Do You Think The Average Person Needs A Romantic Partner To Be Happy?

Hi CanadaApple.

You've asked an interesting question, but I'm not sure how possible it is to answer it.

Everyone will have their thoughts about it, but as a sociology-type I prefer to look at what is possible to study and measure, in a social-sciencey kind of way. In other words, any conclusions from research will be about generalities and not specifics. This also means such studies will be guided by our current society's prerogatives, ie, hetereosexuality, class assumptions, race assumptions and the idea of "women and marriage", something loaded with all of that, plus sexist assumptions.

By the way, I found no articles (quick google search) that discussed "men and marriage." Not a surprise, but still.

Cohabitation also seems to be not seen as an option. Perhaps since it functions the same way as marriage does, it's the social equivalent.

So, that said, I heard of a study from years ago (sorry, no link), about happiness as connected to being married or being in a relationship, that lists the levels of happiness as follows:

From happiest to least happy:

Single women

Married men

Married women

Single men

Here's what my quick google search found:

Who's happier: Single or married women?

This article is a bit stupid, but worth a look: Are married people happier than singles?

I love how the marriage stats come from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Hee hee. But that's my bias.

My quick and dirty "happiness as related to being single or coupled assessment" goes something like this. 50% (or so) of legal marriages end in divorce. Of the remaining 50% who are married, many are miserable at a point in time where a survey might be done (even if they get divorced later). There are also many couples who stay together and are miserable unto death do them part.

This math ain't hard to do.

And finally, studies on happiness and other socially desired phenomenon are notoriously problematic because of response bias, that is, participants giving answers they think the researcher is looking for.

Thanks for starting this thread, CanadaApple. Great topic!

If it's true, I worry for humanity (well, I do anyway) because I wonder how many people actually have "romantic" partners--even those who are married! I mean, what do we mean by "romantic" anyway? Sexually attracted? Economically co-dependent? Personality affinity? Domestically cemented? Shared appreciation of rock climbing?

Humans are social creatures, right? And there are a myriad of relationships that make life better--work relationships, family relationships, romantic relationships, random relationships--and we invest and profit from in them in different ways (excuse the capitalist metaphor).

There is simply no way you could throw all your energy into a single relationship--say, a monogamous, long-term, sexual and economic pact--and it could give you everything you need to be "happy." It is not a panacea to alienation and malaise. Sure, you could find yourself in a rewarding, enjoyable relationship with a member of a gender to which you are attracted erotically, but you'd need all kinds of other relationships to coexist with that one. I know many people who get by great without a conventional romantic partnership, because they have wonderful relationships with friends, colleagues, family and even pets (maybe especially pets! I know I do...)

I mean, we also need to ask what it means to be happy, right? Is that possible in a social and economic system which strips us down to our net dollar worth and reduces human relations to an economic exchange? How can we know anyone in that context? How can we know ourselves? Just think about the pressures that make us ask the kind of question phrased in the OP: we are told, everywhere, always, that the impossible Hollywood relationship--which will fulfill us in all parts of our life--is all we need to be happy. How can we be happy, truly, when the one blueprint we're given is so obviously impossible?

In short, no. And also yes. But mostly no.

I think of "happy" as the punctuation in periods of relative satisfaction in life.  I've lived most of my adult life as a single person, but met someone special 10 years ago and married him (a big surprise for me) 4 years ago.  When I was single, I enjoyed my life.  I was social, had a decent job that I didn't hate, had creative outlets and had the love of my family, children and wonderful friends.  Being married was never on my radar and being in a long term relationship wasn't a goal for me.

What I can say is that when you share your life with someone in a romantic way, it can either be a source of stress or its opposite.  I am happily married to someone I love without reserve, but we've been through some hellish times and I think that the measure of any relationship is how it weathers life's storms. 

Is being in a romantic relationship necessary to happiness?  Hell no.  Is being in love with your best friend and having that love reciprocated a good thing?  Hell yes.

I've heard that idea, but I've considered it, but I just don't believe that romantic love is come new cultural creation.

Rumi is listed as being born in 1207, and while his love poems may have been about God (the Mystery), the richness of the language suggests to me that romantic love must've been around already then.

I don't know how old the source is for what we think of as "the Greek myths", but certainly whoever came up with them had a developed working notion of romantic love.  I think there are "beloveds" and "love potions" and "love rituals" going back several thousand years easily in Indian literature (the Vedas).

I don't think there is much pair bonding among non-human primates, and I have read theories about how pair bonding was a significant strategy in our evolution.  One wonders how this could've come about.

On the other hand, I believe I have witnessed two dogs "falling in love".  And check out this video of a leopard and tiger couple.

Did white europeans invent 'falling in love' a couple centuries ago?  What about brain chemistry?  I'm not sure it responds that quickly.

That would be where recreational drugs come in.

In related news, rats have feeings too. Awwwww.

Now that's friendship! Or love. Or something.

As much as I'm sure you all want me to go into a historical exposition of love poetry, starting with Ovid, I think I'll demur for the time being. But it should be obvious that what counted as love poetry to Catullus is much different than what counts as love poetry to Petrarch, Shakespeare, Keats, Eliot and Ginsberg. Not to mention Sappho, Browning, Dickinson, or Plath. So I'm definitely inclined to agree with Merowe that modernity and modernism have shattered what we used to think of as romantic and so we're in the process of writing new definitions which are just as fragile as the conventions we know.

And IIRC, Endiku was made "human" after he was seduced by a woman.

Cautionary tale to whom? Men, to beware of evil sinful lustful women? Nice, Gaian.

What year is this?

I would not DARE to write that without tongue in cheek, Maysie. There must be some tiny place for humorous treatment of that hoary old canard between the sexes? Indeed, who today could state that with a straight face except the very ugly? Does it always require this :) as a followup?

Just a soupcon of space for solace? Cause I sure as shit am not going to offer an apology to those who have no space left for repartee. Not only am I not a part of "the problem," I worked beside my late partner for many years with overcoming society's sexism in mind.

Find another, easier target, and some space for the not completely humourless.

I did post this in the obit thread next door with empathy for her task in mind:

"Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, 65, biographer, Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World, and Anna Freud: A Biography. Leaving a tenured professorship, she continued to write, The Anatomy of Prejudices leading to her last work, Childism: Confronting Prejudice Against Children.

She had no children of her own from a brief marriage 40 years ago and had, as the Globe's Sandra Martin tells it, " made her name writing about two other childless women, became fascinated with children through writing Anna Freud's biography, her own work as a therapist and her personal life as an aunt and a stepmother.

"She came to believe that prejudice against children was intertwined with all the other prejudices she had written about, and was also embedded in the history of psychoanalysis.
"Childism" will be published by Yale Press next month."

She died on Dec. 1 from a pulmonary embolism after attending a Tafelmusik concert in Toronto with her partner in marriage, Christine Dunbar."

Or do you suspect a Jekyl and Hyde personality at work here :) Just to be safe, another one :)

imo, i need a romantic and sexual partner in order to be happy.

I feel like i am undesirable when i do not have a man who want to be with me, i feel ugly, i know thats really my self esteem problem, but thats how i feel.

A successful [relationship] is basically an endless cycle of wrongs committed, apologies offered, and forgiveness granted…all leavened by the occasional orgasm. – Dan Savage

"generally, yes", in answer to the question,

but the tricky thing for me has always been, and i think is the big qualifier to the question, is that you have to be fairly happy with yourself, single, in order to be happy in a relationship.

if a relationship is a raising of something larger, something more complex than just one person, then the more autonomously stable (happy, non-dependant), each of the people, the inputs, are, the better.

of course, in a relationship you kinda pool your skills and such, so one does become "dependant" as well as stronger; but the idea is to grow something larger, not entangle you or your partner.

i've been through famine and feast, relationship-wise, and that's how it's seemed to me, anyway.

I think the average person thinks he or she needs to be coupled up to be happy. 

But the fact is that if you are in a relationship you still wind up having to deal with your own shit (on some level, anyway) just the same as before.

I expected that "answer".

It doesn't exactly make me happy, so I guess I have to find another answer for myself.

True, but it's easier said than done for some people.

@ Tommy_Paine

If you haven't read DH Lawrence's "Women In Love" you should. The title is ironic, because it is in many ways more about men in love.

Well, chronologically, you should have started with Sappho, not Ovid. Nits, nits, lovely nits.

egad.

Sounds much safer to jest in that direction. But how, really, does that differ from the standard interpretation of that apple offering. No,humourless is safe.

quote: "But these stories were created for a reason."

Absolutely. We can take that as a given. And the reason was begat in paternalism and for the purpose of control.A great excuse for laying back while the other does the work. And that's why the stories should be treated as a joke, ended with a joke, not solemn and tendentious statements about the obvious. That only leads to knotted knickers, right? Or do you imagine that you are bringing light to the darkness of this poster's being? When I say that "humourless is safe," I mean around here...while still trying desperately to maintain an edge of humour. Does that make sense to you, at all?

The first time I read this remark I took it at face value, an ironic injection of levity. Perhaps not the fruit of the same train of deep thought that led to The Critique of Pure Reason but a wryly well-intentioned remark without a trace of unconsidered or overlooked sexist inflection/intent.

Reading subsequent attempts to nudge it into controversy I return to the comment and find it quite as innocuous as I did the first time. The obvious endorsement of a pre-Christian patriarchal perspective is so unmistakably contra babble values - and therefore satiric in intent - that to persevere with some simple-minded adherence to a literalist analysis is um, quite fucking small.

Honestly, people. Give it a rest already. This is like picking scabs.

Q: How many men does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Only one, but the house has to revolve around him.

.....

I leave this thread to my betters, who clearly understand sexism, intent and we're-so-beyond-that-so-we-can-mock-it-at-will "humour" far better than I.

As you were, sirs.

@Merowe, @Gaian: I took Gaian's remark as ironic as well. But I'm a white, able-bodied, heterosexual male and I'm used to my perceptions being accepted as the general social reality. Is it too much to ask that we take a minute and consider how others might take it? Especially since the only two women to post since were rather taken aback by it? Is it too much to ask that we take a moment to reconsider how our words make others--who share different lived experiences--feel? A simple: ah, sorry, I see my irony did not travel on the internet as it would have in other mediums. I see how a single throwaway sentence with no contextualizing could have been taken otherwise, but here's what I meant. It might have gone a long way. It might have even led to understanding.

I'll note that the only people "picking at scabs" are those who are still chafing from being challenged, Yea!, by a woman. The offending creature let it lie at post #19. Yet still she finds herself in the crucible. I wonder if there's any literary lesson to be learned here? Somehow I doubt it will garner the same chorus, however, of man's word scorned.

It's time to look around, folks, and see if there are any women posting here. Count how many of them are moderators or former moderators. And when the truth hits home, wonder why.

FWIW, I'll add a feminine-derived comment:  Mountain out of a molehill.  Honestly, people.  Haven't we got bigger fish to fry than worry about a tongue in cheek one-liner that was clearly ironic?

LMFAO Timebandit.

I was done at post 19. I moved on with the topic. 

Why the fuck I'm still being blamed for the shit storm is a mystery to me. 

I called something sexist. A buncha people disagreed with me. Stop the fucking presses.

smh

(cross posted with Michelle, who's a goddess)

As you can see, CF, your remonstrative note was not needed. And that's why I should not have responded with such heat, as I see now. The usual clearing of throats, territorial mutterings,statements of indignation about knuckle-dragging humour, I should have expected, given the stage on which we play. Again, the sexes retire behind their lines after a skirmish that satisfied ego/honour. But it had to go through the usual cycle of indignation.

To return to your opening question, CanadaApple: "Basically, what I'm asking is, do you think that the average person needs a romantic partner to be happy in their life?"

All set now, are we? :) :) :) and a tiger, for safety's sake :)

Wow, this thread has gotten really off-topic. I'm sorry if I caused too much trouble.

Anyway...to try and stear thing back in the right direction (I hope), how important does everyone think sex is when it comes to building/maintaining a happy relationship? Or is it not important at all?

Maysie and Michelle - at what point in my post did I specify that the women - or you in particular - turned the molehill into a mountain?  The question was asked how *women* felt about the whole mucky exchange. Honestly, it's mainly guys posturing for to see who's the best SNAG. So I largely agree with you - or would be if you weren't both assuming an attack rather than the simple comment that this discussion is kind of silly.

Ah, so it's not women so much as women who agree with your point of view who ought to be listened to. 

Personally, I think irony that is critical of the patriarchal view (which seems to have been Gaian's intent) is a valuable tool to have in one's kit. 

But at the point where you bring in the history of Gaian's post, you're no longer taking the post in context of the thread but more in context of what you think of Gaian overall.  I'm not sure that's fair, especially in a limited medium like a message board.

Anyway, OT scuffle done with, for me anyway.  Got too much work to do.  Ciao for now.

This reminds me of that joke: "Gender? Yes, please!"

Anyway, this is an ENTIRELY different question than the one in the OP, innit? Although I think the answer is the same: it depends. You don't need sex to have a meaningful relationship with someone--not in the slightest--but humans (at least this one) are sensual, libidinal creatures and we've been programmed to believe that the best way to achieve this is through some sort of monogamous long-term erotic exchange (Slavoj Zizek's definition: "It depends what one means by sex. If it's the usual masturbation with a living partner, I try not to have it at all."). But that carries all kinds of cultural assumptions with it, like masculine erotic entitlement, the possibility of intimacy through sex, and what constitutes pleasure in today's culture.

I'd say: "Short answer, yes with an if; long answer no with a but."

Look in Canadian Politics under "NDP"

Good gawd, my drink almost went out my nose!

To answer - without any of that nasty irony getting in the way - it depends on the people in the relationship and at the stage of their relationship, age, health, etc.  Generalizing here ... young people who are newly in a romantic relationship tend to go at it like the world's coming to an end.  Older people in a new romantic relationship might go a bit more slowly, but with more experience added into the mix. There are also hormonal changes, in women especially but not confined to them, that can affect the frequency and type of sexual activity.  Pregnancy can change things up too -- during and post-natal.

When you've been together for a long time, and know each other's bodies very well, it's easy to get into a rut (no pun intended), so we tend to go through the occasional dry spell.  So long as that's okay with both partners, it's fine.  People who love each other have wonderful sex lives well into old age, with only health and mobility issues forcing changes upon what and how much. 

Well, can you have great sex without a relationship?  Sure.  Can you have a great relationship without sex, or with minimal sexual contact? Sure.  What makes for a good romantic relationship is communicating, communicating, communicating.  And being on the same page.  And going with the flow in mature relationships.

I am actually kind of amazed it's gotten so many posts, even if alot of them are off-topic.

i think it's fair to say though that at least in terms of a romantic relationship, the sexual componnent is really important.  If you don't gel sexually, the idea of having a relationship that excludes sex with anyone else seems destined to fail...

sex is a big part of being a human being for most, so to have a satisfying and fufilling sex life is a crucial componnent of a relationship to me.  It's one of the most intimate ways to express how you feel about someone, that's probably why relationships with unsatisfying sex often don't work.

So I thought I'd give this a little bump because as you may or may not realize, Valentine's Day is coming up, and unless something odd happens over the next few day's, I'll probably be single for it. again. So i've been having some difficult feelings lately. For awhile I was happy to not be in a relationship, but now the more I think about, part of me wonders if I was just lying to myself to stop from feeling bad about not being in one. But then I also wonder if maybe I just think I should be in a relationship because it is that time of year, and it's almost like I'm expected to be in a relationship, or at least dating. So I'm not sure if I really want to be in a relationship, or if I just feel like I should be in one because of the culture (maybe culture isn't the right word, I'm not sure)  I live in.

That might not make any sense to anyone else, nbut I just thought I'd share it and get it off my chest. = P

But yeah, any thoughts?

In contrast to the notion that things fall apart, I would have to offer that nothing is going to work if you aren't comfortable in your own skin. And if you have that, that is really what matters. If you aren't, finding some poor fool to share the misery isn't going to last too long.

I don't think there's any rhyme or reason any of this, but as it happened, about the time that I stopped stressing about this stuff, everything fell into place.

Sky rockets in flight. Afternoon delight.

Not sure if this is relevant, but lately I've been thinking is that what I really want, it to want to NOT want to be in a romantic relationship. I'm not sure if that makes any sense...but I just wonder if maybe I'd be happier if I didn't spend so much of my time thinking about something that...well, I guess I shouldn't say that's never going to happen, but sometimes I can't help but wonder if it's true. Sometimes I think I'd just be happier if I didn't care about romance or anything like it. But I know I do care, so I wonder if I ignore it, it'll just make me more miserable in the long run.

ugh...make of all that what you will. Just thought I'd share. = P