No desire to settle down?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, actually your post clarified things to me a lot, so now I can actually answer this question better. Thank you. What this "settling down" actually means, it seems to be what I refer to as settling, especially the bolded parts. For me personally I guess, I tend to not seek out relationships just because I need companionship, I usually only "fall" for people, like, specifically, if that makes sense. But to me, it seems to be either "The One" or no one at all. So for me, unless I find another "One" then I just don't care about dating at all really.

To a point, there's an awkwardness about dating I guess that needs to be overcome, but I've overcome myself over plenty of awkward/hard things in my life, it's not so much that, it's more like, I don't want to at the very least negative consequence, invest my time and resources into someone I don't feel strongly for, and on the worst negative consequence, have an unhappy relationship and end up with the aftermath from it. The risks are too high, and what I perceive as the reward is too low. Partially this could stem from my parent's marriage. They both got married at a relatively old age, my mother at like....35 or something, and my dad like 33? My mom regrets marrying my dad, but she said she just wanted kids. She "settled down" exactly as this post describes, and my dad had multiple girlfriends, and he "settled" with my mother, they'd known eachother like 10-15 years and dated on and off, and it was just a "ah, screw it, we'll get married" type of decision.

So for me, despite all the negative attention from...certain elements, on this board, your post resonated highly with me. So for me "Settling down" would require me to have a relationship just because I was "lonely," I'd think, either that I or get a girl pregnant and shotgun marriage. but I manage to keep myself occupied very well, and frankly have lots of very "youthful pursuits" planned. So obviously, I can't predict the future, and maybe my mind will change, but at this point, it's either "The One" or become one of those 50 year old guys on SPEED channel who takes apart small block Chevies on Saturday mornings.

He knows that.

I didn't as i was growing up..... that eventually shifted to only if i met the right girl.

I think it could possibly be worth it but my life with her would have to be superior to the one that i have now and it wouldn't be with most girls. Well, all girls really, i've yet to meet one that i could live with imho. The existence of a girl that i could live with is purely theoretical at this point.

There's written evidence that the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians were monogamous, the oldest groups for whom we have written evidence.

Other evidence points to humans becoming monogamous pretty much as soon as we adopted agriculture. Which makes sense, because that's when the male death rate dropped to roughly the same level as that of females. Before that we were polygynous, which is the only widespread form of non-monogamy practised by humans.

As for the other apes, I don't see them as a valid comparison. There's plenty we do differently than them without it being considered unnatural.

None of this is me saying that not being monogamous is wrong. But I reject the idea of monogamy as an unnatural social construct forced on people. Instead, I see it is a perfectly natural reaction to the (admittedly relatively new, when looking at the whole of human history) condition of having roughly equal numbers of both genders in the population.

you implied that being a "spinster" is something bad. or else, why on earth would meems mind if she became one?


no, you succeeded in being offensive to older unmarried women. big difference there.


then... she could settle down when she is older. nothing wrong with changing her mind.


not necessarily. i had many more opportunities as a woman nearing 40 than i ever did as a younger woman. so when you made a general implication like that, you didn't allow for the fact that a person's mileage may vary.


no, the phrase "settle down" is in the title. that is distinct from using "settle" as an isolated term. i think you know that, but i am explaining just in case you were genuinely unaware. when the word "settle" is used in that manner, it means that a person would have to marry whoever came along as opposed to having any sort of choice. "settle down" means to stay with one person indefinitely. the two meanings are not even similar.


no, literally the term spinster means that a woman would be engaged in spinning instead of being married. you are perfectly aware of society's perception of older single women, or you would not have used the term in the first place. after all, if there is supposed to be nothing wrong with being a spinster than you would not have brought it up in this context.


no, i was in a long-term relationship for 20 years and now i am in a new long-term relationship. nothing personal here.

Well, returning to the topic, I agree with the OP. After years of trying to fit in to NT normative monogamy, I gave up on traditional relationships and embraced relationship anarchy. I simply stopped putting labels on my relationships. I make no separation between "girlfriend"and "friend", and I don't call myself "monoamorous" or "polyamorous"; instead, every relationships as unique, where no one relationship is a threat to the other. It has definitely been one of the best decisions I've made in my life.

If you've never been married past a certain age, you are a spinster. Good or bad, that's what the term means. Society may look down on it, but in its most basic form, a spinster is a woman who never married.

I suppose you don't mind actually being a spinster (which is perfectly alright) but you take objection to one day being called one. But that's what a spinster is. The pejorative is in the connotation when used in a negative way, not in the word itself.

Two points to wrap this up and clarify:

Not implied it was bad, implied that it's a possibility not being taken into account. That's the crux of why she'd gotten upset, she hadn't thought that far ahead. If she had, and she had no objection to living alone the rest of her life, she would have said "I don't think I'd mind never marrying. Can't say for sure, but the idea of one day being a spinster is fine with me." And that is what a spinster is, an older woman who never married.



Yes, hyperlexian, that's the point. At her age now it's a possibility she will change her mind later in life. But you gave me a hard time because you claimed I implied she was "too young" to know any better. I was saying she has a lot more life ahead of her and ideas may change, meaning that to say she'll never settle down at this point MAY be premature. And if the term spinster is so horrific to her, then maybe it actually helped her realize that how she feels now may not be how she feels in 40 years.

But I will thank you for allowing me to clarify myself, it seemed the others just immediately got emotional and disregarded me without trying to understand what I actually meant. This might sound like a prejudice stereotype, but I'd expect that sort of behavior from NTs, I thought those here were beyond that.

Yes, my distain for the use of the word spinster as if it were some lesser alternative to traditional ideas of what women should be very clearly illuminates that I'm horrified by the concept of being an older, unmarried woman, and you've shown me the er in my ways, what with all your life experience of being a 55 year old woman, you certainly know better than I what I currently desire for my future.

And I am so upset by the idea, though it is an obvious one that isn't necessary to argue about since what I want for my future now is not somehow retroactively impacted by some future version of myself in a paralell universe or something, that I my have different wants and needs three decades from now. So much so that in fact, I think I'll start living my life based on what I specifically do not want for my future self, but rather what is one of an endless list of possibilities that I may want, so long as it is contrary to what I want now and foresee for myself throughout my life.

Don't mind me, I'm just a confused woman having an emotional reaction because I probably don't know what's best for me or what I really want.

Or maybe you are being condescending, creating an argument that I'll actually probably want something contrary to what I've stated, and that I'll fall into one of two categories you've presented as options for middle aged women, and maybe you're dismissing me as having an emotional reaction based on my inability to comprehend your statements.

Then again, maybe that's just my silly girl brain failing to understand my own thoughts, let alone the shared thoughts of others.

I'm going to go have some yogurt and watch a Lifetime movie, things that don't cause me to become hysterical and weepy.

tamponsscentedcandleskittensandcupcakesjndhshsjsjshssj

if enough people have reacted to what you are saying in exactly the same way, then it should be a big hint that you're not either not communicating as clearly as you think you are OR people are able to see through your words a lot more clearly than you imagine. since your explanations did not serve to excuse your phrasing or choice of words, i would expect it was the second option. people on WrongPlanet are very sharp.

Actually, in 2012, sexual monogamy is only the norm in 17.8% of all societies. There are also numerous records of polygamous men in the Bible.

The modern day distaste for polygamy, stems from the fact that the Romans outlawed polygamy in the 2. century AD.

I'm not saying that monogamy is wrong, but it's a socially constructed norm that goes against out nature.

Also, the ancient Assyrians were not necessarilly monogamous. While they typically had just one (in some cases two) wife, sleeping with slaves was seen as ok.

Monogamy and polygamy have been practiced by both men and women as reproductive strategies depending on the time and place.

Mate guarding (arguably responsible for current manifestations of patriarchal attempts to control women's reproduction) evolved as a practice because sticking to the heels of one woman consistently meant a much greater chance of having sex with an ovulating woman, as opposed to several non-ovulating ones, and also of preventing OTHER males from copulating with her.

Appeals to modern and historical popularity of polygamy are irrelevant to the practices of eons of evolutionary pre-history, especially since the so-called "polygamy" in the former time period usually means/meant polygamy for MEN and monogamy (enforced by social and legal ramifications ranging from public-shaming to torture and execution) for women.

It would also seem counter-intuitive that *no* individuals are inclined toward monogamy by nature,
given that many of these people are actually culturalized into hypersexualised societies.

that statistic comes from Murdock's "Atlas of World Cultures." it gets cited a lot in discussions about monogamy vs. polygamy. Don't know how much of it still applies in 2012, as it was published in '81. But, if you're going to cite it, then you have to remember that same book shows that those 17.8% of societies make up considerably more than 17.8% of the world's population. And it points out that 80% of relationships in those supposedly polygamous societies are, in fact, monogamous. Polygamy is considered acceptable in 82.2% of societies, but that doesn't make it the norm in those places.



evidence is that they considered monogamy the ideal, and that sleeping with a slave was only sanctioned when one's wife couldn't give one an heir.

Also, nearly all historical examples of culturally sanctioned non-monogamy were limited to men. And, even then, only the wealthiest and most powerful men. It may seem that it was commonplace, taking ancient texts like the bible as a source. But it must be remembered that those sources tend to focus primarily on the lives and actions of those wealthy elite men, and mostly ignore the lives of the common people who actually make up the society.

I'm gonna use the NT example again. If enough NTs give you a hard time, it must be you that is wrong, as in, having AS is wrong. That's sort of like what you're saying.

A bunch of people got upset over the word spinster, and the use of the word was apparently some grave insult, more so than trying to understand my intent. Also, it doesn't make the application of the term spinster any less relevant.

And to imply I'm playing dumb about it is a bit insulting. Ask yourself: why did you felt so upset?

i'm not upset (it is actually very, very hard to get me upset on the forum). i can just interpret why people would react badly to your post.

i believe you are being disingenuous about your understanding of the word, because you would not have used it if you didn't think it would have an effect. it was used as part of a post intended to provoke the OP. you called your provocation "trying to make her think". it's the same thing.

nobody "gave you a hard time". they called you out on a post that was very insulting to a large group of people. the former puts the onus on them, when in fact it was *you* that made the post. if you don't care about the reaction, then... don't care. if you do care about the reaction, then be careful in future about how you post.


(i'm also going to stop discussing it cuz you eitehr get it or you don't. i'm pretty sure i've said it several different ways)

It all depends on what the effect is: a put-down for the sake of being insulting, or simply stating a fact that may seem unpleasant to some, especially if they hadn't thought that far ahead.

People struggle to separate the two, but intent is key.



I will not bite my tongue simply because misunderstanding causes some folks to react emotionally rather than ask for clarification. My intent was not offense, regardless of who may have felt offended. I deal with enough of this nonsense in dealing with NTs on a daily basis.



You've said the same thing over again very matter-of-factly, but you still seem unable to comprehend, or you simply don't want to believe me. Regardless, I stand by my post.