I have been single for most of my life. People sometimes ask me "so, why are you single?" (like I have an answer for this) and I like to respond "because I'm good at it."
Now that is incredibly funny. 
"why are you still single"? "Because I'm good at it"
Touche'
In a strange way though, doesn't having children mean that one's DNA/Life philosophy is being insured of passing on through one's children? In a strange way not having children could be construed as a sort of Darwinian "dead end"? If one's thoughts and genes and ideas are really great, then why isn't the DNA passed forward?
I'm double minded about children, on the one hand the concept is wonderful on the other hand it would not be a good thing to pick up that responsibility if one isn't prepared for it.
I can't help but notice that the ladies on the board are not all that excited about the idea of kids(small goats if one thinks about it...)
Maybe that's because mothers with small kids don't have the time to come online and hang out in places like this? :-)
It's not really an issue of DNA or Life Philosophy, really. What it boils down to is this: We're all gonna be gone at some point. For a hell of a lot of people, once they're gone, that's it, and the effect of their life is the smallest little ripple that disappears fairly quick. Which to me is a fairly depressing thought sometimes.
OTOH, for some few exceptional individuals, they're gone but the effects that they have tend to linger on a good deal longer, and for a really small number of folks, it really spreads out pretty wide, through a whole society, or even further. Do I have any delusions of that sorts? Nope! But I also think that there are a few lives that I've touched along the way, and that I've made a little bit of difference here and there, and I guess only time will tell how it'll go, in the long run. And I ain't done yet! :-)
I also think that there's some of this sort of "influence" stuff tied in with the way people tend to look at "stars", whether it's the hollywood-type, some sports figure (which are treated very much the same these days), or even some politician. I think a lot of people out there are so wrong-headed about how they look at this thing, but I don't think they arrived at that point of view by themselves, as much as being led there. By the movies, and the TV, and other "instruments of programming the sheeple", which are so popular for that very reason. Only now thanks to this 'net thingy we seem to have something different going on, if they don't screw it up for us before it really takes hold.
As far as being single and having total freedom to not interact with somebody vs. having somebody there to share with, it's all a matter of priorities, besides being a matter of temperament to start out with. And that's also something that's subject to change, over time. I suspect that those of you who are saying stuff about how much you're enjoying your life by yourself are also pretty young. I know I did back when. So don't be surprised if it changes, down the road.
Purple Kitty:
I find that *men* are generally supportive of being a "housewife," but many of them are against homeschooling, usually pulling the "socialization" card. I actually quit talking to someone because he so insulted my beliefs on homeschooling. "Career women" tend to be very hostile to the "housewife" idea. My mother, especially. She was never there when I was a kid, and I don't want that for my children at all.
So you know what you _don't_ want in a relationship, particularly of the family persuasion. I see a lot of that sort of thing, the whole career thing getting out of hand, and women giving their kids to somebody else ("daycare") to raise, being what it amounts to. And I figure that a lot of that is a reaction, Betty Friedan style, against the roles that women used to find themselves cast into. Or at least that's what started it out, a few decades back. Then we got ourselves culturally into this situation where two incomes were the norm. I hear a lot of crap about the two-income household using all that "excess disposable income" to buy all sorts of material goods, and while I have no doubt that there are some folks out there like that there are also a lot of cases (our situation being one of them) where two incomes are _needed_ to get by, and maybe get ahead a little bit. Thanks to taxes, and inflaction, and other goobermint-induced crap. So we can thank them for that, too...
I'm not saying that if you really have a passion for something that you need to give it up to stay home and raise kids, not by a long shot. But I'm also thinking that if it's something you really have a passion for, you find a way to do it _with_ the kids while you're at it, which doesn't fit at all well in the current job culture, not a bit.
But anyhoo yeah, this is what dating is supposed to be about, I think -- you and one other person finding out what there is to find out about each other while presumably not taking any irrevocable steps and being able to judge, at some point, whether this is ever gonna go anywhere or not. I'd say a year or two is probably a good time period for this.
padre29:
PK, that is just cold, "I have to ask myself if I want this person's genetic material mingling with mine"
But that's what it's all about, ultimately. Not so much the nonsense about the genetic material, because that's a crap shoot anyway, but the question of whether or not one is in agreement with who the other person is to have enough there to construct a long-term relationship around. And men and women have some rather different criteria about that sort of thing. For women, it's, among other things, "is this guy gonna be a good provider?" for example.
Damn. All this time I thought it was money. Stupid me. rolleyes
And money is just another side of that issue.
Author
Topic: Happy to be single? Or looking always for a "partner"? (Read 12403 times)