April 28, 2002

3:03 AM

Won't Commit, Can't Commit Or Just Doesn't Know How? Are single men of a certain age better off alone...or just losers? The Observer's Nick Compton does a good job of presenting the contemporary evidence for both cases.[N.B. Forget, for the moment, women face the same dilemma...].
posted by MiguelCardoso (23 comments total)

I'm a single 25 year old straight male, got the record collection, got the 2 seater, got the 21" monitor, got the overpriced apartment downtown; admittedly the furniture is mostly Ikea.

This article has a lot of emotional resonance with me. Change in power dynamic, women not knowing what they want, battle between settling in a relationship and freedom, making lists and wishing everyone else did.

But I wonder how much of it is just a general shotgun blast of relationship quarks.

I'd be really interested in a comparative article about the female side of the experience.
posted by Leonard at 10:31 AM on April 28, 2002

Wow...what a great article. I hate cheerleading, but good post.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:52 AM on April 28, 2002

"I think that women have become very intolerant of what men are. And there is this cultural underpinning that men are a bit crap, and until women stop believing that, they are never going to find the men they want. And men have to eschew this culture of self-hatred that it has lead to.'

Amen to that.
posted by mrhappy at 10:57 AM on April 28, 2002

...the men they're sleeping and drinking with rarely get a mention.

oh please. Fight club? Swingers? High Fidelity? Seinfeld? even Friends has an equal percentage of single men & single women.

The main point I got from the article was, women are waiting now too so there's less likelihood that men will be dragged into or trapped in a relationship, and the current generation often doesn't marry until they're past thirty. But I only skimmed the second part.
posted by mdn at 11:13 AM on April 28, 2002

miguel: why is it that people who fail, either by choice, inclination or because thats the way they are equipped, to take their ordained (by others) place in the so-called normal scheme of things designated 'losers'?
posted by quonsar at 11:30 AM on April 28, 2002

[Quonsar - I used "loser" in the European sense of someone who loses out on/misses something, not in the American sense of...what?...not having any redeeming qualities? Come to think of it, what does it mean, exactly? All I know, from novels and movies, is that it offends anyone that it's applied to.

But, losers/loners, whatever, people who prefer to be alone, who shun intimacy, surely miss out on something - specially if they don't got MetaFilter. ;)]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:22 PM on April 28, 2002

well, as long as they're european losers, i guess that's ok.
posted by quonsar at 1:09 PM on April 28, 2002

I'm not sure what a "new pink pounder" is but it sure doesn't sound like something you'd read about in a reputable newspaper.
posted by kindall at 2:07 PM on April 28, 2002

Well Miguel, we didn't all have two Swedish girlfriends while we were still teenagers. Some of us had to wait until adulthood to have most of our fun. Doesn't mean that we don't want to get married someday.
posted by bingo at 6:08 PM on April 28, 2002

"Pink Pounder" is the Monday night party at a certain London gay club. So, pink pounders are urban gay men, and by synecdoche affluent singles who spend freely on their pleasures — and the author is asserting that straight men who don't expect to settle down are indulging a similar lifestyle.
posted by nicwolff at 6:10 PM on April 28, 2002

Everything comes with a trade-off. There are huge sacrifices to be made in order to be in a relationship, and huge sacrifices in choosing not to be. It all comes down to which sacrifices one is most comfortable with. A lot of what most people seek in a relationship is either impractical or illusory anyway, and the failure to achieve it leads to even more frustration. Therefore, it can be a perfectly rational and appropriate choice to decide to put one's attention and efforts into other arenas.
posted by rushmc at 6:26 PM on April 28, 2002

If you were to substitute the word 'woman' for man in the artice, many times it would still ring true. People, we're not that much different and at the end of the day most of us want the same thing, to end up with someone who loves us and vice versa.
posted by Jubey at 8:02 PM on April 28, 2002

From the article:

'I just believe that people want to be with someone and being single is nothing but a failure for most people. Maybe if you are rich, beautiful and very well-connected you can enjoy a single life. But for most people being single means being lonely.'

Sheesh, didn't this silly cliche go out of fashion about fifty years ago?

I love being single and I always plan to be so, since I have no intention of ever having any offspring. I'm not afraid to be alone and I'm not willing to trade my freedom for security or social acceptance. In fact, I love it, because I can do what I want and not have to worry about pissing off a mate.

If I want to drink gin until I projectile vomit, yes I can!

If I want to be a semi-employable slackass, yes I can!

If I want to pick up some girl at a bar and bring her home and have wild sex, yes I can!

If I want to sit around naked with a bowl of greasy potato chips and watch Babylon 5 reruns, yes I can!

That's just for starters. Freedom is good.

If this makes me a loser, than a loser I shall be. I've long given up on trying to fit into society's little pigeonholes because I never have and I never will.
posted by mark13 at 8:53 PM on April 28, 2002

Mark13 - believe me, when you find someone you really like, who not only enjoys all those freedoms but has more fun doing them with you than alone, then you'll fall - and gladly. Love is a lot more like friendship and validating each other's selfishness, passionately and daily, time after reliable time, than is commonly thought. Living with someone you love is like being single together, with twice as much fun.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:05 PM on April 28, 2002

Living with someone you love is like being single together, with twice as much fun.

Hmm...reads like an Oprah fortune cookie. Must be another European thing. If I quoted this to the American grrrls I know, they'd remove their tongue studs and use them to carve the word "cloying" onto my right forearm.
posted by Opus Dark at 9:27 PM on April 28, 2002

when you find someone you really like, who not only enjoys all those freedoms but has more fun doing them with you than alone, then you'll fall - and gladly.

Well, sure, but if it never happens, we're still happy, and we're happy enough without it that we don't necessarily seek it out.
posted by kindall at 10:46 PM on April 28, 2002

Opus Dark is right - I do sound like a stale fortune cookie. But kindall is on the button - you will never find someone else if you're seeking; and you certainly won't find her/him if you're not happy with how you are as it is.

Sure, it's unfair, but a fact of life - only those who are OK with what they have - and are - get the chance to double their luck. If you're lonely - or at least uncomfortable with being single - then your chances of finding someone you'll be happier with are almost nil.

What happy-to-be-singles need are other happy-to-be-singles. All desperate, unsatisfied loners achieve when they get together is loneliness à deux. Which is much worse than loneliness on one's own; believe me.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:23 PM on April 28, 2002

you certainly won't find her/him if you're not happy with how you are as it is.

Much as I hate to contradict someone who just told me I'm right, this is not necessarily the case. One of my best friends set out to find himself a wife a few years ago, and went about it in a very methodical way. Key to his plan was, of all things, Usenet personal ads. He found a suitable mate within a year and I had the pleasure of attending their wedding shortly thereafter. They're still married, happily by all indications, and have a kid who has got to be going on five now. All this in Detroit. Which just goes to show, you can find love anywhere, and by any means.
posted by kindall at 11:38 PM on April 28, 2002

And for those single men who don't have the $120k
disposable there's always travel to exotic locales
and it aint only "losers" most likely dreamers
posted by johnny7 at 2:56 AM on April 29, 2002

I know a lot of "confirmed bachelors" that are now in their 50's. They still have their fun, but it's not a lifestyle I envy. I don't know whether to admire their courage, or to be amazed at the power of denial. As you get older, the concept of mortality begins to intrude through the armor a bit. The thought of being alone in your last years . . . not a pleasant thought.
posted by groundhog at 6:28 AM on April 29, 2002

The thought of being alone in your last years . . . not a pleasant thought.

What's so unpleasant about it? I mean, if I'm okay being by myself now, I don't see why I wouldn't be okay being by myself in thirty, forty, or fifty years.
posted by kindall at 11:15 AM on April 29, 2002

Jerry, I guess it's a personal thing. I probably sound like some old married fart, jealous of the free & single lifestyle. For me, anyway, my attitude has changed as I've gotten older. Perhaps yours will too, perhaps not.
posted by groundhog at 1:15 PM on April 29, 2002

You redeemed yourself admirably in your follow-up, Miguel. :)

I don't know whether to admire their courage, or to be amazed at the power of denial.

Why do you assume, groundhog, that their lifestyle choices must represent denial? Quite plausibly, they may have made careful, rational choices leading to the best of all possible lives for themselves. Not everyone wishes to live imprisoned as a breeder. To each his own.
posted by rushmc at 3:37 PM on April 30, 2002