Alone And Lonely Are Not The Same Thing
Here we have a rather simplistic little wail in the WSJ, about the recent Census figures, showing that that the largest chunk of American society is people living alone:
We've long worried about trends, including single parenthood, that seemed to threaten the well-being of children. But 27 million lonely grown-ups probably isn't great for society either.
It's about time we stopped assuming anybody who isn't in a relationship or who lives alone is some miserable loser. I'm in a very happy relationship, but live alone -- by choice. Here's why, for people who'd like to stay in happy relationships, that choice is the wise one (from a recent column I wrote):
I wrote the chapter "How to Be a Good Houseguest" for The Experts' Guide to 100 Things Everyone Should Know How to Do (Random House, $19.95). At 611 words, it was 609 words too long. The best way to be a good houseguest? Two words: Stay home.People who seek to share living quarters, even as guests, are people with illusions about people. I have none. My chapter opens with a helpful stomp on everybody's rose-colored glasses: "People are annoying. All people. Including you, me, Jennifer Aniston and people living in dishwasher cartons on the street corner. Like the rest of us, you're loud, messy, demanding and unsightly, with numerous irritating habits -- which degenerate from irritating to excruciating the longer you're around." On the bright side, "by acknowledging the ugly realities of human nature, you might not only retain your hosts as friends but find yourself invited back."
Where people in relationships go wrong is by assuming "fish and guests stink after three days" doesn't apply to anyone they're sleeping with regularly. Not only do you think you're exempt from this rule, you think moving in with somebody you love is the key to nonstop nookie. Why? Because he's always there? Denny's is always open, but you probably don't find yourself flailing around in bed in the middle of the night aching for a Grand Slam.
Desire runs on the economics of scarcity. That's why diamonds, not speckled gray pebbles, "are forever," and why special occasions are celebrated with champagne and caviar, not tap water and a scoop of tuna. You want what's rare, or seems rare, not what's there 24/7, gassing up your couch.
For the biology behind why, read on at the column link above.







Very good point about the WSJ's editorial. I live alone and I enjoy it. I can do the things I like, when I like, without an audience. I couldn't imagine having to share living space with anyone else.
Patrick the cynic at August 23, 2005 7:17 AM
Co-inhabiting has another name and it comes with a heftier price-tag: college.
Jake at August 23, 2005 10:44 AM
On an off-topical note, I find a terrific way to save money on college tuition and expenses is to avoid having children.
Amy Alkon at August 23, 2005 3:56 PM
If the cur-lette could talk, it would share this wisdom "You're never lonely when you're infested with fleas."
Mao See Tung at August 24, 2005 12:13 AM
Amy, I think you and anyone else who prefers to live alone should certainly do so. And I agree it seems like a stretch to call all those people "lonely." However, I really don't think you can say that for people who'd like to stay in happy relationships, living alone is the wise choice. Apparently for you it is, but the fact remains that vast numbers of people prefer to live together, either married or unmarried, for the intimacy, security, company, practical benefits and perhaps even economic ones, although saving money shouldn't be the main reason. Of course, many of those relationships will eventually break up. And so will many "dating" relationships like you recommend. Some people prefer company in their bed and their house every night, others don't. Some people are lonely when they live alone, others aren't.
Pat Saperstein at August 24, 2005 12:25 PM
I still think the civilized thing to do is to live next door!
Amy Alkon at August 24, 2005 12:46 PM
Leave a comment