Single File by Susan Deitz

Susan, your story on the fear of lifelong singleness is touching and informative, but what did you do about your "womanly needs"--your sexual needs? You talk about how living life "gives you more options, more choice, more times up at life's smorgasbord." That's fine and good, but what did you do in the mean time while waiting for "And when love does come along, as is increasingly likelier" about your "womanly needs?" You don't explain how those needs were/are to be taken care of. Yes acceptance of ones unmarried phase can "morph" into "what your life could be" BUT--where does sex come into this "unmarried phase?" Does "live in the now" mean/justify having your sexual needs met--is that the way for love to likelier appear? Please explain.

J, I know most men think about sex much more often than most women.

Still, really and truly, this is an irrelevant part of Susan's story, because her answer (besides being none of our business) may not be right for you.

If you believe that sex without commitment of some sort is wrong, then you interpret "single for the rest of my life" to mean that you then expect to take care of your own sexual needs, just as you feed yourself, clothe yourself and shelter yourself.

If you believe that casual sex is fine so long as you take precautions not to treat the other person disrespectfully, then "single for the rest of your life" means that you may choose to have a sex buddy, one-night stands, vacations at sex-themed singles resorts, prostitutes...but that you do not expect to have a long-term monogamous relationship with someone special to you.

Either way, your question distracts from where the focus on this story should be. It takes real courage to stare down the rest of your life and realize that your life may not end up the way you'd always assumed, and to determined to keep living, in the most meaningful way you can, regardless.

hedgehog, No I don't think it is an irrelevant part of Susan's story. "may not be right for you" -- well if what you do/feel is right for you and it don't/hasn't worked then that way must not be right. The question has not been answered--what is the way for love to likelier appear? You speak of "expect" -- casual sex can/cannot morph into a long-term monogamous relationship, if you believe sex without commitment to be wrong-so you never have any sex or you believe casual sex is fine and that morph's into a commitment? I don't understand, to me reading Susan's columns they contradict from one to another, Susan condones a woman for getting her womanly needs met, but then she tells you "need not mean lifelong singleness" so it does not matter?

No, J, it really is irrelevant, because it's no different than lots of other circumstances. You say"l if what you do/feel is right for you and it don't/hasn't worked then that way must not be right."

No - MAY (not must) not be right FOR YOU. There is a difference.

If you are unhappy with living according to a belief that sex outside commitment is wrong, then you examine your beliefs to see whether you might change your belief in some way that lets you live a life that feels more right TO YOU. So... if you believe sex without commitment is wrong, and you are unhappy at not having sex, then you look to see WHY you think it's wrong and whether you'd feel more comfortable having sex outside commitment under certain other conditions.

But if you find you feel worse about yourself after casual sex, then maybe you decide that you would RATHER masturbate than engage in sex with a partner outside a committed relationship. That's your CHOICE.

Try it with this: You were taught in school do drink milk -- "it does a body good." That's great advice for many people-- a good way to get calcium and Vitamin A. But if you're lactose-intolerant or allergic to milk, then it's not good advice FOR YOU. And so you may need to rethink your approach to what a healthy diet looks like.

That's part of adulthood, examining your beliefs and assumptions and changing them when necessary.


******
I don't understand, to me reading Susan's columns they contradict from one to another, Susan condones a woman for getting her womanly needs met, but then she tells you "need not mean lifelong singleness" so it does not matter?
******************
What she's saying, J, really is more about how that woman looks at life than what she's doing about sex. Sex is just one part of the much bigger picture.

Many singles don't really live their lives. A woman may not buy a house, because she feels that's something she should do with a husband. A man may stay at a job he hates in the city "because I'll never meet any women if I move to the country, where I really want to live."

If they could both see ahead to the end of their lives and know FOR SURE -- "nope, no mate for you, you're going to die single, no matter WHAT you do, well, then, she'd buy a house where she could have the dog she wanted; he'd quit his job and go work the family farm. They each could stop worrying about finding a mate, because they had a guarantee that none was coming.

Susan is saying: DO THAT. Live like you know you won't find a mate.

But here's the tricky thing. Living that way, doesn't mean you WON'T find a mate. It's not some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

The guy who moves to the country COULD end up meeting the woman of his dreams; the woman with the house may need to sell it at some point because she eventually meets and marries a man whose house she likes better.

But the thing is, by living the way they would choose to do if they knew for sure they'd never find a mate, they enjoy their current life much more. And enjoying life tends to make you more attractive to potential romantic partners.

Does that help?

hedgehog, No it did not help--it created more questions and I'm not getting off on tangents.

OK. I do think it's important, if your life isn't satisfying to see what you can control and what you can't.

You can't conjure up a mate. You can only control what you do with your own life.

So: I can choose not to get a cat today because I don't want my cat-owning to get in the way of meeting and someday winning the hand of My True Love. (He's allergic. He hates cats. He has a dog who hates cats. He thinks women who own cats are weird. Whatever -- I just don't want the cat to cost me True Love, because I have to have True Love or my life is meaningless.)

Or I can say, "I love cats; they're fun to watch and having one to pet would lower my blood pressure and make my house feel homier. I'd like to be a family to an abandoned kitten who's otherwise going to die at the shelter. It would be sad to think I couldn't even get myself a cat because it might turn off some guy who may never show up in my life!"

That's what Susan's saying.

And she's saying it's possible that by getting that cat, I may even end up being MORE attractive to a guy -- maybe one who owns a cat or has always wanted to, or someone who's passionate about animal rescue. (possible, but not guaranteed)

The sex is part of that whole outlook, not something separate. Which is why Susan doesn't owe us the private details of her life.

hedgehog, Sex may be "just one part of the much bigger picture," but they're having it. You're right I can't conjure up a mate so I don't have that choice for loving sex with a woman I find attractive on the inside and outside. I know what Susan is saying about living life, but the question still is not answered--what is the way for love to likelier appear? If getting "womanly needs" met makes no difference then why wasn't I out chasing women for sex instead of looking for a relationship with sex-I thought that was the way sex was intended. Is Susan ashamed of how she obtained the advice she gives? Yes it really dosen't matter about the private details, I just wanted to know if she was a hypocrite when it came to sex.

J, the way in which it's LIKELIER for love to appear is this: a person who is living life, as opposed to waiting for life to begin, is actually doing stuff that she likes to do. She's gathering experiences, and she's gaining skills and that all results in a more confident person. As a more confident person, with skills to share and experiences to discuss, she's way more fun to be around than that scary person who looks at every man wondering "Are YOU the one who will make my life worthwhile?"

And the people she meets (male and female) are likely to be interested in the kinds of things she is, which helps create the friendships -- they show up every week to hike, to show their dogs, to work on the political campaign -- whatever interests they have. Meeting more people means it's more likely that you develop more friendships and out of those, love could bloom. It's not guaranteed, but it 's more likely than if she hates auto racing but goes to the races every week to meet a man, or joins a church she doesn't agree with "because there's lots of men there".

if getting "womanly needs" met makes no difference then why wasn't I out chasing women for sex instead of looking for a relationship with sex-I thought that was the way sex was intended."
****************

J, forget about "the way sex was intended" for a minute. That's somebody else telling you how to think and how to behave. All sex was really "intended" to be is a way for our species to continue reproducing.

Do you WANT to chase women for sex? Or is sex worthwhile for you only within a committed relationship?

My sister, reeling after divorce, said "What if I never get to have sex again?"

I said, "That's RIDICULOUS. If you want sex, it's out there, waiting to be had. Any number of guys would be more than happy to supply you with it, right here, right now, if you want it." (She laughed, but got my point.)

You can have sex, too, if you want. Tonight. You don't even HAVE to be respectful, or smart about pregnancy/disease prevention, though you should be prepared to live with the consequences. I'd recommend being responsible.

But if that sounds unappealing, then maybe you say to yourself: "Yes, I'd like sex. But I don't think that ANY sex is better than NO sex. For me, it will have to be with someone who loves me. I'd rather go without any sex than expose myself to someone I don't know and don't love."

See? It's based on who you are and what you want, big picture.

And sometimes, your choices might change, depending on circumstances.

People often go a little crazy after a divorce, and do the casual sex just to prove to themselves that they CAN find someone who wants them, even if it's just for a night, because they're hurting --and they go back to "only in a committed relationship" because they really don't like how they feel about themselves after a one-night stand.

Other people enjoy casual sex, and stop it ONLY because monogamy is a condition of being with the partner they love.

I don't see any contradiction in what Susan wrote, and I don't see any hypocrisy.

hedgehog, No I can't have sex tonight, I can't just go out and find someone to have sex with--I'm not built that way--which is probably the problem. How can someone find love having casual sex with many partners? I thought you had sex with someone you loved. But the point here is if that way hasn't been working for you then perhaps that needs changing. If a woman is likelier to find love by living life--which must engulf getting her "womanly needs" met then I haven't had my head screwed on right.

J, no. You can indeed go out and have sex tonight if you want, though you'd have to hurry! If you do not, it's because you have CHOSEN not to. That is an important distinction.

If you WANT to go out and chase women, then you CHOOSE to do that. ( I'd ask that you do it carefully and responsibly-- even though there's no law that says you must -- because acting stupidly can result in even men getting mugged, killed, diseased or on the hook for chlld support for years to come.).

If you don't think you would enjoy it, then own your choice: I CHOOSE not to have sex outside a committed relationship. I don't WANT to do that. I COULD if I wanted.

You think casual sex means you won't find love; it's doesn't mean that you will or you won't. My college friend had one-night stands throughout college, and yet she's been happily and faithfully married for 30 years now. She didn't meet him BECAUSE she had casual sex, and as far as I know, they dated for a while before they had sex; it wasn't casual with him.

Lastly, you suggest that women living life as if they were going to be single "must" mean they are having casual sex. That is not the case. Some women will. Some women don't believe in sex without marriage and STILL life life fully, while others will have sex only with a fiance or a guy they've been seeing exclusively for several months. (Some of those women will meet their own needs with a vibrator.)

The whole bit about living as if you're going to be single forever is really and truly meant for the whole life, not just sex, but what you do with yourself during your other waking hours, and whether you're living in a way that, at the end of your days, you can say, "I am proud of what I did with my time here. I may not have achieved everything I wanted or hoped to,** but I can honestly say that I did my best not to waste the time I was given by moping about what I couldn't change and making the most of what I could."

**spouse or biological child or finding the cure for cancer? all stuff you can't have ultimate control over.