"Learning to deal with somebody's problems is how you learn to have genuine love for them." Or maybe it just makes you really, really irritated and tired of them.

I think this is a matter of degree. There are things we as individuals can deal with things we can't deal with and shit that would never thought to think about.

"Learning to deal with somebody's problems is how you learn to have genuine love for them." Yes and one of those "somebody" is you (as in yourself not you specific). Part of the problem in a relationship is that you as a person have shit you can deal with, can't deal with and things you are unsure of. Either know you limitations and boundaries or you turn into one miserable person. If your writing to an advice column (an assumption on my part) then you are in a situation that you can not deal with which is when getting out is usually a good idea. Some life styles mesh some don't.

"Your advice is going to make a lot of women die lonely if they follow it." Basic fact: women live longer than men. Also women are the younger member in a marriage. So as a women you were pretty much guaranteed to die alone usually after changing his bed pan for a while. Being single not looking so bad if you take that into account.

"If your writing to an advice column (an assumption on my part) then you are in a situation that you can not deal with which is when getting out is usually a good idea. Some life styles mesh some don't."

I disagree with this completely: Sometimes, even a few small but useful pieces of advice (or small attitude changes), IF followed, can turn a stinking about-to-explode relationship into a great one. I've seen it with friends of mine. The key is that people simply have to want it to work, and be willing to do a bit of work at making it work.

If you expect relationships are supposed to just work all by themselves (and if they don't, fatalistically throw your hands in the air and say "well what I can say some lifestyles don't mesh") then it's NOT going to work, but it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've seen this happen several times too.

"So as a women you were pretty much guaranteed"

'Pretty much guaranteed' is a massively distorted exaggeration based on a few averages. Not only did men often look after the women (I can name counter-examples even today), but in 'those days' men 'looked after' i.e. provided for a woman all her life, so it's hardly the horrible one-sided picture you paint - it was a two-way street.

"If more women were comfortable enough with themselves to be alone"

I don't know, this is probably true, but that might just be your personality and personal preference ... maybe some people just really don't like being alone, there is nothing pathological or wrong about not liking being alone, it's merely human to want a partner even if imperfect, it doesn't necessarily indicate a deficiency in oneself (as seems to be the popular view these days). Moreover some women DO want kids, and at some point time really does start running out - so what do you - you make compromises in a partner. So what, there are always compromises in life, the question is to what degree you should be willing to compromise, and the answer should be based on whether you are "on the whole better off alone" or "on the whole better off with Mr NotEntirelyPerfect". Now you can say, but an unhappy marriage will wreak havoc on the kids, or whatever - maybe so, but it's also a fact that most unhappy marriages today, are that way because people are no longer willing to work at them, or expect perfection (like you say, if you grabbed driftwood, don't spend the next 50 years telling him he's wooden, or whatever). Also note relationships without kids are much easier.

You think you can avoid compromising by staying alone. But this is false - staying alone IS a compromise in and of itself. Whatever you choose to do in life and who you choose as a partner, you will compromise *somewhere*. Just don't over-compromise, that's all. The problem is people today 'want it all'. (If someone doesn't like being alone, and the response is that they 'should learn to be OK with being alone' (which might be impossible for them), you're just adding guilt that now they're somehow "wrong" to feel a need to not be alone.)

"Sometimes, even a few small but useful pieces of advice" There is a big difference between taking advice from someone who knows the detail of the situation and getting random advice from a stranger based on one paragraph, or even a book written from only one perspective. See a counselor for relationship advice not an advice column.

"Not only did men often look after the women " Dead men can not look after their wives. The women is younger (yes on average) and she has a longer life span (again on average). So no matter how loving or kind or supportive he is she is still very likely (yeah I'll agree "almost guaranteed" was a poor choice of words) to be alone after he dies. Most people who are far from retirement age do not have the money saved to support a stay at home spouse if the primary bread winner dies. Hell many people who are of retirement age can't do that.

"the question is to what degree you should be willing to compromise" That would be the whole point. There are some compromises that have to be made and there are some compromises that can not be made, this would be based on the individual.

"you're just adding guilt that now they're somehow "wrong" to feel a need to not be alone" Yeah and ? If you have a codependent personality it really is something you should have looked at. Again it's a question of degree. Are you happier to be in a relationship or is it that you need to be in one. Are we talking cake or water here.

"Whatever you choose to do in life and who you choose as a partner, you will compromise *somewhere*. Just don't over-compromise, that's all." I think we are arguing the same stance from the same point of view.

"The problem is people today 'want it all'." Yes this is a problem and one that has come up here before.

"because they're seeking a point of view from somebody who doesn't know them" But you are giving advice to people only knowing their point of view. You do not nor can you know the situation, any of the subtle issues, omitted variables, etc.

How often do people get pissy when they explain their situation and you call them on it?

I love your advice columns and I do take things away from reading it. However to give direct advice (you should or shouldn't do X) to a person you have to know more than is possible under the circumstances. I see these as parables or Aesop's fables not a code of conduct.

"See a counselor for relationship advice not an advice column"

Good advice can come from anywhere.

"If you have a codependent personality it really is something you should have looked at"

So anyone who doesn't like being alone, needs professional help? Come on, that shows how absurdly far the "you need to be able to be happy alone or there is something wrong with you" religion has now come --- it is a simple and obvious fact that humans are social animals, we all have a deep instinctive dislike of being alone - and that's perfectly normal, it's part of being human. Of course some people DO have personal problems and take things too far, but pretending that people should ALL somehow actually like being alone (and that anyone who doesn't "needs to work on that" and "lacks personal development") is, in my view, silly. Disliking being alone is not an automatic indication that you are deficient somehow. It is at least an indication that you're human.

I mean really, let's face it, being alone actually sucks.

here is nothing pathological or wrong about not liking being alone, it's merely human to want a partner even if imperfect, it doesn't necessarily indicate a deficiency in oneself

*I* want a partner, and I am at my best with love in my life. That said, I don't need to latch onto just any guy, like a rat on driftwood. I'm with Gregg because he's Gregg, not because I can't bear to be alone with my thoughts for a few hours.

...I did find this exchange Churchill had with Lady Astor. She said, "Winston, if you were my husband, I should flavor your coffee with poison." His response: "Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it."

He also had another exchange with Her Nibs that went like this:

Lady Astor: "Winston, you're drunk!"

Churchill: "Yes, madam, I am, and you're ugly. But in the morning, I shall be sober, and you'll still be ugly."

People are who they are, and they rarely change who they are at the behest of others, unless or until there is something bigger than themselves at stake. How someone determines what's bigger than themselves is anyone guess, seeing as how common sense went by the wayside a long damn time ago. That said, I've been in shitty relationships and I've been in good relationships, but none better than the one I am in now. If we were to separate, for whatever reason, I doubt I would choose to get involved with someone again, just so I wouldn't be alone. I've been lonely even while in a relationsihp. There's a difference between being lonely and being alone. How one handles being alone has a lot to do with how much they like themselves, I think. I hate being lonely when I am with someone, but I can handle, and even enjoy, being alone with myself. Sometimes I prefer being alone to being with someone. If that makes me weird, so what? At least I don't have to answer to anyone else about anything I don't want to. o.O

I mean really, let's face it, being alone actually sucks.

No, being lonely sucks. Being alone can be good for you.

"The man who goes alone can start today, but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready. - Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854)

OTOH, there are times when being alone does suck. When being chased by an angry grizzly bear, for instance, having your slower and more stumble-prone friend as a companion would be beneficial to your long-term health.

"So anyone who doesn't like being alone, needs professional help?" Are you skimming what I wrote or just fond of arguing.
"Are you happier to be in a relationship or is it that you need to be in one. Are we talking cake or water here." You don't need cake but it's nice (if you like cake) water is required for life.

I am happier with love in my life, too, but it has to actually BE love. Not manipulation, deception, or any of the other nasty tions. I wish the original LW had been more specific and given an example of where Amy told someone to dump their significant other, where the advice was misguided. I haven't seen one yet, and anyway, she doesn't ALWAYS tell people to DTMFA. I wonder which letter/letters the LW had in mind.

Everyone has faults, true. But I think a real sign of compatibility is when you find a person's faults charming and endearing. Or when their faults make you just want to give them a big hug and tell them it's OK. Don't be with someone because you feel you SHOULD be. Be with someone because you WANT to be.

"No, being lonely sucks. Being alone can be good for you."

Come on, let's admit the obvious; being alone also sucks most of the time. Sure it "can be" good for you (note even you wrote "can be", not "is") - it "can be" *sometimes*, in moderation, but it's not exactly loads of fun in the long term, nor is it healthy, in fact it is highly unhealthy to be alone most the time.

And yes it's "sometimes" nicer to be alone than with somebody, sure - that's not weird at all, *everybody* feels that way at times, we all need "me time" no matter how wonderful our relationship, I myself need far more than average "alone time" as I'm a loner. (Though "alone time" is more tolerable when you have a partner to go back to once you're done!)

But let's face it, there is a reason Hollywood churns out movie after movie where the couple lives happily ever after together, but just about zero movies where someone lives happily ever after *all alone*. There is a reason why most people not in relationships are trying to be in one, but most people in relationships (even bad ones) aren't pining to not be in a relationship. It's really not as much fun going to the movies alone, it's really more fun to spend a night cuddling in front of the fireplace (and then to the bedroom) with a partner than it is to spend the night alone, it's really more fun going on holiday or camping or hiking with a loved one than alone, it's really more fun going water-skiing or skydiving or just about anything with loved ones than doing those things alone. Being alone really just genuinely is boring and sucky, regardless of whether or not you feel "lonely", humans are just built that way, and no amount of claiming the sky is green is going to make the sky green. The sky is blue. Being alone sucks.

"I'm with Gregg because he's Gregg"

I get that, but statistics just work such that not everyone is necessarily going to meet a Gregg equivalent (granted many problems stem from peoples' own internal issues, but this would remain true even if everybody was perfect on the inside), and realities like a.o. broodiness place practical time limits on meeting the 'right person' or even on sorting yourself out (plus staying alone forever is also a crappy compromise, like choosing driftwood is). Kids also imply living together, which can strain some relationships; some relationships work better in part *because* people spend some time apart.

What I've noticed, especially in women is lack of good friends. I always notice that women complain about things that their female friends did to them. And I dont get it. I've never had a bad female friend in my life. I think that's why I'm not desperate to latch onto a relationship with a man, because I spend time with people I like.
I have few friends but I like them very much. And I've them for years and years.

Like Amy has said of her relationship with Gregg--I've never had an argument with any of my friends, or any mean word said--ever. Never worked on any of them either.

I have a job that requires I do work, why should my private life be the same?

I enjoy my own company, and I am very selective about who I spend time with. This applies to my friendships especially. I only want to hang out with people who I feel good around. If I was desperate and HAD to be with someone ALL THE TIME, then I'd be hanging around people that got on my nerves and would bring me down from my naturally happy place. Maybe DavidJ isn't as sensitive as I am to irritating people, or he doesn't enjoy his own company, and needs someone around to distract him from himself, which is a good coping strategy. BTW, I have quite a few friends that I can do things with whenever I want, as well as a hot guy for sex, so I've got all the bases covered for my needs. Being alone doesn't suck, because I'm not lonely.

"I lay out the disconnect between what people want and what they're doing and let the absurdity of it stink for itself." -- Ooh, yeah, I always knew your column was like a good ripe Camembert.

I've done "eject" and I've done "stay with the burning plane for a while". Eject is definitely better.

Just look at the Frankenstein Monster and the Bride. They didn't get along, but stayed together, and what did she get for it? He blew up the laboratory, saying, "We belong dead," and killed them both. Talk about irreconcilable differences turning into nagging idiosyncracies.

Alone time is a treasure to be cherished as much as relationship time is. At least for me.

Amy, you wrote, "If more women were comfortable enough with themselves to be alone, they wouldn't feel the need to grab hold of the first piece of driftwood that floats by, then spend the rest of their lives in couples counseling complaining..."

Ditto for men, my wise sage, ditto for men!

"Maybe DavidJ isn't as sensitive as I am to irritating people, or he doesn't enjoy his own company, and needs someone around to distract him from himself, which is a good coping strategy"

Seems like nobody is bothering to read what I *actually* wrote, but just responding to purely imagined dialogue that comes from who-knows-where. Let me quote myself to clear it up for you: "I myself need far more than average "alone time" as I'm a loner" ... now if you bother to read what I wrote, you might find some other useful truths.

"I mean really, let's face it, being alone actually sucks.

Posted by: DavidJ at December 24, 2008 11:00 AM"

Not getting laid on any kind of regular basis sucks.

Being alone is wonderful. Unfortunately, masturbation doesn't count. It just ain't the same thing.

Sofar is right, being lonely sucks. However, being alone is fine, even good sometimes.
I have been in relationships where I am so lonely, that I'm miserable. But when I finally figure out that it just isn't working and walk away to be alone. I find that I'm so much happier. I strongly believe that if you can't make yourself happy how will anyone else ever be able to. It takes a lot to be in a relationship worth being in. And I think when people ask for advice from "random strangers" and leave out variables, it's because they want someone to tell them what they already know to be true. They skew the facts so someone will tell them to leave their relationship, or skew the facts so someone will tell them to stay. They're just looking for someone to validate a decision they've already made.

People are so freaking afraid of "dying alone", without someone to care about them through their final golden years. Most of us (that's right, not all of us-for those who want to pick this comment apart) get married the first time mainly to have a family. We get married the second, or third, or fourth time so we don't have to be alone. For a very short while I perused a date site to see if there was anyone I could see myself with for more than a cup of coffee.

There were (and I'm serious) over 350 women in my age group, which is between 40-55 looking for a man within 50 miles of my house! They all love long walks on the beach and I live in Colorado! I didn't go very far with the site because it felt so fake and a waste of time. It feels like all these women are looking for a guy to latch on to because they don't want to be alone and they'll hook up with anyone who is lukewarm. I would rather stay single and happy.

"People are so freaking afraid of "dying alone", without someone to care about them through their final golden years."

I know, and the whole set of priorities seems backwards. People go through the misery of a bad partnership, not to mention miserable parenthood, just so they won't be alone in their old age, or they want someone to take care of them. It's kind of sick how they sacrifice their current enjoyment of life due to fear of the future. Have they completely discounted the idea that they might be able to take care of themselves? How likely is it that you will need a bedpan changed? And another thing - with all those lonely old people, wouldn't you think they would keep EACH OTHER company?

hee hee the title was awesome and so were the winston churchill quotes that have been mentioned. The closest quote I could find for what the LW was saying was; "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." But I don't think that's quite saying that we should stay in a relationship that's crumbling around us.

Developing a certain comfort level with singlehood and ultimately myself has come with the benefits of a richer life and better friends than the me in high school and early college, when I was either unhappily with or without a boyfriend. I'm not opposed to going into a new relationship, but I don't really feel desperate for it to happen, which means I've turned down a couple guys in the last few months because I believe that there are worse things in life than not having someone to bring to my cousin's wedding next month.

I could be bringing the guy who I knew casually through church charities and he seemed okay...not someone I'd date but a decent human being..and who I now think has a few screws short of a lighthouse. As he one week decided, after explaining to me at length that his unemployment and his long list of medical ailments were a smiting from God that it was a good time to ask me out to lunch. Then later, wrote me a six page hand-written letter (double sided!) chastising me for not doing enough in the charity group and describing the pain my refusal to join him for a casual lunch had caused. Then he tried to use verses from the bible to guilt me into having dinner with him and his mother who he lives with at their house. That is one relationship I am definitely happy to do without.

Lily, I think God needs to smite that guy a little harder next time. Thanks for the laugh!

When I got married to my ex, it was exactly because I was clinging to driftwood. It's not a happy memory, but I can say with certainty that it was so much worse than being alone. I was lonely both ways, but it's far worse when you're with someone.

I didn't want to make that mistake again, so I forced myself to spend a year alone (meaning not in a relationship, but still spending time with friends, family and outside interests).

That year was often intensely painful because I was an emotional wuss, but that year was probably the most vital year of my adult life.

Now I'm in a happy, wonderful relationship that doesn't suck. I much prefer being with my boyfriend than without him, because he's truly wonderful, not because I desperately need him.

From Amy: "People who write me..."

IMHO, I've always concluded that Amy doesn't answer readers' inquiries. I think she peruses the web for interesting research that can support her philosophy, and then creates a phony relationship scenario that fits the facts she needs to provide the lead-in to the research and promote dialogue on site.

It doesn't matter to me; she's still good reading. And any woman who understands the most important relationship maxim -- "the secret to a long relationship is frequent blowjobs" -- is all right in my book.

Ron Lewis--I wrote to Amy and she emailed me back very quickly. I had been reading her here for months before and continue to still.

So I might be a little late coming on here with my comment, but I feel like Amy deserves more defense than just one post.

I wrote her at 17 when I had a shitty long distance relationship, and again at 18 when I foolishly, drunkenly lost my virginity and was mildly shocked and confused by it. Time and time again I have sent her my poorly written, probably trivial "problem letters" and she has ALWAYS written back. Not to mention she's written back within a matter of minutes, and always with well thought-out responses. Sure, I was never published, but the care was there all the same, and that's all I ever needed.

Ron Lewis, you sound like a chauvinist who is just distorting Amy's words. (Encouraging women to believe that relationships = blowjobs? Hardly.) But good for you that you were able to figure out how to post this on the internet. You sure showed us dumb women a thing or two. Your gold star is waiting for you at the end, I'm sure.