Single File by Susan Deitz

DEAR SUSAN: You state firmly that bringing your lover/boyfriend home is not good, that sexual a relationship should be conducted at his/her house, not where the children are. I have to disagree. I know when it can go wrong, as it did with my current boyfriend's ex. She immediately brought her new boyfriend into her bed after Dad moved out. Uncool. And then she proceeded to give him parental power. Also uncool. As she moved from man to man, the kids got knocked off the top of the priority list. This left Dad convinced that kids and lovers don't mix, and therefore he won't spend the night at my house, and I can't spend the night at his when the children are there. That leaves very little time to relate; his kids don't know who I am or how we get along after a year of dating.

My story? I've been a single parent for 18 years, ever since my daughter's father decided at 36 that he wasn't ready to parent and left me pregnant. I was also 36, and I wasn't ready for a life without love and sex. It took time to be ready to date. But when I was, I decided that my life and my needs are just as valid as any married woman's. So my first rule is that my daughter must like the person I'm dating. For her, the most comfortable place for that is her home, where she is secure and in comfortable surroundings. For me, she is my top priority. Boyfriends come and go; she stays. So over time, my daughter has met each man who has entered my life and related to him. She has watched me cry and end a relationship, as well.

Now I watch her at 17 relating to boys. I worried that she had never experienced a family life with Mom and Dad, etc. But she has experienced the real life of a woman. She knows that needs are as real as wants. She has watched me fall in love and get real and decide it's not working out and part company. So as she enters her own romantic world, I find myself impressed by her ability to fall into infatuation/love and get real, and when things don't work out, she can part ways with kindness. Perhaps the most important part of all is she's seen the phases of love played out, and she knows a heart survives when it ends. I stick by my conviction that life in full view has value. — Kate H., Long Island, N.Y.

DEAR KATE: Life in full view, that is, as lived by an unmarried parent with a rotating cast of partners. Sorry, Kate, for me that doesn't measure up to a stable home life. Or a healthy relationship with the other gender. It just isn't balanced enough to give a complete picture of the relationship world as it is. The lacks far outweigh the influence of even a strong mother like you.

Where is the constancy of a male figure? Who is on the scene to modify or even contradict your slant on domestic life and its myriad problems? Most urgent is the need for a steady hand at the tiller, and a heartbroken mom can't possibly do the job. No, Kate, I can't fall into step and agree with your child's not only meeting but also bonding with each man you bring home. That has got to confuse her, no matter how you explain him. How do you explain the loving and losing of each man? How much can a small psyche actually absorb, much less make sense of?! How much maturity can be foisted on it? It seems to me that explanations are one thing, but living with the comings and goings of different men is asking too much of an innocent and, in time, may cause some psychological distortion. Youth is to be experienced by the young. Soap opera dramatics and sexual scenarios are an overload for the seasoned psyche, and for the tenderness of the very young, they're much too much to bear. Even a life in full view needs boundaries.

DEAR SUSAN: As someone in a committed long-term relationship, I have chosen a partner in life rather than a husband to rule over me. There are many reasons people choose not to marry. For me, it's the fact that marriage is historically associated with the oppression of women. The word "husband" comes from an old Scandinavian word meaning "master of a household." In this country, the practice of giving up one's name and taking the husband's name is commonplace and rarely questioned. Until the patriarchal view of marriage ceases to be and the partnership aspect is promoted, I myself cannot subscribe to such an institution. — Maureen V., Santa Rosa, Calif.

DEAR MAUREEN: Interesting timing, your letter. For a long time, marriage has been on the front burner of my thoughts, the highest of high-priority issues to bounce around with readers. And it seems to be gaining momentum, not only here in America but also around the world. But now that single life has gained majority status here at home, my thoughts are finding their way to paper. Yes, there's a book on the way, my third, and its shape is solidifying fast. (My heart beats a little faster just telling you the news.) You see, I, who was once adamant about sacred vows and altar walks, am discovering new thoughts in myself, a new way of seeing couplehood. For me, at this juncture, RESPECT is the star of relationship. Its lack seems to weaken love and give the lie to every other aspect of togetherness. When there's no mutual reciprocity or regard, the rest of it falls apart ... quickly, without hope of recovery. As you say, Maureen, there are many reasons for not marrying. But commitment can be strong and long-lasting, a quality separate and apart. I have so much to say on this crucial issue, and it will be born in book form. I, for one, can't wait.

Write to Susan Deitz in care of this newspaper. She will answer all letters that come with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Or you may e-mail her at info@creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM