Self-partnered?

[marylander1940]

I'm not sure this belongs here or in the lounge, please report and remove if needed.

Is being self-partnered a nicer way to call an incel? I do understand the concept of occasionally treating yourself, but this is beyond that.  There's an increasing number of young men and women choosing to be single as a lifestyle. Are dating apps are to be blamed for this behavior?

English Singer Sam Smith Came Out as 'Self-Partnered'? | Snopes.com

WWW.SNOPES.COM

---

The claim about Smith announcing they are "self-partnered" originated from a self-described satirical Facebook account.

Edited October 22 by marylander1940

[+ jeezopete]

Funny, I just saw this headline today but skipped over it. Your post reminded me of it.

Emma Watson announces she’s ‘self-partnered’

 

 

[CuriousByNature]

I think this is just another way for some people to get attention from the public, and it only serves to make single people think there is something wrong with simply being single.  The term itself makes zero sense to me.  Partnered implies two people, so unless someone has dual personalities, I can't see how 'self-partnered' can be a thing.   That said, I'm currently part of a very satisfying throuple with me and myself.  

[jeezifonly]

Well, as Incel includes the term "involuntary" I don't think self-partnered overlaps. Unless every time you make a move on yourself, you're rejected. 

[mike carey]

When I looked at this thread when it was first posted, I saw that its original premise was from a satirical account, so in some ways there was no reason to take it seriously. Even so, there is the kernel of something to discuss, even if the only likely discussion is a tangent from the article posted at the outset. And so it has transpired.

So I did some research. As @jeezifonly pointed out, 'self-partnered' and 'incel' appear to be polar opposites (or diagonally opposed quadrants of a question with two factors - partnered/single and happy/sad). Both terms are descriptions of living without a life partner, but one is a state of satisfaction, likely calmly so, of the situation, the other one of bitter resentment and blaming others for the failure to be able to attract a partner. A characterisation I read was, 'the term challenges the notion that being single is a transitional state or a failure, reframing it as a conscious, positive choice. It means prioritizing your own needs and happiness, which can be a beneficial mindset whether or not you are in a relationship.' It doesn't even seem to require sexual satisfaction as part of accepting the state, so the rejection Jeezifonly mentions may not matter.

I wonder whether the idea of trying to equate the two might be nothing more than a way of pathologising the considered and healthy acceptance that being single is a reasonable way to live a happy life, if not one that most would choose. If you can't imagine living life without a partner, there's no reason to infer that those who can are being bitter, resentful or unfilled.

[+ Gar1eth]

2 hours ago, mike carey said:

When I looked at this thread when it was first posted, I saw that its original premise was from a satirical account, so in some ways there was no reason to take it seriously. Even so, there is the kernel of something to discuss, even if the only likely discussion is a tangent from the article posted at the outset. And so it has transpired.

So I did some research. As @jeezifonly pointed out, 'self-partnered' and 'incel' appear to be polar opposites (or diagonally opposed quadrants of a question with two factors - partnered/single and happy/sad). Both terms are descriptions of living without a life partner, but one is a state of satisfaction, likely calmly so, of the situation, the other one of bitter resentment and blaming others for the failure to be able to attract a partner. A characterisation I read was, 'the term challenges the notion that being single is a transitional state or a failure, reframing it as a conscious, positive choice. It means prioritizing your own needs and happiness, which can be a beneficial mindset whether or not you are in a relationship.' It doesn't even seem to require sexual satisfaction as part of accepting the state, so the rejection Jeezifonly mentions may not matter.

I wonder whether the idea of trying to equate the two might be nothing more than a way of pathologising the considered and healthy acceptance that being single is a reasonable way to live a happy life, if not one that most would choose. If you can't imagine living life without a partner, there's no reason to infer that those who can are being bitter, resentful or unfilled.

I had a somewhat related talk with a counselor today about me being single. It came about as a discussion today about an upcoming birthday party for my sister. I will be the only one out of the generation before me (i.e. my mother and my Uncle), my generation (me, my sibs, and my 1st cousins), and the following generation (my nieces and nephew) to never have been married or had children. I mean I've never even had a significant other to bring to Thanksgiving or to be asked by a significant other to someone else's Thanksgiving. 
 

Because of this I always feel out of place a bit-or a lot- in family gatherings. My Mom-is of course my Mom-she still to some extent oversees things-plus she has my sister and sister-in-law to talk to.  My sister and brother involved with their spouses, children, and grandchildren. My nephew and nieces involved with their spouses and children. And me part of it all but also on the outside. When I was younger, it didn't bother me so much. It's gotten a lot worse as I've gotten older.
 

The brief discussion  I had with the counselor about this is that my childhood thoughts on the matter were that I'd be married and have a family. I haven't gotten over it.
 

 It hurts me that I'm single. But  to be frank-or Gman-in this case I'm not sure I could sustain an actual relationship at this point. I mean I'm middle-aged and never had a significant other except for about a year to year-and-a-half of a reasonably intense fbud relationship 8 years ago-but I knew almost 100%  it wasn't going to turn into more even as much as I liked the guy, and he liked me.

I wouldn't consider myself self-partnered because I'm not satisfied with the status quo. And while I'm somewhat involuntarily alone-I'm not an 'incel' because I occasionally do find people to have intimate experiences with. 
 

I think most people are really designed to be with someone (but maybe it doesn't have to be with one single one. Maybe for some-successive someones are the key)or a village/community is enough .

Aren't there studies that show married heterosexual men due better with wives as they grow older -although also shown that women due better at some point if they aren't married. I wonder what similar studies show about gay men-partnered vs un. 
 

Also for some people I'm sure  the design is different from the (pardon the expression) "norm" and they don't need a close relationship as much as others do. Or perhaps sometimes  the design is fine but due to external circumstances they can't find someone. 
 

If I could just learn to be satisfied not being in a committed relationship, I'd be a lot happier. 
 

If people are really ok with self-partnering, I should be happy for them for achieving something I don't think I can do. 

[mike carey]

Being single doesn't need to be coming from a place of that being your aim. Rather it can come from accepting that it is where you are, and deciding to make the best of it, of learning the creases of it and the parts of it that can make you. Regret can be a heavy weight to carry, it can make you wish for what you don't have rather than live for the things you do. It doesn't mean that providence won't deliver you more, if you are open to it and can see that it's being offered, and are prepared not to hold back. It may even be a relationship that arrives, perhaps when you least expect it.

[+ Gar1eth]

16 minutes ago, mike carey said:

Rather it can come from accepting that it is where you are, and deciding to make the best of it

That's the part I have trouble with. Years ago when I thought I'd always be a virgin (because I idiotically couldn't accept myself being gay-and I'm much much better now -but still a work in progress), I used to think if only I could just learn to be content with not ever having sex-how much happier would I be. But I never could.
 

I'm kinda glad now because I much prefer having sex even if it isn't extremely frequent. But not having a relationship is the same kind of thing. I don't think I can learn to be satisfied with  the status quo even though I'm not sure if I'm able to find the feelings in me to have a relationship at this reasonably late stage in my life. And that even if I were to find someone -I have doubts about how good a boyfriend I'd be.  

[+ Just Chuck]

It’s always easy to blur the lines between romantic and sexual relationships.  I think of self-partnered people as not being involved in romantic relationships but who might or might not be sexually active . . . aromantic not necessarily asexual. 

An incel is not sexually active but wants to be.  An incel might or might not be in a romantic relationship.  The thing that separates someone who’s in a sexual dry spell and an incel is that the incel believes he is entitled to have the sex that he wants with the type of person he wants.  Incels place external blame for their frustrations on someone.  Some incels have famously turned to violence, usually misogynistic and anti-feminist violence  to express their frustration.

I think Emma Watson is simply saying she’s not in a romantic relationship, isn’t looking for one, and feels perfectly comfortable with that status, at least for now.

Emma Watson's sexual behavior is her business, with or without partner(s).

Edited October 23 by Just Chuck
finished my thought.

[marylander1940]

2 hours ago, Just Chuck said:

It’s always easy to blur the lines between romantic and sexual relationships.  I think of self-partnered people as not being involved in romantic relationships but who might or might not be sexually active . . . aromantic not necessarily asexual. 

An incel is not sexually active but wants to be.  An incel might or might not be in a romantic relationship.  The thing that separates someone who’s in a sexual dry spell and an incel is that the incel believes he is entitled to have the sex that he wants with the type of person he wants.  Incels place external blame for their frustrations on someone.  Some incels have famously turned to violence, usually misogynistic and anti-feminist violence  to express their frustration.

I think Emma Watson is simply saying she’s not in a romantic relationship, isn’t looking for one, and feels perfectly comfortable with that status, at least for now.

Emma Watson's sexual behavior is her business, with or without partner(s).

Certainly, self-partnered doesn't mean someone isn't having free sex or even occasionally hiring. 

Maybe they have a higher requirement for someone to be good enough to be dating material and would rather be alone. 

Elliot Rodger ("the ultimate gentleman") was a virgin because he was only interested in blond girls and they were attracted to A&F (All-American) kind of guys but not to him.

Edited October 23 by marylander1940

[Pepper Young]

To quote the musical group Sparks: I married myself, we're very happy together. 

[+ sniper]

Similar to gman, I'm single more because of my choices than by choice, but I see enough problems in the relationships around me that I'm less bothered than I used to be. There are two great tragedies in life: not getting what you want, and getting what you want.

[mike carey]

1 hour ago, sniper said:

There are two great tragedies in life: not getting what you want, and getting what you want.

Ain't that the truth!

[+ José Soplanucas]

I was talking to myself and we decided that we really like @mike carey's contributions in this thread. But we wonder whether everyone is understanding them.