How important is it to be in a relationship in your 30s?

[Restless soul]

I have to watch this. You mentioned it a couple of times

 

[user 115627]

If you're someone who doesn't feel miserable as a single person, then you're either jaded (because of ******** in your past) or you're in serious denial. Either way, congratulations.

I think you can be indifferent. Works for me. Though I think you need to have some predisposition for it.

Interesting. I get that. I am indifferent today, but it only came about through "surrender", a "fresia it all" attitude. But, don't you think indifference comes about after having very strong feelings about it in the first place ? And then, at some point, not giving a $#!t because it's too much hassle ?

So, it doesn't mean you really don't want it or don't care. It means you've worked with your feelings, and obscured those original feelings, so they don't bother you anymore. Yeah ?

Risking an ad hominem here, but since you brought it up: Are you indifferent by your own standard? Didn't you even state in another thread that you see no point taking up a shitty job to survive if there's not a partner waiting for you at home to make it worthwhile? I don't think it counts as indifference if the lack of a romantic partner bleeds into other significant departments of your life.

No, I don't think indifference necessarily comes about after very strong feelings. I find it more probable they would lead to resentfulness. I didn't have any feelings about this topic at all until the age of 16 or so where they were mediocre at best, but at this point I had already outruled concepts like marriage and reproduction.

Furthermore, I think we need to detach the concepts of having a romantic partner or a specifically sexually intimate relationship from the big cluster of loneliness. I find it perfectly possible to fulfill the need for belonging and intimacy through other avenues (I mean the kind you don't have to pay for). Certainly there are always going to be some individuals who are absolutely incapable of this.

 

[Tuathaniel]

Wow, this got temperamental, and for the third time today, I find myself agreeing with Callie. People are individuals. Not everybody have the same desires and emotional needs, even though humans as a species are mostly a social herd animal. If someone says they're happy with being alone, it's actually quite rude to keep telling them "no, you're just in denial if you think that." Nobody should ever assume what others want based on their own feelings, or assume that you know somebody better than they know themselves. It's not just rude, it's also incredibly arrogant.

 

[Somnambulist]

Wow, this got temperamental, and for the third time today, I find myself agreeing with Callie. People are individuals. Not everybody have the same desires and emotional needs, even though humans as a species are mostly a social herd animal. If someone says they're happy with being alone, it's actually quite rude to keep telling them "no, you're just in denial if you think that." Nobody should ever assume what others want based on their own feelings, or assume that you know somebody better than they know themselves. It's not just rude, it's also incredibly arrogant.

Thanks, Tuathaniel. I don't see this as a personal battle. I didn't say what I said because I was talking to Callie. It's immaterial who agrees with me.

It is not arrogant to make generalizations based on known scientific facts. I've brought up the Oxygen example a few times. I've got nothing to gain here from pointing out what countless others discovered long ago - namely, that we are all social animals.

Now, you're right that we are all conditioned differently. But, that conditioning obscures our true nature (which is what I called "denial" ... denial obscures our true nature of wanting intimacy). Now, I'm certain that that is universal. The only exception I can think of is "asexual" people. I will admit ... I don't know much about asexuality, except that they don't feel sexual attraction. But, I'm willing to bet that even they need intimacy in other forms.

If you think I'm being arrogant and rude, that is your right. And, I know what I know, and stating that is my right.

Again, looking on the bright side, if some of you are superhumanly capable of being happy without intimacy, I'm really happy for you ! That's great ! I wish I could do the same.

 

[Restless soul]

Now I am happy that I made this thread

 

[Restless soul]

Wow, this got temperamental, and for the third time today, I find myself agreeing with Callie. People are individuals. Not everybody have the same desires and emotional needs, even though humans as a species are mostly a social herd animal. If someone says they're happy with being alone, it's actually quite rude to keep telling them "no, you're just in denial if you think that." Nobody should ever assume what others want based on their own feelings, or assume that you know somebody better than they know themselves. It's not just rude, it's also incredibly arrogant.

Thanks, Tuathaniel. I don't see this as a personal battle. I didn't say what I said because I was talking to Callie. It's immaterial who agrees with me.

It is not arrogant to make generalizations based on known scientific facts. I've brought up the Oxygen example a few times. I've got nothing to gain here from pointing out what countless others discovered long ago - namely, that we are all social animals.

Now, you're right that we are all conditioned differently. But, that conditioning obscures our true nature (which is what I called "denial" ... denial obscures our true nature of wanting intimacy). Now, I'm certain that that is universal. The only exception I can think of is "asexual" people. I will admit ... I don't know much about asexuality, except that they don't feel sexual attraction. But, I'm willing to bet that even they need intimacy in other forms.

If you think I'm being arrogant and rude, that is your right. And, I know what I know, and stating that is my right.

Again, looking on the bright side, if some of you are superhumanly capable of being happy without intimacy, I'm really happy for you ! That's great ! I wish I could do the same.

They are not. They would not be here if they were

 

[AmytheTemperamental]

Everyone has their own reasons for being here. Lack of inntimacy isn't the only one.

 

[Somnambulist]

Now I am happy that I made this thread

Free entertainment, huh ? With little effort on your part

 

[Somnambulist]

Wow, this got temperamental, and for the third time today, I find myself agreeing with Callie. People are individuals. Not everybody have the same desires and emotional needs, even though humans as a species are mostly a social herd animal. If someone says they're happy with being alone, it's actually quite rude to keep telling them "no, you're just in denial if you think that." Nobody should ever assume what others want based on their own feelings, or assume that you know somebody better than they know themselves. It's not just rude, it's also incredibly arrogant.

Thanks, Tuathaniel. I don't see this as a personal battle. I didn't say what I said because I was talking to Callie. It's immaterial who agrees with me.

It is not arrogant to make generalizations based on known scientific facts. I've brought up the Oxygen example a few times. I've got nothing to gain here from pointing out what countless others discovered long ago - namely, that we are all social animals.

Now, you're right that we are all conditioned differently. But, that conditioning obscures our true nature (which is what I called "denial" ... denial obscures our true nature of wanting intimacy). Now, I'm certain that that is universal. The only exception I can think of is "asexual" people. I will admit ... I don't know much about asexuality, except that they don't feel sexual attraction. But, I'm willing to bet that even they need intimacy in other forms.

If you think I'm being arrogant and rude, that is your right. And, I know what I know, and stating that is my right.

Again, looking on the bright side, if some of you are superhumanly capable of being happy without intimacy, I'm really happy for you ! That's great ! I wish I could do the same.

They are not. They would not be here if they were

Tell me about it

The only exception might be people here solely to help others. Like our new member AlexD, a self-confidence coach.

 

[Restless soul]

Now I am happy that I made this thread

Free entertainment, huh ? With little effort on your part

Little effort? No no. My intentions are always to provoke meaningful dialog about such issues that are serious about. Issues and topics that are closely tied into theme of this site and to why many of us are here right?

 

[Restless soul]

Oh, ok.. and the entertainment factor if its there is a bonus

 

[Restless soul]

By the way the title of this thread was rhetorical for me.

In my opinion it is. Because I think it is important, normal
And should be active in some capacity if dating when you are in
Your 30s. And hopefully successful. I think somnam would agree

 

[Tuathaniel]

Everyone has their own reasons for being here. Lack of inntimacy isn't the only one.

Exactly. I'm amazed at how some people here seem to have fun with making arrogant and patronising  generalisations based on their own personal feelings. This entire thread is basically just bs at this point. Im out.

 

[Somnambulist]

By the way the title of this thread was rhetorical for me.

In my opinion it is. Because I think it is important, normal
And should be active in some capacity if dating when you are in
Your 30s. And hopefully successful.  I think somnam would agree

I wouldn't put it in those specific words, but I agree with the overall message. I'd say that intimacy (all kinds) and relationships (including friendships) are important, regardless of age. These needs don't evaporate when you reach your 60s, because you're still a Modern Homo Sapiens, although they might morph or diminish (sexual desire, for example).

 

[zero]

By the way the title of this thread was rhetorical for me.

thanks for confirming that to me.

 

[Restless soul]

Excuse me..I didn't say its the only one. Nor should you or calie take everything as a slight on these threads just to be contrarian for the sake of it. Because that what it really seems like the two of you enjoy doing

 

[TheRealCallie]

Excuse me..I didn't say its the only one. Nor should you or calie take everything as a slight on these threads just to be contrarian for the sake of it. Because that what it really seems like the two of you enjoy doing

When someone tries to lump me into ONE group because that's how THEY think people should be....sorry, I'm going to say something. 

Also, this is a PUBLIC forum, as Somnawhatever has pointed out so many **** times.  You don't have to be lonely to be on here.  ANYONE can join

 

[AmytheTemperamental]

"They are not. They would not be here if they were"

 

[Restless soul]

Excuse me..I didn't say its the only one. Nor should you or calie take everything as a slight on these threads just to be contrarian for the sake of it. Because that what it really seems like the two of you enjoy doing

When someone tries to lump me into ONE group because that's how THEY think people should be....sorry, I'm going to say something. 

Also, this is a PUBLIC forum, as Somnawhatever has pointed out so many **** times.  You don't have to be lonely to be on here.  ANYONE can join

Oh most certainly. Then let me apologize.  It was a mismisunderstanding.  I asssumed you were lonley.  Guess I was wrong

 

[Somnambulist]

Everyone has their own reasons for being here. Lack of inntimacy isn't the only one.

Exactly. I'm amazed at how some people here seem to have fun with making arrogant and patronising  generalisations based on their own personal feelings. This entire thread is basically just bs at this point. Im out.

Why is this getting personal ? "Some people" ?

It is a debate involving opposing viewpoints, not antagonistic people.