No desire to settle down?

Post Reply New Topic

Speaking of clarification, I never said I didn't ever want to pursue a relationship again, I said I didn't want my life to be consumed by a relationship. I don't believe monogamy is for me. I may decide it is at 55, but even now I can't stand living with other people, I hope to successfully live a bit like my Bubby did, on her own til death. I'm happier on my own and I don't see how anyone can predict that I'm going to want to share my life with a wife in my later years but hey, maybe you're right.

I don't see why it's of great importance to talk about how I might someday want what I don't want now, but the list is long. I'm talking about what I do want right now and how I think I'll continue to be this way... but yes, it's possible I'll change and find some woman or be swept off my feet by some charming lady or whatever.

I ALSO might discover my garden gnomes come alive at night and eat toads and party hard. Endless possibilities!

Hey, again_with_this, I did take your post as aggitating, because of a previous post where you told me I had "delusional female disorder", which doesn't exist in the medical world, I got the impression you like to push buttons. I also got the impression you just want to argue, especially since you never actually responded to the initial post with anything but a rebuttal to what I said. I wasn't trying to initiate a debate, I just wanted to see what people had to say about their preferences.

Maybe I misread you, and if I did, I apologize, and I'd love to know what I'm getting wrong here, if anything.

Single and like to mingle. I would like to settle down someday, but it's not something I'm specifically looking for right now. If a girl who seems to have potential for a serious long term relationship comes my way, I'll try that girl out, and if she doesn't work out, well back to skankin' around.

What you call "pushing buttons" is just my way of trying to play devil's advocate, trying to be realistic, and hope that whomever I'm addressing takes what I'm saying into account.

Perhaps you would think, "I wouldn't mind being a spinster, I'd love to live alone for the rest of my life." Or perhaps you'd think, "wow, I hadn't really thought that far ahead, maybe I am jumping a gun at saying never and maybe I would like to settle down one day, and finding a partner may be harder when I'm older, so let me consider it...I never thought that far ahead." Or maybe you'd think something else.

The point is, it was to raise possible questions you may not have taken into consideration. I do feel 25 is still a bit young to make such a statement, because you're thinking of yourself in terms of how you are now, not in terms of what will happen to you (and all of us) during the aging process.

And that was the point I was trying to share. Where did the agitation come in?

Since, as you noted, people on this site are outside normal functionality--myself included--speak directly, don't imply. Flat out tell me what the problem is, what words you take offense to, etc.

I thought one of the attributes of AS was being more direct and less subtle nuance. Yet, you're mistaking my bluntness for insult and not getting to the point. Just say what you feel.

Spinster is almost always a derogatory term used as a term for a stereotype of older unmarried, child-free women. Considering you've made sexist statements elsewhere, I still feel you're just trying to stir crap up.

You know nothing of what my dating life consists of and my age is not a valid base for the assumption that my own expectations for my romantic life are less realistic than your suggestions as to what I should expect.

Spinster isn't necessarily derogatory, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with being one.

However, a lot of people who weren't interested in monogomy and cohabitation in their youth can and do change their views as they age. Nothing wrong with that either.

And yes, age has everything to do with that.

What's the problem?

cool story bro

So it's just misunderstanding on your part fueled by your emotional reaction? I thought this site was the one place where things would be different.

Yeah?

this article addresses the word "spinster". they talk about how it is currently used as an insult.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lets-put ... 20963.html

i think you were fully aware it was an uncomplimentary term, or you would not have used it. your intent was to be provocative and you succeeded, so it is disingenuous for you to admit you are playing devil's advocate then feign surprise that your comment was offensive.

you asked which word was offensive, you were told, then you defended your usage. i am not sure why you wanted to know what was specifically offensive if you didn't intend to give any craps about it.

i'll fill you in a little more as to why your comment was offensive:

1. you implied she is too young to know any better.
2. you implied that only youthful people are good looking.
3. you implied that older people have to "settle" in choosing who to marry.
4. you called older unmarried people an insulting term

i don't think you behaved in a way that would deserve moderator attention or anything. but as a fellow member i'll just take your explanation at face value and accept that you didn't understand what was offensive in your post. now you know.

On what evidence do you base the idea that monogamy is unnatural? Other than your own dislike for it.

Which isn't to say that not being suited to monogamy is wrong.

Exactly. Not only do plenty of species in the animal kingdom mate for life, some of us humans would much prefer to as well.

Personal preference.

With all due respect, "spinster," in its most literal sense, means an older woman who never married. And I have nothing against those who never marry. Logically, if a woman doesn't want to marry she will one day become a spinster, by definition, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Personally, if you do think there's something wrong with being a spinster, then maybe I did succeed in getting you or anyone else to actually think about a little more. Maybe you never took it into consideration.

1. No, I simply suggested that her perception now can most certainly change with age and the passage of time.

2. Not exactly. I was implying that the ability to attract eligible and desirable mates decreases with age, for men and women alike.

3. The term "settle" is used in the title. I never used it in the way you suggest, I used it as the OP used it. To settle down, which might not be appealing now, may be more appealing as a person ages, slows down, desires companionship more than in youth.

4. Older unmarried women who were never married are spinsters, literally, that's what the term means. I think any negative connotation comes from society's view that being a spinster is something to be avoided, but I don't hold that view. If the OP never marries, that's her choice. She's choosing to be a spinster, and that's fine.

Is this personal for you hyperlexian?

"Eligible and desirable" mates for me are people I can talk to for a while, trade books, and possibly go to the theatre. Sex is not required.

Do people stop having conversations, swapping books, and going to the theatre, once they are 55? Is it just the youthful who like conversations and books and plays and musicals?

None of the other apes and VERY few mammals are monogamous. There are no records of anyone being monogamous before marriages were invented in ancient Egypt. Applying Occam's Razor here gives a clear indication that we're not meant for monogamy.

Since we're basically being told that one partner you stick with to the bitter end is "the way it should be" pretty much since we're infants, many are led to believe that this is natural.

Yes, but in the way that it's actually used by most people, it's a pejorative term.