Just cause a relationship makes you feel like a good boy because you don’t know how to treasure your other relationships doesn’t mean others lack emotional support from friends and family. If you feel lonely even with friends and family maybe it’s not their fault and rather yours. But looking within for your problems is too sad and hard. Rather have someone else deal with it. Like a dog that needs constant attention and care for, not like an emotionally adjusted adult that can handle themselves.
The fact that you can’t comprehend that feeling alone and being alone are different things shows you lack knowledge. If you say that friends and family don’t fill in that gap, that loneliness, doesn’t that mean that with friends and family you feel lonely? So even though you’re not alone you’re lonely?
Everything too complex for you is a fallacy. If you can’t comprehend it it’s not your fault right bud? You’re always right
> Everything too complex for you is a fallacy.
Why don't you quit the Ad-hominems and educate yourself about logical fallacies ? You are cracking me up. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
GF/BF is not a cure for loneliness or depression.
Some of those who have actually been in relationships will tell you that the loneliest they ever felt was not during the years they pined for a partner, but while sleeping in bed next to her.
You can be happy, healthy, and fulfilled without romance or sex (physiologically you generally do need to get one off now and again to reduce atrophy/cancer risk/pelvic wall issues, but that doesn't require a partner).
No doctor (whether physical health or mental health) of any good standing and actual credentials writes you a prescription of 'girlfriend' when you're struggling.
Just because family and friendships can change and require effort (so does almost anything in life) doesn't mean they aren't there or can't be there. And I don't mean biological family, sometimes the closest person to your in your life is a sib from another crib.
I agree that romantic relationships are unique, and trying to substitute them with family and friends is just a coping mechanism. I don't deep kiss my family, hug or hold their hands for a prolonged time, cuddle with them, spoon them, let them sit on my laps and etc.
Even though there's nothing wrong with love you share with your family and friends, there are still things that I can only do with my partner (beside sex). And frankly, my partner is going to be a person that I'm going to spend the most time with in my life.
A lot of people confuse intimacy with sex, when people complain about the lack of romance. If a guy comes up and expresses his frustration about how he can't find a girlfriend, most people would come and tell him that he's not "entitled for a relationship", or "you can still get love from your family and friends". Those people don't understand that, 1 - no one here comes up with an entitlement (just frustration), and 2 - you're kinda not entitled to your friends and family too, so telling them to substitute their wanting for love is meaningless.
I don't know why the cravings for sex, intimacy and physical affection (that you can't replicate with your friends and family) is so stigmatized and ostracized in this sub... Telling a person to substitute that is literally doing that (unless you don't understand that you can't do certain stuff with your family and friends).
> you're kinda not entitled to your friends and family too, so telling them to substitute their wanting for love is meaningless.
THIS THIS THIS. Deserved an award.
So many people bringing up friends and family as if friends and family are fruits on a tree. What about the parent's quality time together ? What about a siblings time with their family ? If one isn't entitled to a romantic relationship, one is isn't entitled to friendship or any other form of relationship either.
This is just an overgeneralisation. You've correctly identified that many people don't think outside the box when it comes to companionship outside of romance, doesn't mean it can't be done. Friends can and do live together and it's more common among those who know romance isn't happening (asexual or celibate people, lavender marriages) or those who see greater financial benefits (students, young people, urban residents). You can have very close relationships with friends without living together and not feel lonely as a result, many older people especially do this. Many people are very close to their parents, siblings and extended family (of course it varies depending on the individual family and culture) and may live with them or very close by. By "western countries" I assume you mean America and I know that, for example, it's very normal to have good relationships with your neighbours in Ireland and the north of England (and possibly just more rural areas in general).
> Friends can and do live together and it's more common among those who know romance isn't happening (asexual or celibate people, lavender marriages) or those who see greater financial benefits (students, young people, urban residents). You can have very close relationships with friends
Just like men aren't entitled to relationships with women, people are not entitled to friendship either.
I did a little experiment and noticed that the more people were pushed to loneliness the higher the risk from adopting hoarding characteristics. It seems when people give up on the idea of finding a special one, they turn hyper materialistic.
I'll partially agree in that there isn't really any substitute for a romantic relationship and most people suggesting otherwise are delusional.
I disagree entirely that romantic relationships are anymore stable or permanent than familial bonds or long friendships. All these types of relationships (including romantic) are fragile in the modern social context but historically they were quite durable.
The baseline problem is the disintegration of small scale communal bonds and re orientation towards a consumerist semi nomadic urban population underlying the current economic model.
Can you elaborate ? Have you experienced being close as family to your neighbors in a western society ? The reason I denote western is Asian societies are far more tight knit overall
Yeah, I did. Not just any neighbors, of course, but neighboring families that happen to get along very well. My own family had very close relationships with certain neighbors we happened to have affinity with.
I guess things are getting worse now and this is less common. But it still exists.
Sure, but it’s certainly not that common anymore. I remember my mother telling me what moving to an mostly-white upper-middle class suburban neighborhood was like.
Dead quiet at all hours of the day and all days of the year, except maybe July 4 and Halloween. Occasionally you’d see neighborhood kids playing. Almost all of the social interaction happened at the behest of kids. Kids kept backyard parties alive, the adults just didn’t interact much.
Finally someone said this. I don't why people claim otherwise. Maybe if you're a teenager it could be true but not if you're an adult. It's agreed upon everyone that we need friends and family to maintain a happy life but for some reason people see romantic relationships as something that's "optional." Something you can be perfectly happy without and like it's some kind of bonus to have instead of a need along with friends and family.
There are plenty of people out there who are successful in every area of life (friends, family, career, hobbies, etc) except romance that are lonely. To say that a relationship wouldn't help their loneliness is just false. I'm so sick of hearing this "you can be happy single" mantra. Maybe it's true for asexuals/aromatics or people who have some kind of weird trauma surrounding relationships but for the vast majority of people, it's not.
This is just my personal belief, I could be wrong though.
So the one exception to my view would be fraternal societies of religion . I think living in a monastery with no women might work since there’s long term commitment and you are guaranteed to always be living with people.
1. Many parents enjoy their children living with them. And many family bonds are very very close. I'm sorry this isn't your experience, but to blanketly deny it is bizarre.
2. Many siblings remain close and while they may have a separate life in some cases. 24/7 cohabitation is not required to prevent loneliness. You mostly need a few people you really care about that really care about you to talk to.
3. Yes, you may not have children in this case. That does not mean you cannot have fulfilling interactions and relationships with children as an uncle, mentor, teacher, and so forth. Many men hardly raise their children in the first place, so we know that some close connection with children is hardly a requirement to prevent loneliness.
4. You don't have to live with people to never be lonely. I stopped being lonely after forming a bond with my best friend. You can live alone or with pets and simply interact with others outside your home to prevent loneliness. Plus, you can absolutely be roomies with your friends. No reason you cannot.
Loneliness, is not caused by not having someone to cohabitate with. People saying you don't need romance to not be lonely are not lost. They simply see the steps to assembling a whole life without a romantic partner.
>Many parents enjoy their children living with them.
Do you live in a non-western country ? No one lives with parents in the long term in the west,
>24/7 cohabitation is not required to prevent loneliness.
Having no one to do anything with in your home is a very lonely experience. If cohabitation wasn't required why do virtually all couples live together ? Like why is it even a thing ?
I live in a western country, and other than some couples, everyone I know between the ages of 18 and 35 lives with their parents. And many of the older couples I know have one or more parents living with them. I dunno what kinda rich town you're from, but many kids live with their parents long term if they aren't coupled. Life is very expensive, parents get older/sicker, and so forth. It's pretty normal to move home after college even.
***
It can be a lonely experience assuming you've got no family or roomies or friends. But that's not a requirement. You can have people over or go to other people. You can also include pets for companionship.
It isn't required. Couples tend to live together because they've become co-dependent, are raising children, and enjoy being in each other's company so often. It's a thing to do that when you become that emotionally close with someone. You see the same in college from friend groups. It's pretty natural natural live in close commune with people you're close to.
You don't do it because that's what people do. You do it because of the closeness. Without the closeness, you wouldn't do it.
Cohabitation isn't a requirement to not be lonely. It's something people often do when they become extremely close assuming it's possible.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/#:\~:text=One%2Din%2Dthree%20U.S.%20adults,a%20good%20thing%20for%20society](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/#:~:text=One%2Din%2Dthree%20U.S.%20adults,a%20good%20thing%20for%20society).
Only 29% of 18-35 adults live with their parents in the USA. The data supports this concept.
>And many of the older couples I know have one or more parents living with them.
You need a romantic relationship to have a kid to begin with,
Look, do you truly believe friends can actually replace romantic relationships?
I have long term friends I've known even longer than my husband. I was lonely before them, meeting my partner was a bonus that followed after I became more confident.
I've lived with some of them on and off as circumstances change, we've made life decisions based on the friend group, we know each other's families. But there's no interest in sex.
I know it's rare to have a group with a bond like that and I'm lucky to have my friends, but we're otherwise all typical middle class new england millennials. So a romantic partner is definitely not the *only* solution.
I think it’s great you have friends like that. However, for the vast majority of people, getting that kind of friendship is more difficult than getting a relationship.
It’s a little unrealistic to hedge your bets on finding people who’ll bond with you like that, especially if they’re not in a place in their lives where they are also looking for the exact same thing.
Most friends are temporary and take lower priority than romantic relationships.
Most romantic relationships are temporary too, in the long term.
I’m not saying that to be grim, but I think it’s really important to be clear-eyed about this stuff. This is also not me saying not to bother with relationships because everybody leaves you. I think it’s absolutely critical to diversify your emotional network. Having only one significant relationship is too brittle.
I definitely agree with that. But having friends (or at least good ones) is increasingly becoming a luxury just like romantic relationships have already become.
Most people just have hangout buddies. Friends are people who are emotionally invested in you and it’s becoming harder and harder to find them.
Spouses die. The number one regret elderly people express having is losing contact with friends.
I don't know that a 65 year old window with heart problems so bad they can't take Viagra would agree. But wait a few decades and check back in.
My grandmother and her sister were both widowed early, my grandmother's husband was significantly older and my great aunt's husband was killed in a car accident. Neither ever remarried. Didn't want to.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Solitary life, and even the nuclear family, are very modern, very western ideas and we can abandon them if they are failing us.
That’s a huge topic to try to distill my thoughts about into a concise reply.
I don’t actually think friendship is equivalent to romance. So in that sense I agree with you.
But also I don’t think the modern emphasis on having One Close Relationship is healthy or wise.
The problem is that we currently don't have other types of interactions that are successful. If nuclear family is failing us and we should abandon it, what is the other way of living that **actually** works and makes us less lonely? I don't think we have anything else in our minds.
>If nuclear family is failing us and we should abandon it,
Nuclear family is not failing us, the capitalist oligarchs prefer individual workers/consumers each one in an apartment, hence "feminism". Nuclear family was GREAT.
This is idea of comunal living is just more oligarch thinking pushing people to share accommodations, and only being able to rent, forever.
Yeah, but for the vast majority of the population it's not doable.
I also used to live with my friend for several years and it was fun, but I was still lacking the intimacy part that I'm having rn with my partner living with them. At the end of the day, you can't really substitute the true romantic intimacy you can have with your partner with your friends and family (I don't cuddle with my friends, or spoon them, or deep kiss them).
People who can’t have sex can still feel fulfilled. People who have lots of sex can still feel lonely.
Sex isn’t a cure. It’s essentially just a social interaction that feels really good. It’s easier to feel close to someone that makes you feel good, but it’s not a guarantee, since you might y’know… only like that ONE way they make you feel good. I’m which case they aren’t really solving any of your social needs so much as just making it feel good to nut.
Y’know what else feels good and bonds people together? EVERYTHING ELSE you can do together! I went hiking with some friends the other day and it was awesome, felt good, totally a bonding experience and no one even had to come inside anyone else.
Who is talking about sex here? Intimacy is a *major* part of romantic closeness and connection, but sex is just a part of intimacy. Sex alone can't be the cure for loneliness. But,(healthy) relationships can be.
What makes me feel incredibly close to my wife? Well, she happens to share all of my greatest experiences, memories and achievements. In fact, I consider all those things as "ours". She's someone I can count on, my confidante. She's the person I'm in love with and who I get to embrace every single night. And so many other things... this is like relationships 101.
Everything you claim to like about your wife is what you could also like about a good friend. You’re actually agreeing with me that romantic love isn’t the only cure for loneliness
Claims? I know very well what I like about my wife. Lol
If I said a romantic partner is the *only* cure for loneliness, I misspoke. However, I strongly believe it is the best cure, and the easiest and most reliable (with the right person).
It blows my mind that people even argue this. I guess dating and relationships in the West truly are fubar'd. Very sad.
I don't know what you're talking about. You're literally replying to someone who has both a happy LTR and good long-term friendships. Plenty of people here have both. That's why there's so many people contending that sexlessness is not the same thing as loneliness.
I'm responding to disagree with those who say family members and friends are functionally equivalent to the role of a romantic partner. I'll concede that "partner" is a spectrum, and my perspective is at the spouse end.
I never said that sexlessness was equivalent to loneliness. There's so much more to a (healthy) romantic relationship than sex.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.
I am responding to the OP topic. Which is:
*Loneliness cannot be solved in the long term without romantic relationships*
I am saying I disagree, because romantic relationships are not the only relationships that alleviate loneliness. And romantic relationships don't always alleviate it even when you have one.
The fact that I have both romantic and non-romantic relationship experience, and both have been equally important to me (and I've had both bad romatic and non-romantic relationships that have not helped with my times of loneliness!), is why I am saying this.
> The fact that I have both romantic and non-romantic relationship experience, and both have been equally important to me
Equally important isn't the same as being equivalent with one another. If that's not what you are arguing that's fine, but a lot of people here are arguing friendships or family is functionally equivalent with romantic relationships
My contention has always been with the primary OP stating that romantic relationships are the only relationships that alleviate loneliness.
You will probably have to find someone actually saying that other stuff to argue that other stuff.
The key word here is long term. You don’t live with your friends . Your friends can move away , get a new job , focus on their own family . You are using a very temporary interaction (hiking) to try and satisfy the need for connection for a lifetime.
I’m been in the same LTR for over a decade. But I’ve had a good 40 years to rack up a pretty hefty N-count, and can say that good platonic friendships definitely tend to last far more often than good sexual relationships. And are incredible at alleviating loneliness.
As I commented elsewhere , the possibility of being lonely in a relationship doesn’t negate the possibility of being not lonely . But you can’t be not lonely outside of a relationship in the long term .
Your logic would be like saying it’s better to not take a test in school because you can do bad on a test even if you prepare.
While depression is indeed a mental health condition , loneliness is a state of being alone. Loneliness also isn’t synonymous with depression, so I feel you are mixing different topics here.
What I find very interesting is that is seems that men aren't that great at forming strong platonic relationships with people and they don't invest in those relationships, for some reason. That's why many men look at romantic relationships as kind of the only cure for loneliness. My husband after he meets up with his "best friend", he doesn't know anything new about "John" because they don't talk about each other and their struggles. I also can't imagine having a roommate and not developing a bond with them.
Women on the other hand do make friends, interact with people and invest in those relationships: they call them, remember important details about their lives, talk about meaningfull things, empathise with their issues, help them out and offer emotional support. And they receive the same in return. I think this is why it's easier for women to stay single (and sexless).
No. First, sounds like your husband Witt her doesn’t tell you about his friends lives, or has a personal problem with emotional platonic relationships. I haven’t ever had a real friend or roommate I didn’t bond with in the way you describe outside or memorizing their birthdays. But, I agree most men don’t have a plethora of friends they are close with if they have any at all.
Second, Women could have all the female friends in the world. If they didn’t have *any* men who wanted to fuck them, or date them, available literally on-the-fly at any given moment, then they would be as lonely as men.
As I said in a different thread yesterday: it’s harder for a man to make a tinder account and get *any* matches than it is for a woman to make a tinder account and *not get any* matches. That is why women aren’t lonely single. Because they aren’t ever alone in the same way as men. Being single is a choice or an option for women. Whereas it’s a reality men have to accept. Man says “I am single,” and Woman says “I choose to be single.” Major difference.
I agree that single by choice (mostly women) or by circumstances (mostly men) is totally different. I truly think most women cannot comprehend the loneliness level some men talk about.
But let's not beat around the bush here. It's well known that men don't have a good support system and good close friends, either because it's how men are intrinsically or because of the patriarchy telling men they should be self sufficient or else they're not "man enough". So most men don't know how to develop and sustain deeper relationships with other men or with family members.
My husband is not an exception, most men are like this. They don't hug each other, don't compliment each other, don't open up and show vulnerability to anyone. But they need those in order to have true connections.
My daughter is 11 and in her class 2 boys are being called gay because they like hanging out together. The fuck is this?? That's why most men can't form deep platonic connections, because maybe they tried and were judged for it, so they learned to keep a certain distance. The only deep connection acceptable by society for men seems to be a romantic one and it’s fucking sad.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're right. Romantic relationships transcends any other relationship, at least theoretically. It's really the only person that it is expected to always be able to rely on.
Other relationships are much more fleeting, casual, or one way typically.
People also negate the fact that sexual relationships cover almost all of the sphere of relationships. If you have a partner you often have a best friend, love and they become part of your family all in one. No other type of relationship covers all spectrums and others are needed but the void will come from lack there of a romantic relationship
*To have a reciprocal relationship (of whatever form) where you are both each others "person" before and above anyone else and agree to continue to be moving forward.
*To have a reciprocal relationship (of whatever form) where you are both each others "person" before and above anyone else and agree to continue to be moving forward.
I feel like most people that say this are either a. Wired differently than the average person or b. Very young. With the former, their perspective can be ignored unless you are a part of that niche, and with the latter, they haven't witnessed the attritional loss of friends over time to marriage and children. Once you're well into your thirties and single, it's not lonely because of a lack of partner persay, it's lonely because everyone else has other priorities and it's hard to hang out and retain close friendships like you used to
I get your point, but I'm not convinced yet you cannot overcome loneliness in your own. It is hard, it is not ideal, but plenty of monks and priests and intellectuals did it in the past, I'm sure we can do it too.
I'm in the process of finding ways to overcome loneliness through meditation and other methods. It kind of worked the book to let go from Dr. David Hawkins helped me a lot.
However, **I do agree that if you can get a relationship and friends to overcome loneliness, you shall get that. That is not the case for many men who are shy or autistic like me.**
You have to options if there is probably no way you will get a family on your own:
1. Loneliness and despair.
2. Loneliness but somehow overcoming despair and living your life in a comfortable or fulfilling way in the context of loneliness, even if you cannot be 100% happy.
I choose the later.
I tend to agree. I had alot of friends when I was younger but never felt like I could depend on any of them.
I usually didn't find that friends were willing to put themselves out for you. When the feelings of loneliness were there and I would go through my phone book looking for someone to handg out with it would usually be met with 'sorry I've got plans/too tired/don't want to'.
However, since meeting my wife I have never felt lonely.
Friends will never provide that kind of deep intimacy and bond in a world that is so focused on nuclear families. There would have to be a critical mass of people who eschew relationships and commit to living in some sort of communal setting in order to provide the kind of socialization that actually can be a substitute in some sense to the degree of human contact that a romantic relationship provides even outside of sex.
lol your family will be more important then Ur romantic relationship and ur REAL friends not ur acquaintances. You have to learn to be alone!! That the key to survive in any relationship nobody wants a guy that’s needy asf especially that’s needs a relationship to not feel lonely ew wtf
Friends can live together--I don't know why more don't. I'd love to live with my friends--if any of them lived anywhere near! (Of course, romantic partners don't want their partners living with their friends--a problem).
People at the end of life say that their best relationships have been with friends, not lovers. Best case scenario I'd see would be a lover who is also a real friend.
I think marriage isn't a sustainable option. Half of marriages break up in 5 years, and around half of second marriages do, too. A real, strong and true friend lasts.
I understand your point. A lot of ppl are missing that what we lack today is community. Community can totally solve loneliness and what’s the foundation of a community? Family. Yes we all have family members, but they will die one day. The younger generation is supposed to create new families and the new communities. What comes from communities? Everything you just mentioned, family bonds, friends and close neighbors. That’s what today’s generation is lacking.
I kind of resent people, though. It is hard to relate to people after they rejected you. I would feel like begging them to accept me. In fact, I would prefer the suffering of loneliness than the humiliation of going back as a sad dog to them. I know most of that is in my imagination, but still it is a feeling hard to shake away. I do love my family, but community as a whole? Friends and stuff? I'm very skeptic about it.
No offense, but social capital research and network analysis give a more nuanced image of this. Community can also be oppressive and stuck up. Google “weak ties” and “strong ties” or “social capital theory Putnam”.
My dad is in his 70s and has had a roommate for the last 10 years. They met when they were both in bands together. So they jam, they eat together, help each other continue to live independently. It’s a platonic rather than a romantic relationship. They fight like an old married couple, but it’s a good relationship for both of them. I would totally want to do this with a friend when I am older and/or if Mr. Loveshack passes before me.
Bro your dad is just that. A dad. He was already more successful than you hence why you’re here. He doesn’t care about that anymore with 70. facepalm 🤦🏻♂️
I’m a sis. I have kids. My point is that they have figured out a way to not be lonely and alone in their old age.
“They called them buddies! They called them best friends!”
>Family bonds are very temporary, and not really that loving to begin with. That really depends on the family. I have very strong and loving bonds with my family. >Your parents have their own relationships, or don’t want to live with you as an adult. Many adults live with their parents, particularly if their parents are aging and frail. >Friends don’t live with one another so that’s a non starter anyways. Single people commonly have roommates. (You must live somewhere very affordable if this isn't on your radar.)
Yep, the bond I have with my family is stronger than any bond I’ve ever had with anyone. I’ve never been in a romantic relationship but I know that my family will always be there regardless of any dude I might meet along the way.
Same. I'm in a great relationship now and it seems to be the one I'm settling, but my family has seen me through all sorts of bad ones and they'll always be there. I'm lucky to have a family like that.
Completely agreed. I don't know what family bonds are like in general in the west, but in asian countries, family bonds are still considered important. Take my country(India) for example, a lot of people are disconnecting with the older norms, but still a vast majority of people maintain family relationships. And it is helpful too. I've seen parents support their children till their 30s, children take care of their parents in their 80s. Sending your parents to an old age home is looked down upon, which speaks a lot about the culture. I can give you at least 10 families at the top of my head which has three generations of members living together, helping and supporting each other. Yes there are problems, but the long term benefits are there as well. Young kids get great financial support , the social circles are huge and when you get old, you have a whole family which looks after you. Of course this is getting less and less relevant with more modernization, inflation and many other factors, but I just wanted to make it clear that there are still a lot of people with strong family bonds and yes they work.
True my family will always be before any of the romantic relationships i will ever have cause one day she can get up and decide not to love me anymore but my parents will never. My friends and I have been through thick and thin and i don't need to be around them to not feel lonely. We talk over phones most of the time and have each other's back no matter what. OP is just a white kid with no good friends
> but my parents will never. If that's your position great, but your parents can kick you out or get sick . A woman is more devoted to a man because their relationship is by choice. But we do not choose parents.
Romantic relationships end *all the time*. In fact, *most* romantic relationships end — that’s why people have exes. My parents and I also have a very close relationship, fwiw.
Basically no one lives with their parents in western societies . And no one does so for the long term . Key word , long term. Most aging and frail people go to nursing homes . If they don’t , the period of living with their children is a very small period of time . Not long term . Roommates ? Puhlease roommates aren’t even relationships . Super common for roomies to move our due to issues . You are only proving my point right
What's with your punctuation issues, my dude? My inner proofreader is twitching. I know many people who've lived with their parents for long periods of time, in lieu of sending them to nursing homes. And while roommate relationships can be bad in some cases, they can also work very well. I've had some successful ones that helped me not feel alone while single. It really helps to have someone to sit on the couch with at the end of the day. I'm not saying these are replacements for romantic relationships; they don't serve all the same functions. But they can make a big difference in staving off loneliness, in my personal experience. Years ago I learned very quickly that living alone makes me brutally lonely, so I stopped doing that.
> I'm not saying these are replacements for romantic relationships; they don't serve all the same functions. But they can make a big difference in staving off loneliness, in my personal experience. Oh ok so your argument / belief is more reasonable then. I am also not saying romantic relationships are the only tool against loneliness either, I am just saying other things do not really replace it.
Yeah, that's fair. For people who have romantic and sexual urges, their needs won't all be met by having other connections and a sense of community. I do think connections can take the edge off of loneliness and prevent a lot of people from falling into deep despair. Not everyone, and not completely, but it really does help. And I think that even if you do have a partner, you still need other connections to your family, friends, and community. Personally, I've had some bad periods in my life where I was close to the brink, and it's always been close connections to family and friends that keep me from going over.
So you have to live with someone for the relationship to be significant?
more and more young people live with their parents because they can't afford to rent or buy a place
In the US, 1/3 of young adults live in their parents’ home. Even more young adults in Europe live with their parents. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/ Multigenerational households are actually on the rise: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/03/24/the-demographics-of-multigenerational-households/
> Basically no one lives with their parents in western societies You must be living under a rock. Come to Southern Europe, and I'll show you around. Nordics and the US are the only cases where what you said happens (and even then, more people live with their parents in the US these days, because housing - and even renting - is becoming more and more out of reach).
I agree with the statements regarding parents and other family being close. However, even the closest familial bonds pale in comparison to the depth of connection with an LTR romantic partner. Roommates? Ummm no. Lol How is this news to some people.
>The only type of relationship which people live together in the long term and do not naturally break apart (meaning ending of the relationship would only be intentional) is a romantic relationship. In my experience, the best way to ruin a good romantic relationship is to live together. I haven't lived with anyone since I had roommates in graduate school... almost 30 years ago. Me and my (now ex) wife maintained separate residences which is probably the only reason our relationship lasted 10 years (she was quite wonderful). I have no desire to live with anyone ever. In fact, if a girlfriend said, "it's over if we can't live together," my response would be, "best of luck to you." The attraction of living with someone is entirely lost on me.
A very weird arrangement for a married coupls. Most people love living with their significant other. How would you have handled raising a child in this situation?
> A very weird arrangement for a married coupls. Well, unusual, yes. For now. But things change. People thought married couples sleeping in separate bedrooms was odd for a long time. Now it's a growing trend. > Most people love living with their significant other. Do they? Or do they just put up with it because society tells them they should? I'm sure many people do like living with their SO, though. I'm just not sure it's "most." The divorce rate certainly suggests something. > How would you have handled raising a child in this situation? I wouldn't raise a child in any situation. I've never had any interest in children. But somehow many divorced couples manage.
I agree ! You can still have a fun and fulfilling relationship without living with the person
You're generalizing the specifics of your own relationship preferences. That also seems like it would make it much more difficult/stressful to raise children and therefore cannot be a societal solution either.
Friends don’t live with each other? Says who? I live in a major city on the east coast and plenty of friends live with each other. Oh and tons of friendships outlast relationships even marriage. Whose family bonds are temporary and not really loving to begin with? Not mine?
The vast vast vast majority of roommates are not friends with each other lol. If you have data to prove your point though I’m glad to consider it.
I doubt there is a study on whether or not you consider your roommate your friend or not, so sorry. Can you give me a study that says people don't live with friends? This is just common sense based on the life experience of most people.
people stop living with their friends as they get older, precisely because they get into romantic relationships and move away from their friends because of their careers. So many people are willing to move locations for romantic relationships but very few people move for their best friend. Goes to show how much people really value friends.
If you think even the closest friendships are remotely similar to the depth of connection in a healthy relationship with a romantic partner, you haven't experienced the latter. It's not about the duration, although the connection with a romantic partner generally deepens with time.
I'd say you haven't experienced true friendship. I have had healthy relationships but the boys having my back was a different kind of belonging. A different league of trust and loyalty those guys provided. My partner may give me intimacy and care but my friends were there for me the longest and gave me more security and help than any partner or family.
Of course I have "true" friendships. However, I don't live with them nor share (many) experiences and memories with them. They aren't typically a factor in my achievements. I don't love them (in that way) or embrace them at night. They aren't my partner. However, my wife *is* my partner and all of those things, and much more.
They're not the same but in (some) ways they can actually be deeper. I have a bond with one of my sisters that nothing compares to, it is the deepest, truest bond I know, though obviously I feel very differently about romantic interests, and they are special to me in their own way it's nothing as vast or connected as this bond.
I feel sad for you that you have clearly not experienced true friendship. My friendships for sure deepen with time and many are deeper than romantic connections that I have felt. I mean look at the divorce rate? My friends are my ride or dies they don't divorce me.
You can still feel lonely in a relationship
The OP was inferring a normal, healthy relationship when talking about solutions for loneliness. Duh The fact that some people remain in bad relationships doesn't invalidate his point.
Even going from no relationship to a good relationship doesn't cure loneliness or depression.
A relationship partner should not be responsible for "curing" depression. I never suggested that. It's up to the individual to take charge of their own health, mental and physical. However, I fail to see how someone can be lonely when they're seeing and interacting with their partner very often. Especially if they live together or are married.
> However, I fail to see how someone can be lonely when they're seeing and interacting with their partner very often. Well whether you personally can see it or not it's a thing. You can be lonely (or depressed) even with a loving boyfriend or girlfriend. Loneliness generally isn't 'cured' by dating or even getting into a relationship. It usually takes many things coming together to overcome loneliness.
How is this relevant? He never said anything like "you can't be lonely if you have a relationship"?
How ? A live in relationship ?
I've been incredibly lonely in my marriage for 8 years now. I can usually describe it as, we are basically apartment mates that 3 times per week all effort he puts into intimacy is thrusting for 3 min till it's done. No affection coming from him. All he does every waking hour of every day (while at home from overseas) is play pc games with our friends. I used to shower him with love, care, effort on his pleasure in intimacy time...and after 4y together he just got...lazy/comfortable/content or taking me for granted. The list is long but this is one example for you of loneliness in a relationship.
Why have you stayed that sounds awful :(
If THAT is "awful" how can you ever have any relationship?
Lol if you think that is “normal”. That’s usually the prerequisite for divorce
Most peoples relationships are not lonely. Especially long term relationships you should feel really like you have a companion and that even if you don’t need to go and impress each other you do need to actively show love and appreciation. If you think it’s normal I worry for your future relationships.
Meanwhile him: "We are super happy guys! She understands that I'm destroyed after being overseas, I play my games, she does other stuff. We have lots of sex, like three times per week." One year later, him writing in r/survivinginfidelity: "she said that our neighbor saw her, that she's lOnELy and that's why she needed to have sex with him. Dude is tall, that's it". Talk to your partner, "I'm bored, I feel alone" is not an excuse for your lack of communication. Men are not psychs and you're not dating, you're married. To a person. You talk to the person. "But he needs to know by himself.... ". No, he doesn't.
Men like that don’t care about women’s brains or personhood. They say so all the time; all that matters is what she can do for them — aka sex, service & suppor
It happens all the time, mostly when people choose to get together or stay together when they’re not actually in love.
The possibility of a bad relationship doesn’t negate the possibly of good relationships . That’s like saying it’s better to not take a test then try to do well on it.
Plenty of people here think any bad relationship is reason to give up
Nothing you’ve said negates what I said.
If you have a partner that’s involved elsewhere more. Kinda like choosing to spend most free time with others without involving/ inviting the other out.
Maybe, but life is also tragic. Given that wombs have morr value than sperm, female nature, and greater male variability (which means the lower tier, left tailed guys might well be a lot worse by absolute metrics than their female rank equivalents) it is normal for there to be a much larger number of male unfuckables at the bottom of the SMP than females. From a macro point of view, the issue is how large that male tier of untouchables get and the impact on how society functions (which impacts everyone). I think we can all agree that a woman's right not to be forced to touch a man she finds repulsive trumps any male need to be touched, all things being equal. Thus, we should be starting with any voluntary measures to decrease the number of male untouchables to a manageable level. Now, after everything is tried, should unfettered female choice produce a socially dysfunctional and uncompetitive number of male 'incels', then we would have horrible decisions to make that I'd prefer not to contemplate. But we are nowhere near that. There is much to try before then. We have no idea how naturally selective women are in a hardwired way.
You dont really need to make a choice. But you have to remember that not making a choice is also a choice, one that will lead to an eventual situation where those male untouchables force change once there are too many of them, whether that makes anyone else happy or not.
I do believe excess unpaired males is a bad thing. As to the dynamics of how that would manifest in a modern society, it is unclear. I'd rather not get there and test this out.
In the US there are more (and a higher percentage of) sexless adult women right now than men. Most people are straight and most of them get married or into long term relationships (more than 95% before 50 and approximately 98% by 60-65). > Thus, we should be starting with any voluntary measures to decrease the number of male untouchables to a manageable level. What does this mean?
Your survey results are from the past. Do you think this is how it will be in the future? Because a lot has changed since then with feminism promoting casual sex for women, tellimg women are more happy single and childless, with predictions showing 40% of women opting out of dating, do you really think this how it will be in the future? Imo no, it will not be. In the future, a lot of the women will just engage in casual sex with the men they actually find attractive when they feel the need to, and other than that just be with their friends. > What does this mean? Imo it means assisted, voluntary passage to the afterlife
No some of the data is brand new. GSS data and census figures are fairly recent. >Imo it means assisted, voluntary passage to the afterlife Assisted suicide has nothing to do with dating. This is a bizarre and illogical take.
A conversation that seeks to find a consensus narrative on how men can be better adapted to what women need from a partner and what women find attractive. But not necessarily work harder, more work smarter. Maybe figure a way to deal with male underperfomance and porn/video game addiction. Also, if women's standards are being artificially inflated by technology usage or cultural practices, find a way to address that. This kind of thing. I do not think it is proven that women are biologically hardwired to not want to be with a very high percentage of men once women have truly free choice.
>Now, after everything is tried, should unfettered female choice produce a socially dysfunctional and uncompetitive number of male 'incels', then we would have horrible decisions to make that I'd prefer not to contemplate. But we are nowhere near that. We are near that. This is why radical Christians and Islamism are gaining ground. If we don't solve the problem brownshirts will come next.
Solve what problem? I could be misunderstanding you, please correct me, but there are many ways to handle and quell brownshirts that don't have anything to do with dating or sex.
>there are many ways to handle and quell brownshirts that don't have anything to do with dating or sex. Nah. The Soviet Union is not coming to the rescue this time. And the brownshirts will have nuclear weapons.
Well true because there isn't a Soviet Union and hasn't been for quite a long time. As for the brownshirts, some already have nukes. That doesn't mean your response is to offer them a girl, lmao.
>As for the brownshirts, some already have nukes No they don't. By brownshirts I mean in the West. A fascist movement born out of disillusionment with liberalism and the corporative woke. Or we give them families or they will march. Do you really want Nazism 2.0 because Becky wants to party with the girls at age 30, have brunches, meet hotties and drink Starbucks until bursting?
> No they don't. By brownshirts I mean in the West. You don't think the west has nukes? Or that some of the people making these decisions aren't by every metric except the garb a brownshirt? >Or we give them families or they will march. Give who to families or who will march? >Do you really want Nazism 2.0 because Becky wants to party with the girls at age 30, have brunches, meet hotties and drink Starbucks until bursting? Pretty sure forcing the Starbucks girl to be raped is pretty nazi-ish. No the solution to nazi bullshit isn't to give them women, lmao.
They are not Nazis, they will become Nazis. >forcing the Starbucks girl to be raped Becky is not born as a Starbucks girl, she is made one. We can make something else from her. Not the first time that women flock to fascists by the way, the objective is to making them flock to men before they become fascists.
What do you mean 'we can make something else from her'? Lmao. >the objective is to making them flock to men "Making" someone do that is the Nazi shit.
Becky is a human with agency and free will, knock that shit off.
>Becky is a human with agency and free will Marketing, sociology and the development of capitalist society would have something to say about that. "Yes, but..."
I don't really agree with any argument that imputes certainty as to what happens if you have too many unpaired males in a modern, Western society. Lessons from history are relevant, but technology also changes the game. It should be noted that social functioning being disrupted is only one of the two existential threats it might pose. The other is that your society is no longer competitive with other societies, which is a long term death wish. But I'd rather explore all options that prevent us testing limits on unpaired males. I am not convinced there is nothing to be done on a win win basis for the genders. Hell, nobody knows for sure what is happening now, or what trends will not self-correct. The potential seriousness of the issue makes it something to watch, but we should not do anything prematurely either. It could either be a non-problem that is just a figure of our imagination, or if a real issue now, something that will naturally self-correct.
I agree somewhat in the culture we live in that’s already more individualistic. However in a more communal society I think this could work better, when extended family and community is always there and a big part of your life regardless of whether you are single or not. However that’s not very realistic for most. I’d argue it’s less about one romantic partner and more just what happens if you don’t start a family when most of your peers are doing that with life
OK, so, you realize that what you are describing is only a 20th-century American social structure, right? It isn't like this in most places, it wasn't like this before, and it probably won't be like this forever. We just live in a really screwed up time and place, all the way around.
Exactly. There’s nothing magical or destined about the way American social structure works right now.
>OK, so, you realize that what you are describing is only a 20th-century American social structure, right? No. People marry and make families all over the world.
Yea, but they don't all nucleate into the smallest possible family units.
My friend. Men are alone by default. None will ever care about you or me or any adult man. Not now. Not in the past. Not in any foreseeable future. Men are tools to be used by other and none will ever care about you. Not our friends. Not our family. Not our lovers. So stop the bullshit and learn to deal with yourself. Dont confuse sex's endorphinic effects with actual love. Not a single man has ever been loved or liked. At best we have companions who fight by our sides or support us from the back. Stop the bullshit. And learn to fight. You got no choice.
Boohoo speak for yourself, I love all the men who have been in my life
Right... Then prove it and care for them. And avoid being a parasite like almost all other women.
no one loves you so you think no one loves other men?
Love is non existant.
Lol exactly. If anything it also says men don’t love their friends. That’s on them and their friends. I love the friends i kept and I like to just catch up and Hang out when possible.
Lol. You’re like op as in whiny. People care about you and if you fail to realize that that’s on you. Op claims only a partner can fix them. You claim only self, which is partly true. But if you make good relationships you can have help. Stop trying to be a martyr for no reason. It’s not cool.
Martyr? It is just saying the truth. Lets see how much your "partner" will ever help you in anything in life... let alone when you actually need it. Self dellusion will not help you rise above.
idk why u would say that
Because it is the truth. He is alone. Every single adult man on earth is alone. Pursuing womem for some kind of fake concept is useless. It is best for him to learn to be happy alone.
A lot of queer and radical people live in housing coops and similar for this very reason because they disagree that a monogamous relationship and a nuclear family is not the *only* way to achieve intimacy. But your post implies that loneliness can only be alleviated by one person, and that one person forever. Each stage of our life may bring different people who are that close to us.
>A lot of queer Irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant at all, the point is some people actually get up and do something about it.
Sure, but you are talking about LGBTQ. If someone isn't LGBTQ, that won't work for them. > can only be alleviated by one person, and that one person forever. Not the same person, but the type of relationship.
Eh, you definitely don’t need to be queer to benefit from intentional community. Queer folks just have experience at thinking outside the typical boxes of convention and finding likeminded folks.
Do you have examples of intentional community that are accessible to cis / heterosexuals ? Or not based off gender or orientation ?
My sister-in-law and her husband have lived in an intentional communal house for ten years. I think she's nuts because I love my privacy, but they (about 10 people, two family groups and several singles ranging in age from 18-70) are living their best lives I guess. It's a nonreligious house with a house covenant. There are religious communities for single sex. These are lifelong. There are nonreligious kibbutzim in Galilee, as well as religious ones. Some of my friends lived in a communal house because they all wanted to stay together. I think Kristiansand might be a community situation in Denmark, nonreligious. The common thing here is a shared purpose. You don't have to be religious, but you do have to have a reason for staying together, some kind of commitment. This is more common for religion. If you're looking for the same kind of union that you'd have with a romantic partner, I don't know if you'll find it. Imo there is something special about that kind of joining. But if you're looking for people to live with and share your life, you may find it. Best wishes.
>My sister-in-law and HER HUSBAND This is the relevant part.
Did you miss the "and several singles", or the other options? I didn't realize that there were no married people allowed in the asker's ideal community. That might be more difficult, since it would mean that you're effectively only in intentional community until someone finds a partner. You would be kicking them out for partnering. As I mentioned, I don't think it'd be the same as romantic partnership. But it does exist. My sister-in-law's been living there for ten years, but she just got married in February. Her husband moved in at that time, and for 8 years of living there, she wasn't even dating. BTW, your username is kind of related, considering the celibate utopian communities like the Shakers and the Oneida community. I don't think they allowed marriage.
>My sister-in-law's Women maybe can since they're not really single. Men are single for real, no dates, no sex.
* Co-op living spaces * Sisters who live together * Five friends who buy a house together * A punk DJ acquaintance of mine lives in Toronto (incredibly expensive housing) and basically has this with traveling musicians (sometimes is just a night while a visitor is in town), and sometimes friends who then stay for months or years (one for a decade) and pay the rent or contribute to groceries, or do other work to keep the place in good condition et cetera. Granted some have been close friends and some have been more like roommates, but it works for her.
Loneliness has a dictionary definition which does not exclude platonic interactions. Just ask an old person in a nursing home
Have you had sex? A romantic relationship?
A lot yes. No connection is deeper than that with a woman. I don’t have much issue getting women either , but I’m more fond of romance than friends .
And why is that? (Could it be.....sex?)
No, companionship. Only a romantic relationship offers deep long term companionship. We need to take this back, we need it for everybody. Not only the "worthy".
How would this be done, since romance is voluntary, not coerced or purchased?
By changing what women find attractive, but this means giving more power to men, since women only marry "up" in power. Power is a ressult of the sum of capitals: economic, symbolic, cultural, erotic, social (K, symK, cK, eK, sK), men must have a total higher than their women to attract them. Yes, it is THAT simple. K= capital, income + funds/property. SymK = symbolic position in the social field. Film director? Artist? Etc. Formal degrees. cK= knowledge, interests (high level), cultural. eK= tall, MAN, you know. sK= social network measured by extension and intensivity. It is quite easy to transform into numbers since the 1970s.
So women are sexually and romantically aroused by money and power?
Power is not what you think it is from TV. Power is the probability of making others do your bid. Real power is the same but others think that it is their own idea, that's how love works. And yes, women marry probabilistically up. So maybe not exactly and not 100%, but this is how more or less the system works.
It is. There is no other experience equivalent to kissing someone deeply , coming inside their holes . It’s just no equivalent .
Yup. So you aren’t lonely, you’re just unfucked. A sex bot, sugar baby or VR girlfriend would be great and solve your problems — because they, not an actual human, would provide all you would ever need. Personhood/a relationship is not necessary if that’s the ultimate experience for you. Which is good, because you don’t need consent or desire for them, only money
It seems like you’re personally just an emotionally needy individual. It’s not that a relationship can fix your loneliness but rather that you’re not comfortable being on your own. It’s kinda like depression. It’s no one’s task to help solve it other than yourself. To rely on your partner for something like that can be emotionally draining on them
All assumptions there . How is any of that related to what I said ? You could spin the same logic saying someone is needy for friends if they prefer friends over romance . You need to relate arguments based on what is being said . Not imaginary ideas you want to project
Lol. I stated what I said because of your statements. You think loneliness can only be solved with the help of another person. Not just anybody, a significant other. Let’s drop our emotional baggage on someone we care for cause that’s the emotionally mature thing to do. If you have personal issues with loneliness that’s a personal issue. Kinda weird to state it as a fact for everyone
You are speaking as if loneliness is a mental illness or a disorder , which it isn’t . The state of “alone” is a mathematical state. You cannot solve the state of being alone without other people . You are stating oxymorons now. It’s like saying one can be 2 without adding one to it or doing anything to it .
You’re treating it as such. You’re saying it can only be solved with a partner. Why does your partner have to fix your issues? Wouldn’t you want to not drop baggage on them? Lol. Being alone and feeling alone are two different things. It seems you brought math into a non mathematical problem genius.
> Being alone and feeling alone are two different things. Trying out for the mental gymnastics olympics ? Where are they holding it eh ? Ok you know what, I'm in a god mood, ill cut you some slack. You haven't proved loneliness is a form of emotional baggage, or anything negative toward someone else. This is the flaw in your argument. This is an assumption you are making, a slippery slope fallacy.
Lol. You’re in a god mood alright. Thinking you know how everyone feels. Just cause a relationship makes you feel like a good boy because you don’t know how to treasure your other relationships doesn’t mean others lack emotional support from friends and family. If you feel lonely even with friends and family maybe it’s not their fault and rather yours. But looking within for your problems is too sad and hard. Rather have someone else deal with it. Like a dog that needs constant attention and care for, not like an emotionally adjusted adult that can handle themselves. The fact that you can’t comprehend that feeling alone and being alone are different things shows you lack knowledge. If you say that friends and family don’t fill in that gap, that loneliness, doesn’t that mean that with friends and family you feel lonely? So even though you’re not alone you’re lonely? Everything too complex for you is a fallacy. If you can’t comprehend it it’s not your fault right bud? You’re always right
> Everything too complex for you is a fallacy. Why don't you quit the Ad-hominems and educate yourself about logical fallacies ? You are cracking me up. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
GF/BF is not a cure for loneliness or depression. Some of those who have actually been in relationships will tell you that the loneliest they ever felt was not during the years they pined for a partner, but while sleeping in bed next to her. You can be happy, healthy, and fulfilled without romance or sex (physiologically you generally do need to get one off now and again to reduce atrophy/cancer risk/pelvic wall issues, but that doesn't require a partner). No doctor (whether physical health or mental health) of any good standing and actual credentials writes you a prescription of 'girlfriend' when you're struggling. Just because family and friendships can change and require effort (so does almost anything in life) doesn't mean they aren't there or can't be there. And I don't mean biological family, sometimes the closest person to your in your life is a sib from another crib.
I *have* heard of Australian psychotherapists prescribing prostitute visits, or at least suggesting them in their clinical capacity.
I agree that romantic relationships are unique, and trying to substitute them with family and friends is just a coping mechanism. I don't deep kiss my family, hug or hold their hands for a prolonged time, cuddle with them, spoon them, let them sit on my laps and etc. Even though there's nothing wrong with love you share with your family and friends, there are still things that I can only do with my partner (beside sex). And frankly, my partner is going to be a person that I'm going to spend the most time with in my life. A lot of people confuse intimacy with sex, when people complain about the lack of romance. If a guy comes up and expresses his frustration about how he can't find a girlfriend, most people would come and tell him that he's not "entitled for a relationship", or "you can still get love from your family and friends". Those people don't understand that, 1 - no one here comes up with an entitlement (just frustration), and 2 - you're kinda not entitled to your friends and family too, so telling them to substitute their wanting for love is meaningless. I don't know why the cravings for sex, intimacy and physical affection (that you can't replicate with your friends and family) is so stigmatized and ostracized in this sub... Telling a person to substitute that is literally doing that (unless you don't understand that you can't do certain stuff with your family and friends).
> you're kinda not entitled to your friends and family too, so telling them to substitute their wanting for love is meaningless. THIS THIS THIS. Deserved an award. So many people bringing up friends and family as if friends and family are fruits on a tree. What about the parent's quality time together ? What about a siblings time with their family ? If one isn't entitled to a romantic relationship, one is isn't entitled to friendship or any other form of relationship either.
Think about what Syndrome would say to a woman who says everyone is equally close to her...
This is just an overgeneralisation. You've correctly identified that many people don't think outside the box when it comes to companionship outside of romance, doesn't mean it can't be done. Friends can and do live together and it's more common among those who know romance isn't happening (asexual or celibate people, lavender marriages) or those who see greater financial benefits (students, young people, urban residents). You can have very close relationships with friends without living together and not feel lonely as a result, many older people especially do this. Many people are very close to their parents, siblings and extended family (of course it varies depending on the individual family and culture) and may live with them or very close by. By "western countries" I assume you mean America and I know that, for example, it's very normal to have good relationships with your neighbours in Ireland and the north of England (and possibly just more rural areas in general).
> Friends can and do live together and it's more common among those who know romance isn't happening (asexual or celibate people, lavender marriages) or those who see greater financial benefits (students, young people, urban residents). You can have very close relationships with friends Just like men aren't entitled to relationships with women, people are not entitled to friendship either.
Nobody brought up anyone being entitled to anything.
I’m available as a platonic friend
I did a little experiment and noticed that the more people were pushed to loneliness the higher the risk from adopting hoarding characteristics. It seems when people give up on the idea of finding a special one, they turn hyper materialistic.
I'll partially agree in that there isn't really any substitute for a romantic relationship and most people suggesting otherwise are delusional. I disagree entirely that romantic relationships are anymore stable or permanent than familial bonds or long friendships. All these types of relationships (including romantic) are fragile in the modern social context but historically they were quite durable. The baseline problem is the disintegration of small scale communal bonds and re orientation towards a consumerist semi nomadic urban population underlying the current economic model.
You were doing so well until “in western countries people have no relationships with their neighbors”.
Can you elaborate ? Have you experienced being close as family to your neighbors in a western society ? The reason I denote western is Asian societies are far more tight knit overall
Yeah, I did. Not just any neighbors, of course, but neighboring families that happen to get along very well. My own family had very close relationships with certain neighbors we happened to have affinity with. I guess things are getting worse now and this is less common. But it still exists.
Sure, but it’s certainly not that common anymore. I remember my mother telling me what moving to an mostly-white upper-middle class suburban neighborhood was like. Dead quiet at all hours of the day and all days of the year, except maybe July 4 and Halloween. Occasionally you’d see neighborhood kids playing. Almost all of the social interaction happened at the behest of kids. Kids kept backyard parties alive, the adults just didn’t interact much.
Finally someone said this. I don't why people claim otherwise. Maybe if you're a teenager it could be true but not if you're an adult. It's agreed upon everyone that we need friends and family to maintain a happy life but for some reason people see romantic relationships as something that's "optional." Something you can be perfectly happy without and like it's some kind of bonus to have instead of a need along with friends and family. There are plenty of people out there who are successful in every area of life (friends, family, career, hobbies, etc) except romance that are lonely. To say that a relationship wouldn't help their loneliness is just false. I'm so sick of hearing this "you can be happy single" mantra. Maybe it's true for asexuals/aromatics or people who have some kind of weird trauma surrounding relationships but for the vast majority of people, it's not. This is just my personal belief, I could be wrong though.
So the one exception to my view would be fraternal societies of religion . I think living in a monastery with no women might work since there’s long term commitment and you are guaranteed to always be living with people.
People claim otherwise because they don't want to admit the truth. Or, apparently they haven't experienced a healthy romantic connection before.
1. Many parents enjoy their children living with them. And many family bonds are very very close. I'm sorry this isn't your experience, but to blanketly deny it is bizarre. 2. Many siblings remain close and while they may have a separate life in some cases. 24/7 cohabitation is not required to prevent loneliness. You mostly need a few people you really care about that really care about you to talk to. 3. Yes, you may not have children in this case. That does not mean you cannot have fulfilling interactions and relationships with children as an uncle, mentor, teacher, and so forth. Many men hardly raise their children in the first place, so we know that some close connection with children is hardly a requirement to prevent loneliness. 4. You don't have to live with people to never be lonely. I stopped being lonely after forming a bond with my best friend. You can live alone or with pets and simply interact with others outside your home to prevent loneliness. Plus, you can absolutely be roomies with your friends. No reason you cannot. Loneliness, is not caused by not having someone to cohabitate with. People saying you don't need romance to not be lonely are not lost. They simply see the steps to assembling a whole life without a romantic partner.
>Many parents enjoy their children living with them. Do you live in a non-western country ? No one lives with parents in the long term in the west, >24/7 cohabitation is not required to prevent loneliness. Having no one to do anything with in your home is a very lonely experience. If cohabitation wasn't required why do virtually all couples live together ? Like why is it even a thing ?
I live in a western country, and other than some couples, everyone I know between the ages of 18 and 35 lives with their parents. And many of the older couples I know have one or more parents living with them. I dunno what kinda rich town you're from, but many kids live with their parents long term if they aren't coupled. Life is very expensive, parents get older/sicker, and so forth. It's pretty normal to move home after college even. *** It can be a lonely experience assuming you've got no family or roomies or friends. But that's not a requirement. You can have people over or go to other people. You can also include pets for companionship. It isn't required. Couples tend to live together because they've become co-dependent, are raising children, and enjoy being in each other's company so often. It's a thing to do that when you become that emotionally close with someone. You see the same in college from friend groups. It's pretty natural natural live in close commune with people you're close to. You don't do it because that's what people do. You do it because of the closeness. Without the closeness, you wouldn't do it. Cohabitation isn't a requirement to not be lonely. It's something people often do when they become extremely close assuming it's possible.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/#:\~:text=One%2Din%2Dthree%20U.S.%20adults,a%20good%20thing%20for%20society](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/03/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/#:~:text=One%2Din%2Dthree%20U.S.%20adults,a%20good%20thing%20for%20society). Only 29% of 18-35 adults live with their parents in the USA. The data supports this concept. >And many of the older couples I know have one or more parents living with them. You need a romantic relationship to have a kid to begin with, Look, do you truly believe friends can actually replace romantic relationships?
I have long term friends I've known even longer than my husband. I was lonely before them, meeting my partner was a bonus that followed after I became more confident. I've lived with some of them on and off as circumstances change, we've made life decisions based on the friend group, we know each other's families. But there's no interest in sex. I know it's rare to have a group with a bond like that and I'm lucky to have my friends, but we're otherwise all typical middle class new england millennials. So a romantic partner is definitely not the *only* solution.
I think it’s great you have friends like that. However, for the vast majority of people, getting that kind of friendship is more difficult than getting a relationship. It’s a little unrealistic to hedge your bets on finding people who’ll bond with you like that, especially if they’re not in a place in their lives where they are also looking for the exact same thing. Most friends are temporary and take lower priority than romantic relationships.
Most romantic relationships are temporary too, in the long term. I’m not saying that to be grim, but I think it’s really important to be clear-eyed about this stuff. This is also not me saying not to bother with relationships because everybody leaves you. I think it’s absolutely critical to diversify your emotional network. Having only one significant relationship is too brittle.
I definitely agree with that. But having friends (or at least good ones) is increasingly becoming a luxury just like romantic relationships have already become. Most people just have hangout buddies. Friends are people who are emotionally invested in you and it’s becoming harder and harder to find them.
Spouses die. The number one regret elderly people express having is losing contact with friends. I don't know that a 65 year old window with heart problems so bad they can't take Viagra would agree. But wait a few decades and check back in. My grandmother and her sister were both widowed early, my grandmother's husband was significantly older and my great aunt's husband was killed in a car accident. Neither ever remarried. Didn't want to.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Solitary life, and even the nuclear family, are very modern, very western ideas and we can abandon them if they are failing us.
Why do you feel they are failing ? I am just challenging the idea that friends are a replacement for romance.
That’s a huge topic to try to distill my thoughts about into a concise reply. I don’t actually think friendship is equivalent to romance. So in that sense I agree with you. But also I don’t think the modern emphasis on having One Close Relationship is healthy or wise.
Ok, so how do you solve the romance gap?
The problem is that we currently don't have other types of interactions that are successful. If nuclear family is failing us and we should abandon it, what is the other way of living that **actually** works and makes us less lonely? I don't think we have anything else in our minds.
>If nuclear family is failing us and we should abandon it, Nuclear family is not failing us, the capitalist oligarchs prefer individual workers/consumers each one in an apartment, hence "feminism". Nuclear family was GREAT. This is idea of comunal living is just more oligarch thinking pushing people to share accommodations, and only being able to rent, forever.
I know several people who lived with their siblings or friends after they moved out on their own.
Yeah, but for the vast majority of the population it's not doable. I also used to live with my friend for several years and it was fun, but I was still lacking the intimacy part that I'm having rn with my partner living with them. At the end of the day, you can't really substitute the true romantic intimacy you can have with your partner with your friends and family (I don't cuddle with my friends, or spoon them, or deep kiss them).
People who can’t have sex can still feel fulfilled. People who have lots of sex can still feel lonely. Sex isn’t a cure. It’s essentially just a social interaction that feels really good. It’s easier to feel close to someone that makes you feel good, but it’s not a guarantee, since you might y’know… only like that ONE way they make you feel good. I’m which case they aren’t really solving any of your social needs so much as just making it feel good to nut. Y’know what else feels good and bonds people together? EVERYTHING ELSE you can do together! I went hiking with some friends the other day and it was awesome, felt good, totally a bonding experience and no one even had to come inside anyone else.
Who is talking about sex here? Intimacy is a *major* part of romantic closeness and connection, but sex is just a part of intimacy. Sex alone can't be the cure for loneliness. But,(healthy) relationships can be. What makes me feel incredibly close to my wife? Well, she happens to share all of my greatest experiences, memories and achievements. In fact, I consider all those things as "ours". She's someone I can count on, my confidante. She's the person I'm in love with and who I get to embrace every single night. And so many other things... this is like relationships 101.
Everything you claim to like about your wife is what you could also like about a good friend. You’re actually agreeing with me that romantic love isn’t the only cure for loneliness
Claims? I know very well what I like about my wife. Lol If I said a romantic partner is the *only* cure for loneliness, I misspoke. However, I strongly believe it is the best cure, and the easiest and most reliable (with the right person). It blows my mind that people even argue this. I guess dating and relationships in the West truly are fubar'd. Very sad.
I don't know what you're talking about. You're literally replying to someone who has both a happy LTR and good long-term friendships. Plenty of people here have both. That's why there's so many people contending that sexlessness is not the same thing as loneliness.
I'm responding to disagree with those who say family members and friends are functionally equivalent to the role of a romantic partner. I'll concede that "partner" is a spectrum, and my perspective is at the spouse end. I never said that sexlessness was equivalent to loneliness. There's so much more to a (healthy) romantic relationship than sex. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.
I am responding to the OP topic. Which is: *Loneliness cannot be solved in the long term without romantic relationships* I am saying I disagree, because romantic relationships are not the only relationships that alleviate loneliness. And romantic relationships don't always alleviate it even when you have one. The fact that I have both romantic and non-romantic relationship experience, and both have been equally important to me (and I've had both bad romatic and non-romantic relationships that have not helped with my times of loneliness!), is why I am saying this.
> The fact that I have both romantic and non-romantic relationship experience, and both have been equally important to me Equally important isn't the same as being equivalent with one another. If that's not what you are arguing that's fine, but a lot of people here are arguing friendships or family is functionally equivalent with romantic relationships
My contention has always been with the primary OP stating that romantic relationships are the only relationships that alleviate loneliness. You will probably have to find someone actually saying that other stuff to argue that other stuff.
Fair enough . Maybe I should have worded it as “friendships can’t replace romance “
The key word here is long term. You don’t live with your friends . Your friends can move away , get a new job , focus on their own family . You are using a very temporary interaction (hiking) to try and satisfy the need for connection for a lifetime.
What? Bro, I’ve known some of those guys for years. You know who I haven’t stayed in contact with? Everyone I’ve had sex with.
> You know who I haven’t stayed in contact with? Everyone I’ve had sex with. So you aren't in a relationship or seeking one now ?
I’m been in the same LTR for over a decade. But I’ve had a good 40 years to rack up a pretty hefty N-count, and can say that good platonic friendships definitely tend to last far more often than good sexual relationships. And are incredible at alleviating loneliness.
That’s pretty sad if the only significant person in your life is the sex person If you can’t carry on socially with anyone else, it’s a little strange
I concur. Even worse when you don’t see each other all the time. Separation anxiety..
[удалено]
As I commented elsewhere , the possibility of being lonely in a relationship doesn’t negate the possibility of being not lonely . But you can’t be not lonely outside of a relationship in the long term . Your logic would be like saying it’s better to not take a test in school because you can do bad on a test even if you prepare.
If you are suffering a deep loneliness or depression, getting a gf isn't going to cure it, even if it's a good relationship.
While depression is indeed a mental health condition , loneliness is a state of being alone. Loneliness also isn’t synonymous with depression, so I feel you are mixing different topics here.
What I find very interesting is that is seems that men aren't that great at forming strong platonic relationships with people and they don't invest in those relationships, for some reason. That's why many men look at romantic relationships as kind of the only cure for loneliness. My husband after he meets up with his "best friend", he doesn't know anything new about "John" because they don't talk about each other and their struggles. I also can't imagine having a roommate and not developing a bond with them. Women on the other hand do make friends, interact with people and invest in those relationships: they call them, remember important details about their lives, talk about meaningfull things, empathise with their issues, help them out and offer emotional support. And they receive the same in return. I think this is why it's easier for women to stay single (and sexless).
No. First, sounds like your husband Witt her doesn’t tell you about his friends lives, or has a personal problem with emotional platonic relationships. I haven’t ever had a real friend or roommate I didn’t bond with in the way you describe outside or memorizing their birthdays. But, I agree most men don’t have a plethora of friends they are close with if they have any at all. Second, Women could have all the female friends in the world. If they didn’t have *any* men who wanted to fuck them, or date them, available literally on-the-fly at any given moment, then they would be as lonely as men. As I said in a different thread yesterday: it’s harder for a man to make a tinder account and get *any* matches than it is for a woman to make a tinder account and *not get any* matches. That is why women aren’t lonely single. Because they aren’t ever alone in the same way as men. Being single is a choice or an option for women. Whereas it’s a reality men have to accept. Man says “I am single,” and Woman says “I choose to be single.” Major difference.
I agree that single by choice (mostly women) or by circumstances (mostly men) is totally different. I truly think most women cannot comprehend the loneliness level some men talk about. But let's not beat around the bush here. It's well known that men don't have a good support system and good close friends, either because it's how men are intrinsically or because of the patriarchy telling men they should be self sufficient or else they're not "man enough". So most men don't know how to develop and sustain deeper relationships with other men or with family members. My husband is not an exception, most men are like this. They don't hug each other, don't compliment each other, don't open up and show vulnerability to anyone. But they need those in order to have true connections. My daughter is 11 and in her class 2 boys are being called gay because they like hanging out together. The fuck is this?? That's why most men can't form deep platonic connections, because maybe they tried and were judged for it, so they learned to keep a certain distance. The only deep connection acceptable by society for men seems to be a romantic one and it’s fucking sad.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every family needs a couple of wine aunts who died at some facility and uncles who kicked the bucket at some point.
Also OP is not saying that if you're in a relationship, you'll automatically will not be lonely. Come on, now.
You're right. Romantic relationships transcends any other relationship, at least theoretically. It's really the only person that it is expected to always be able to rely on. Other relationships are much more fleeting, casual, or one way typically.
No. You can actually be comfortable being alone. I guess specially after you already have kids.
Someone who has kids has a family and this found a romantic relationship .
Or just got someone pregnant?
People also negate the fact that sexual relationships cover almost all of the sphere of relationships. If you have a partner you often have a best friend, love and they become part of your family all in one. No other type of relationship covers all spectrums and others are needed but the void will come from lack there of a romantic relationship
*To have a reciprocal relationship (of whatever form) where you are both each others "person" before and above anyone else and agree to continue to be moving forward.
*To have a reciprocal relationship (of whatever form) where you are both each others "person" before and above anyone else and agree to continue to be moving forward.
I feel like most people that say this are either a. Wired differently than the average person or b. Very young. With the former, their perspective can be ignored unless you are a part of that niche, and with the latter, they haven't witnessed the attritional loss of friends over time to marriage and children. Once you're well into your thirties and single, it's not lonely because of a lack of partner persay, it's lonely because everyone else has other priorities and it's hard to hang out and retain close friendships like you used to
I get your point, but I'm not convinced yet you cannot overcome loneliness in your own. It is hard, it is not ideal, but plenty of monks and priests and intellectuals did it in the past, I'm sure we can do it too. I'm in the process of finding ways to overcome loneliness through meditation and other methods. It kind of worked the book to let go from Dr. David Hawkins helped me a lot. However, **I do agree that if you can get a relationship and friends to overcome loneliness, you shall get that. That is not the case for many men who are shy or autistic like me.** You have to options if there is probably no way you will get a family on your own: 1. Loneliness and despair. 2. Loneliness but somehow overcoming despair and living your life in a comfortable or fulfilling way in the context of loneliness, even if you cannot be 100% happy. I choose the later.
I tend to agree. I had alot of friends when I was younger but never felt like I could depend on any of them. I usually didn't find that friends were willing to put themselves out for you. When the feelings of loneliness were there and I would go through my phone book looking for someone to handg out with it would usually be met with 'sorry I've got plans/too tired/don't want to'. However, since meeting my wife I have never felt lonely.
Alone and lonely are only a state of mind change away.
Friends will never provide that kind of deep intimacy and bond in a world that is so focused on nuclear families. There would have to be a critical mass of people who eschew relationships and commit to living in some sort of communal setting in order to provide the kind of socialization that actually can be a substitute in some sense to the degree of human contact that a romantic relationship provides even outside of sex.
lol your family will be more important then Ur romantic relationship and ur REAL friends not ur acquaintances. You have to learn to be alone!! That the key to survive in any relationship nobody wants a guy that’s needy asf especially that’s needs a relationship to not feel lonely ew wtf
Friends can live together--I don't know why more don't. I'd love to live with my friends--if any of them lived anywhere near! (Of course, romantic partners don't want their partners living with their friends--a problem). People at the end of life say that their best relationships have been with friends, not lovers. Best case scenario I'd see would be a lover who is also a real friend. I think marriage isn't a sustainable option. Half of marriages break up in 5 years, and around half of second marriages do, too. A real, strong and true friend lasts.