[Kentucky]

The more hysterical sectors of the media may view ‘sterile’ female singleness as a plague, ‘feckless’ male loneness as an infantile indulgence.


It certainly feels that way to me. I’ve been single since I ceased briefly cohabiting in 2008. Some argue I am never that single because I ‘see’ people and have lovers.

I feel that the definition can only be my own; the idea that single life is sexless or relationshipless is an anachronism.

I live and work on my own, I take responsibility for myself, and I have not chosen publicly to connect myself with anyone else during this time. Ergo, I am single.

Moreover, despite having been a textbook serial monogamist in the years preceding this first and last cohabitation, there’s always been something singular-yet-social about me.

An introvert with extrovert capacities, I am the oldest of a messy family whose door frequently had to remain shut for sanity’s sake.


The idea of pregnancy gives me the willies since my personal life would be so visibly exposed. And I view all inquiries about the specifics, rather than abstract aspects, of said personal life as gross impertinence.


Living alone can certainly present practical problems. Last autumn I almost came a cropper when I was too ill and confused to summon an ambulance.

The bin bags piled outside my flat are becoming a health risk while, when a visiting lover or brother makes me a cup of tea, I am near hysterical with gratitude.

Being pensionless and renting, I do think about the future, and am actively encouraging a moneyed friend to sponsor some sort of commune on the model of Amsterdam’s 106-apartment Begijnhof building, only smaller and with comrades of both genders.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/9930325...Betts.html

[Bad Hussar]

(03-21-2013 07:15 AM)Kentucky Wrote:  

...

Being pensionless and renting, I do think about the future, and am actively encouraging a moneyed friend to sponsor some sort of commune on the model of Amsterdam’s 106-apartment Begijnhof building, only smaller and with comrades of both genders.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/9930325...Betts.html

Tut tut tut. How biased of her to only acknowledge comrades of the two oppressor genders.

[Kitsune]

She sure convinced me.

This article sounds so much happier than when you hear people in their old age talking about their grandchildren and fond memories of past times with their spouses and kids.

[bojangles]

who the fuck is Kate Bolick? She needs a baseball bat to her head for man hate, I'll show her man hate.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

The bin bags piled outside my flat are becoming a health risk while, when a visiting lover or brother makes me a cup of tea, I am near hysterical with gratitude.

How can anyone live like a swine? Unless you're a 100% disabled person, there's just no excuse for letting trash rot in front of your door! Awful.

[2Wycked]

That article is a damn goldmine.

The article is one massive rationalization of her deepening narcissism.

As usual, if you are reading the article it is for you, as many women - in the comments - need to be reassured their life choices are what they really want. Of course, in desiring that, they expose that their choices in life haven't panned out the way they expected or were told they would.

I wholly appreciate my alone time, but to be alone as this woman suggests is not healthy. First, she is a woman. As she ages, her suitors will and probably have dried up. Friends come and go, with their own partners and children. Women like her remind me of aging gay men who still tan like crazy, dress in flashy ways and are trying way too hard to recapture or preserve their youth. It is pathetic. Nothing wrong with a woman keeping her long hair, wearing makeup and all that, but you have to progress past slutty dresses, last call at the bar and random hookups. Men get a far longer leash than women - especially if they are alphas. She wants to marry men to this standard women are held to - mostly to socially shame alphas into settling for her.

Second, is her narcissism. She clearly is descended into a fantasy world in her head, but consider her inability to understand what men want. She is clearly justifying her inability to lock down an alpha male as pretending being single is better, but what she is showing off is her inability to understand what men want. Like many women, they show up in their 20's, young and good looking. They get fucked by many attractive men, but don't understand why they don't stick around. They invent fictions like "Men are afraid of commitment" as a way around admitting their own personal deficiencies are preventing them from getting a boyfriend they are highly attracted to. As they get older, they need new scripts to convince themselves, once again, it isn't their fault they can't get those men. Once the dick goes limp, they need to either go hyper-shaming on men or convince themselves they don't need a man.

See the narcissism? Combing their locks, while looking the mirror, repeating, "I don't need a man, I have myself" over and over. The mantra is flashing in their mind and it turns them into somebody who only loves themselves - which means they love nobody, including themselves.

A common refrain in feminist literature is overcoming love - what they are talking about is the narcissistic suppression of emotions. Of course narcissists experience emotions, it is just that the moment they feel anything, it is immediately repressed. That is what this woman is seeking - completely denying emotions so she can walk away from the fact she deeply craves an emotional connection to another human in the form of a sexual relationship.

She cites that single women are more psychologically healthy than married women. Since she cites no source, she could just be making that up. However, she highlights an issue I have with the psychological community - it is so thoroughly female and liberal dominated, it is tough to get objective views on psychology from the discipline in academia.

Over at The Last Psychiatrist, the blog author comments under the name "alone." What he is conveying is that narcissists are, fundamentally, alone. I have a narcissistic friend who loves Drake's song "No New Friends." Sitting in his swanky apartment, surrounded by expensive and high status material goods, he broods alone. That is narcissism. In his head, he is the smoothest player, the top dog in his company, the most charismatic man in the world. He isn't.

As he is, he will always be alone. Falling in love with the idea of himself, as this woman is doing, assures he will never experience the wealth of emotions a healthy human has. The joy of love for a woman or children, love for long-term friends and family, the simple joy of a hobby - these are all faked in order to gain the worship of those around them. This approval is what fuels their emotional state - positive or negative.

In many ways it is sad. Most narcissists fade later in life, as the incredible mental energy expended to maintain their state falters as all their unused emotional energy overtakes their need to feel superior to others. They never heal on their own, but they usually gain a dim sense of humanity and others.

It truly is sad to see such people and such drivel peddled in mainstream media, but it is very much expected.

Say what you will about marriage, long-term commitment and the like but reality of life is that without true emotions - that lead to enjoyment & happiness and also sorrow & loss - is not a life worth living.

[2Wycked]

By the way - who was this Kentucky dude?

[Nolecbo]

"If we lone wolves end up as someone’s partner, we’ll be better companions because of it"



No. No, you wouldn't.