Overabundance of relationships

Where I live, in the town of Gerona, there is overly large number of relationships. I have not met anyone, not one person, who wasn't in one form or another. Celibacy seems to be a taboo subject, as men and women don't relate to each other as friends. The home, the dating, the bed, or at least one of those three plays a role in people's lives here. I don't like it one bit. I mean, I respect and believe very much in marriage and living together, but not for absolutely everyone. Romance is but one state of being that should be balanced with bachelorhood, you could call it. Some people should live together, others remain single, so that one trend doesn't become too dominant.

But in this part of the world, that concept doesn't appear to be very well understood.

¿Qué carajo acabo de leer?

So... Wait, what? People shouldn't get into a relationship because... What? Balance? No no no no no... Isn't the whole point of humans and animals alike to continue their family?

Having a relationship isn't a "trend", it's a law of nature.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Having a relationship isn't a "trend", it's a law of nature.

Not really. The vast majority of species on planet earth actually aren't monogamous.

Mass Distraction wrote:

So... Wait, what? People shouldn't get into a relationship because... What? Balance? No no no no no... Isn't the whole point of humans and animals alike to continue their family?

Having a relationship isn't a "trend", it's a law of nature.

Yes, balance. Freedom of choice. Let some move in together, others stand apart. There is nothing wrong with either practice, but having too many people following only one of them is creating a biased atmosphere over here.

What about women who never married or had children, like actress Susan Oliver? They did not follow the law of relationships. She stood on her own very well, got on with people, made something of her life. I don't mind the fact that she was single all her life.

But... Why is this a problem? If people want to be together, let them. I'm totally content being single and I don't mind the vast majority of my friends being in a relationship. Seriously, if someone is able to find a person they want to spend their lives with, I see no bad in it.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Having a relationship isn't a "trend", it's a law of nature.

Not really. The vast majority of species on planet earth actually aren't monogamous.

I didn't mean it exactly like I wrote though I mean that species are supposed to get together to continue their family. I worded that terribly.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Having a relationship isn't a "trend", it's a law of nature.

Not really. The vast majority of species on planet earth actually aren't monogamous.

Ever notice how monogamy rhymes with monotony?  

Pau Diaz wrote:

Yes, balance. Freedom of choice. Let some move in together, others stand apart. There is nothing wrong with either practice, but having too many people following only one of them is creating a biased atmosphere over here.

And who's going to decide who should be in a relationship and who should spend their entire life single? You?

Quote :

What about women who never married or had children, like actress Susan Oliver? They did not follow the law of relationships. She stood on her own very well, got on with people, made something of her life. I don't mind the fact that she was single all her life.

You don't mind someone staying single, but if they want to be in a relationship it goes against some kind of "balance"? Sounds to me like the bias is within you rather than in your community. You're single, people around you are in relationships, and it brings you down. So in order to feel better about yourself, you've convinced yourself that being single is your choice and that those that are in relationships are going against some kind of status quo self-perceived by you.

Mass Distraction wrote:

I didn't mean it exactly like I wrote though I mean that species are supposed to get together to continue their family. I worded that terribly.

I think a better phrase describing what you're referring to is propagation of species.  

Ghost Leader wrote:

Pau Diaz wrote:

Yes, balance. Freedom of choice. Let some move in together, others stand apart. There is nothing wrong with either practice, but having too many people following only one of them is creating a biased atmosphere over here.

And who's going to decide who should be in a relationship and who should spend their entire life single? You?

Quote :

What about women who never married or had children, like actress Susan Oliver? They did not follow the law of relationships. She stood on her own very well, got on with people, made something of her life. I don't mind the fact that she was single all her life.

You don't mind someone staying single, but if they want to be in a relationship it goes against some kind of "balance"? Sounds to me like the bias is within you rather than in your community. You're single, people around you are in relationships, and it brings you down. So in order to feel better about yourself, you've convinced yourself that being single is your choice and that those that are in relationships are going against some kind of status quo self-perceived by you.

Mass Distraction wrote:

I didn't mean it exactly like I wrote though I mean that species are supposed to get together to continue their family. I worded that terribly.

I think a better phrase describing what you're referring to is propagation of species.  

You're wrong, this doesn't bring me down. I don't resent other people being in relationships because I am single. Anything in moderation is fine, whether it be alcohol, fast foods, or even drugs, to give pain relief, but too much of any of these things can be unhealthy. This applies to relationships because of the power bloc mentality or favoritism that can result from too many people being in them. Nepotism is one such practice, overt preference is another.

I think you are looking at life way too statistically and scientifically. This is the first time I see someone comparing a long term relationship to alcohol abuse. You'd make a good Umbrella scientist but a total bummer at dinner parties.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

I didn't mean it exactly like I wrote though I mean that species are supposed to get together to continue their family. I worded that terribly.

I think a better phrase describing what you're referring to is propagation of species.  

Ah, yes, that sounds a lot better. Even after all these years my English still isn't perfect

Mass Distraction wrote:

I think you are looking at life way too statistically and scientifically. This is the first time I see someone comparing a long term relationship to alcohol abuse. You'd make a good Umbrella scientist but a total bummer at dinner parties.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

I didn't mean it exactly like I wrote though I mean that species are supposed to get together to continue their family. I worded that terribly.

I think a better phrase describing what you're referring to is propagation of species.  

Ah, yes, that sounds a lot better. Even after all these years my English still isn't perfect

Well, first of all, thank you. I take the Umbrella scientist comparison as a complement. Second of all, I reckon I'd be fare much better in parties hosted by Umbrella, mingling with like minded 'statistic and scientifically' oriented, than an overly expanded civil mass of organic tissue that lacks diversity in status.

Societies in which there is a fifty percent of single people and fifty married or living together is the best model of society, because it offers people the chance to experience life from individual and married couples' perspectives in equal measure. Fortunately for me, I speak from personal experience, for better and worse.

Pau Diaz wrote:

Societies in which there is a fifty percent of single people and fifty married or living together  is the best model of society, because it offers people the chance to experience life from individual and married couples' perspectives in equal measure. Fortunately for me, I speak from personal experience, for better and worse.

Best according to who?

But let's say that's theoretically true and let me ask you this: What if the majority of people find life in relationships to be preferable to being single? Should they then be split from their companions against their will and be mandated loveless, sexless harbingers of misery?

I would love to see an actual statistic that shows how a society where exactly 50% of the people being single is somehow more... what? Happier?

And I can bet that everyone in their life has at least experienced being single. Well, at least in a society where you aren't forced to marry at the age of 12.

Yes but people can be equally happy in a relationship. It's not a "you have to do this in order to get a better life" thing.

It's one thing if that lifestyle is your own personal choice, but something entirely different when one suggests another should be mandated a specific lifestyle for some BS reason like "balance".

Ghost Leader wrote:

Pau Diaz wrote:

Societies in which there is a fifty percent of single people and fifty married or living together  is the best model of society, because it offers people the chance to experience life from individual and married couples' perspectives in equal measure. Fortunately for me, I speak from personal experience, for better and worse.

Best according to who?

But let's say that's theoretically true and let me ask you this: What if the majority of people find life in relationships to be preferable to being single? Should they then be split from their companions against their will and be mandated loveless, sexless harbingers of misery?

Let SOME men be the handsome winners of women's hearts and SOME women be the object of the gaze, or in the case of gay couples, the partners to be together OR others to stand on their own.

All these existences are perfectly acceptable. Not one of them is the ultimate state of being, because we are all different and because we are, intimacy should appeal to some and not to others, for the sole reason that each person has the right to decide for him or herself.

We can´t force anyone to do anything against their own will. I don´t believe in that. If the theory you propose were to become reality, I´d find a way to moderate the numbers of couples and single people, find a way to split the differences between them in half, let some be couples, others not.

RebelliousQueen wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

I would love to see an actual statistic that shows how a society where exactly 50% of the people being single is somehow more... what? Happier?

And I can bet that everyone in their life has at least experienced being single. Well, at least in a society where you aren't forced to marry at the age of 12.

Honestly, I enjoyed myself being single for the longest time. I've got flings but that's it. Sexmates too, uh sometims. Haha. But not as bitter as you think I just hate commitments. And I am a full-time badass gamer and mother at the same time. So, why would I waste my time in a relationship? While being single is so much happier.       

Exactly. There's nothing wrong in being a single mother. It's not easy, but the lifestyle doesn't involve being disruptive or spiteful to anyone, so I see no problem with in. There are single fathers too and they don't mind being what they are. The human being is more complex than sheep for goodness sake.

Pau Diaz wrote:

We can´t force anyone to do anything against their own will. I don´t believe in that. If the theory you propose were to become reality, I´d find a way to moderate the numbers of couples and single people, find a way to split the differences between them in half, let some be couples, others not.

Contradiction. By "moderating the numbers", you are forcing people to do something against their will. You're forcing them to live their lives according to your standards and practices. You openly endorse single life and condemn couplehood while claiming that you believe in marriage, showing just how much of a hypocrite you are. The bias you talk about isn't in society, it's in you.

Are you next going to claim you believe in free speech, then say that certain opinions which you don't share should be silenced?

The Soviets have invaded the REF. Hide yo' kids, hide yo' wife...

Ghost Leader wrote:

Pau Diaz wrote:

We can´t force anyone to do anything against their own will. I don´t believe in that. If the theory you propose were to become reality, I´d find a way to moderate the numbers of couples and single people, find a way to split the differences between them in half, let some be couples, others not.

Contradiction. By "moderating the numbers", you are forcing people to do something against their will. You're forcing them to live their lives according to your standards and practices. You openly endorse single life and condemn couplehood while claiming that you believe in marriage, showing just how much of a hypocrite you are. The bias you talk about isn't in society, it's in you.

Are you next going to claim you believe in free speech, then say that certain opinions which you don't share should be silenced?

You misunderstand me. When I say 'moderate', I mean let the people choose their path, whether it be single or with a partner, instead of flocking en mass down only one. I am perfectly content to let people be what they want to be, but what I am against is the principle that people should do something just because a lot of other people do it. Quantity of relationships is not as important as quality of relationships.

Pau Diaz wrote:

You misunderstand me. When I say 'moderate', I mean let the people choose their path, whether it be single or with a partner, instead of flocking en mass down only one. I am perfectly content to let people be what they want to be, but what I am against is the principle that people should do something just because a lot of other people do it. Quantity of relationships is not as important as quality of relationships.

No, that doesn't fly. How can you moderate the number of singles and couples to keep them at an even balance while defining the act as letting people choose their own path? If a majority of people prefer couplehood, then your totalitarian idea of "balance" goes out the window, period. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Pau Diaz wrote:

You misunderstand me. When I say 'moderate', I mean let the people choose their path, whether it be single or with a partner, instead of flocking en mass down only one. I am perfectly content to let people be what they want to be, but what I am against is the principle that people should do something just because a lot of other people do it. Quantity of relationships is not as important as quality of relationships.

No, that doesn't fly. How can you moderate the number of singles and couples to keep them at an even balance while defining the act as letting people choose their own path? If a majority of people prefer couplehood, then your totalitarian idea of "balance" goes out the window, period. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

If a majority chooses to couple, I would like there to be the understanding that it is something voluntary and those who choose to remain single won't be peer pressured or persuaded to follow suit, because it is necessary or uplifting. Anything done of one's own choosing is perfectly acceptable, but if it is done because it is expected or essential, the value is lost. We no longer live in rural societies that had rough conditions. Things have changed.

I have an update for you all. The problem is not too many relationships. It's the fact that over here, many relationships are formed for very old fashioned, medieval reasons. The region I live in is not a big one and there aren't many many Catalans, so relationships are a necessary step to ensure the population grows. The bed, the children, future successes, political and social power, are the driving force behind so many men and women.

Life is oriented towards the growth of Catalonia and let the pleasure of rearing children be damned.

Even if people take on relationships out of pressure in life to be expected, that is still their choice. That is better than literally being forced to be, or not to be, in a relationship.

While we are on this topic, I got married 2 weeks ago today :p

Ssplain wrote:

While we are on this topic, I got married 2 weeks ago today :p

Congratulations! Who's the lucky guy?

MSR: 1

Spectacular Splain: 0

@Pau Diaz, it seems that you just dislike the obligation to be in a relationship where you live. Its not like that everywhere however, you should just move to a new place. US is always a good choice, it is the best country in the world. America! Fuck Yeah!!