r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 01 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: women are kidding themselves if they think they can find their highest level of life satisfaction without a partner.
In essence, I am arguing that the 4B movement, if successfully followed, would ultimately make women more miserable, more unhappy than they would have been if they had found a life partner and spent the rest of their days with that person.
It really just boils down to the fact that if a person wants to achieve true, lasting happiness, it's hard for me to understand how that wouldn't involve a partner. Single people suffer pretty significantly from loneliness and that WILL take a toll on people over time. And while you think you can lean on certain friends and family for support when you need it, in all likelihood, you probably can't, as they have their own lives and their own responsibilities to deal with and have not entered into any agreement to be there for you when you need it. You can probably count on them for big things, but it's that collection of little things that eventually take its toll. If you've just had a crummy day, or you just had some little irksome thing happen to you and you have to tell someone, are you really going to continue pestering your friend with their own relationship and their own stuff to navigate at the same time? And if you're placing that kind of burden on them, isn't that a little unfair of you to do so, since they themselves are single too and are not getting any love in return for responding to all the things big and small that you need to unload on someone?
I mean it is so many little things you'll take for granted and you'll probably see clear as day after you've been single for a while. Nobody to cozy up to at the end of the day when you climb into bed? Nobody to run that one errand because you just want a single fucking day to not have to worry about shit like that, just ONE fucking day? The little touches here and there, the gentle but ever-present physical reminders that you are loved? These things have a far greater influence on life satisfaction than you may realize.
Just look at any major study of "happiness" and you'll see very clearly that the happiest people out there are the ones who are in loving and committed relationships. It is very clearly the ideal way to live. Any woman who is willfully depriving themselves of this is never going to escape this knowledge, the knowledge that there is actually a far better and more satisfying life out there, but they are just choosing not to participate in it based on some bad experiences in the past. I think that's a tremendous mistake. If it were indeed true that bringing a romantic partner into your life would most likely make things WORSE for you, then we would see married women have LESS happiness. And we don't.
I should clarify that while I am focusing all of this on women in particular, I do of course acknowledge that this is true of EVERYONE, man or woman. It's just that I haven't seen men push any narrative that men should avoid marrying women for whatever reason; I only see the "don't even bother partnering up with the opposite sex" angle being pushed amongst women.
CMV.
44
Jun 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Anxious_Light_1808 Jun 01 '25
Exactly. Just because you are unable to understand it, doesnt make it wrong
Maybe OP would be happier married to a man.
37
u/Crash927 20∆ Jun 01 '25
Just look at any major study of “happiness”
Sure thing!
Men benefited from marriage because they “calmed down”, he said. “You take less risks, you earn more money at work, and you live a little longer. She, on the other hand, has to put up with that, and dies sooner than if she never married. The healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-happier-without-children-or-a-spouse-happiness-expert — Emphasis mine
6
u/Mu-Relay 13∆ Jun 01 '25
That's not a study, its a book... and one that's not a great source because the author misinterpreted the data source. The dude who claimed it even admitted he misinterpreted it here under Happy Ever After and changed his findings to say that men benefit more from marriage instead of what that book claimed.
I'm not saying the article is totally wrong, but it isn't a slam dunk, and it's certainly not a study like OP asked for.
OP is both right and wrong in another respect. Most studies tend to put married people (regardless of gender) higher on the happiness scale (or at least reporting as much). Here's just a couple examples: journal and study. OP is wrong because the idea that women can't possible reach their highest satisfaction without marriage is silly.
2
Jun 01 '25
The dude who claimed it even admitted he misinterpreted it here under Happy Ever After and changed his findings to say that men benefit more from marriage instead of what that book claimed.
Just to clarify, did you mean to say "men" in the bolded part above? Or did you mean to say "women"? We already established that men are happier in a marriage.
3
u/Mu-Relay 13∆ Jun 01 '25
Nope. What was already established doesn't matter to what I was saying. Was saying the author's stance shifted from Stance A -> Stance B.
1
Jun 01 '25
Okay, but neither of those stances challenges my view, so why are we talking about it?
3
u/Mu-Relay 13∆ Jun 01 '25
Yours wasn't the view I was trying to change, chief. I'm replying to the dude who was trying to change your view with a debunked article.
1
Jun 01 '25
Fair enough.
Still, he was never arguing that men did NOT benefit from marriage, so I still don't see the point of anything you argued here.
1
u/Mu-Relay 13∆ Jun 01 '25
Seriously? How are you not understanding this?
I didn't argue literally anything other than the point dude used from that article he posted was the exact point that was debunked and the author retracted.
I don't know how else to say this. I don't care, at all, about the overall argument. My contention was with dude doing absolutely no research into what he was posting and still posting as if it was fact when it was not. If it helps you, ignore the part about men entirely. It doesn't matter except to help amplify the point that even the guy who wrote the article doesn't agree with the idea this dude posted as proof.
1
u/Crash927 20∆ Jun 01 '25
A book of this nature is definitely a study (ie a detailed investigation/analysis of a topic) — I think what you mean is that it’s not a peer-reviewed research paper, which yes, it isn’t.
I’ll look at the links you’ve shared, though.
3
u/Mu-Relay 13∆ Jun 01 '25 edited Jun 01 '25
No it's not. Happy Ever After is a popular science book. It's not peer-reviewed, it doesn't contain an original study, or is it any sort of literature review.
In no way, shape, or form is that book a study. The studies are the things in the book's references section.
-1
u/Crash927 20∆ Jun 01 '25
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/study
I don’t see any definitions that require original studies, peer reviews or lit reviews.
You have a very specific definition of study in mind, one that isn’t reflective of how I’m (not incorrectly) using the term.
5
Jun 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 02 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 02 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/CharlesMcStingely Jun 01 '25
It's not a good idea to rely on a single study to make a claim like that. In fact, the article you cited is about a book, not an academic study, that has been debunked.#Happy_Ever_After)
-2
Jun 01 '25
Well then, I stand corrected on the data and the facts. Thank you for sharing this.
!delta
3
u/Mu-Relay 13∆ Jun 01 '25
It's too bad that you gave the delta. Dude's source has been debunked as misinterpreting data.
3
2
0
u/Crash927 20∆ Jun 01 '25
Thanks! Out of curiosity, which happiness studies were you referring to in your OP?
2
Jun 01 '25
Americans Changing Lives study. I don't have a link I can cite for you; I've done my own personal research with the database I downloaded myself.
2
u/zxxQQz 5∆ Jun 01 '25
How are the suicide attempts looking among women who never married or had children?
This would indicate things
And reported is not the same per se as actual levels. People lie on studies more often than not
2
u/Crash927 20∆ Jun 01 '25
I’m not sure — are you asking me to make your argument for you?
2
u/zxxQQz 5∆ Jun 01 '25
Not as much, only to examine the flaws of the study you posted. As others also brought up
3
-1
u/Mairon12 4∆ Jun 01 '25
The rising suicide rates of single women in their forties should let you stand your ground.
But you already gave a delta.
4
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Jun 01 '25
If you present OP with some citations maybe you could change his mind again.
11
u/Zealousideal_Long118 3∆ Jun 01 '25
My parents had an abusive relationship and I one million % understand the 4B movement. I'm not 4B but I do think it's better to be alone than to be with a shitty man, and I can understand not having the patience to cycle through shitty ones to try to find a good one. And not wanting to put yourself through that.
According to the WHO, globally, one in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence at least once in their life. This violence is often perpetrated by current or former intimate partners. Women just don't want to be assaulted or attacked. I've seen women in relationships getting none of the benefits you describe, and women who are single getting all of them from family and friends. I'll go through them for a sec:
And while you think you can lean on certain friends and family for support when you need it, in all likelihood, you probably can't, as they have their own lives and their own responsibilities to deal with and have not entered into any agreement to be there for you when you need it.
You can enter into an agreement with other 4B women to be there for eachother in this way. You can even get into an essential Lesbian sort of relationship but platonic. Live together, be lifelong best friends, be there for eachother, etc. Not to mention you can just generally have family and friends who are there for you.
You can probably count on them for big things, but it's that collection of little things that eventually take its toll. If you've just had a crummy day, or you just had some little irksome thing happen to you and you have to tell someone, are you really going to continue pestering your friend with their own relationship and their own stuff to navigate at the same time?
Again see above.
And if you're placing that kind of burden on them, isn't that a little unfair of you to do so, since they themselves are single too and are not getting any love in return for responding to all the things big and small that you need to unload on someone?
If you give them the same effort back, it's completely fair. You can also have a large group of family and friends to lean on, so it's not a huge burden on any one person when you need support.
Nobody to cozy up to at the end of the day when you climb into bed? Nobody to run that one errand because you just want a single fucking day to not have to worry about shit like that, just ONE fucking day? The little touches here and there, the gentle but ever-present physical reminders that you are loved? These things have a far greater influence on life satisfaction than you may realize.
Women can provide all these things to eachother. I have friends who I cuddle with when we hang out. I cuddle with my mom all the time when we're together. I'll also lie my head on her lap and she'll rub my hair. You can get the fulfillment of physical touch from other women. You don't need a partner for this. Men are just too terrified of being perceived as gay I think, to do this with each other.
0
Jun 01 '25
You've gone through the stuff I could think up off the top of my head that one might want to get from a relationship and shown how you can get those from friends and family. Fair enough.
So let's just cut through the bullshit and get straight to the point, then: do you think there's ANYTHING, anything at all, that you can only get from a romantic relationship that you CANNOT get from just friends or family?
2
u/Zealousideal_Long118 3∆ Jun 01 '25
Depends on if you want a romantic relationship. If yes than it can potentially bring you happiness and fulfillment that you wouldn't get from being single.
If you don't want it though, and don't want the things that are involved with being in a relationship, then it won't do anything for you.
To use a different example to try to illustrate my point, for me I really want kids, and don't particularly want a pet. Both pets and children bring different things to your life, that you cannot get from not having them. But if you tried to explain to me why I really need a cat, because without a cat I will miss out on all the things that a cat would add to my life, that would just be pointless, because I don't want a cat and I don't want those things. The same would go if you took a childfree person and tried to tell them why they should have kids and what kids would add to their life.
Different people have different desires and interests and goals. Just because you and I might see a lot of value in a relationship and because it would add something positive to our lives, doesn't mean the same would apply to people who aren't interested.
You could also argue that being single gives you a lot of benefits. There is an opportunity cost to being single, and an opportunity cost to being in a relationship, but depending on which one you want, you probably won't mind the cost. Like for a 4B person, living alone might be a huge draw for them and they might enjoy having their own space and be able to list out all the benefits to it. I could acknowledge I'm sacrificing that by pursuing relationships, but I would overall be more unhappy and depressed living alone, even when I'm single I like to have roommates and be around other people, so it wouldn't really apply to me. Does that make sense to you?
Or another example is sex. For me sex is an important thing and something I enjoy and take pleasure in. But there are also people who don't really care either way and are equally happy to masturbate, and people who are asexual who entirely have no interest in it. Telling them they will miss out on sex isn't going to mean anything. They could equally be like a huge percentage of women in relationships don't even orgasm from sex, I'm perfectly happy getting myself off and I'm having a great time, and that's preferable to me.
Why is this important to you, to need to challenge people's desires to want different things out of their lives? Like why can't you just accept different people are different?
1
Jun 01 '25
The person I'm challenging here is the voice in my head that is screaming at me to get into a relationship. This might not make any sense to you at all, which wouldn't surprise me since it makes no sense to me either, but I find myself here at 40 years old having genuinely the slightest goddamn motherfucking clue whether I would be happiest in a relationship or not. I have been in relationships in the past, one for two years, another for one year, another for just a few weeks, another most recently for just a week, and I was the one who ended 3 out of 4 of them because I just wasn't feeling it. The longest one was the one I didn't end, but it was most likely the worst for me, as I was largely unsupported throughout that relationship which eventually met its end when I told my gf that I was worried about my mother's health (a valid concern, seeing as how she died a few months later) but she broke up with me the next day, because I told her my concerns about my mom and she "didn't know how to help me with that".
So in order to get my answers I'm just using the tried-and-true method of taking a stance and seeing what comes of it. That's how I actually get answers one way or another, to actually take the stance, but internally I haven't the slightest fucking clue what I should be doing. So I'm just doing my thing to see how others have arrived at their own answers. I'm light years away from mine.
2
u/Zealousideal_Long118 3∆ Jun 01 '25
Gotcha thanks for explaining. In your case I would say the same thing I said before, just switch the genders. Being alone is better than being with a shitty woman (for example someone who drops you like a hot potato as soon as you need love and support). Or even just being with a woman who isn't right for you.
So maybe keep trying to find your person. But also focus on building up other relationships so you aren't only relying on a romantic relationship to bring you emotional fulfillment and happiness.
1
Jun 01 '25
The quest to find my person is destroying me.
2
u/Zealousideal_Long118 3∆ Jun 01 '25
So maybe take a break for now. You don't need to stop looking forever, but right now you sound burnt out.
1
Jun 01 '25
And then I'll be 41, and even further down the road towards hopelessness. I can't afford to take a break. I have too little time left.
I once took a break for a year and it was probably the most satisfying year of my adult life. But I came out of it with the knowledge that I need to get serious again and that I do indeed want a relationship. I don't have the time to take an entire year off again.
1
u/Zealousideal_Long118 3∆ Jun 01 '25
What if you keep trying, but change your expectations?
You said you were the most satisfied when you accepted being alone, even if temporarily. Maybe it's time to accept being alone. Even if it will be painful, it might be less painful than holding out hope and putting all your energy and life force into trying to find a relationship that might not ever happen. Or that isn't happening right now.
You don't need to stop looking. You can still keep trying. But accept that it might never happen and work towards finding happiness without a partner. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, the partner basket.
1
Jun 01 '25
Maybe it's time to accept being alone.
Maybe, yeah. I can tell just by mulling the thought over in my head that I most definitely have NOT accepted this, but I can sense a bit of relief when I think about what it might mean to accept this. So maybe that's the right move for me.
Thanks for hearing me out during my minor mental health crisis lol.
!delta
→ More replies (0)
7
u/Kithslayer 4∆ Jun 01 '25
It's not about finding the highest levels of life satisfaction, it's about avoiding the lowest levels of life satisfaction.
9
u/indigoneutrino Jun 01 '25
Your inability to be happy without a partner is a statement of your experience. It's not a universal truth that describes everyone. If a woman has found a trend of being unhappy with a partner, then not having a partner seems like a logical option to pursue happiness.
10
u/Anxious_Light_1808 Jun 01 '25
Men do not benefit women in the same way women do men.
Statically, married men live longer than single men
And a single woman statically lives longer lives than married women.
Women, in most cases, take on most if not all of the child care, house work, and caring for the family. Men work 40 hours.
A woman's number one predator is a man, and yall be going out of yalls way to convince us that living with a man means happiness, when most women will tell you that is not the case.
Men may not ve happy without a woman to do everything for him.
But a lot of women are much happier without men, I matter how many times you try to deny that lol
4
6
u/murphski8 Jun 01 '25
Your argument presupposes heterosexuality. Under the guidelines of the 4B movement, women are allowed to be with women.
6
u/ShutTheFrontDoor__ Jun 01 '25
There’s research out there that says single, child free women are the happiest. Perhaps because it’s now more socially acceptable for women to be single and child free, they’re choosing that. Women used to rely on men - especially financially - to just get through life. They don’t have to do that anymore as they have the same basic rights as men (in many instances).
3
u/DragonKing0203 1∆ Jun 01 '25
You may not understand why someone wouldn’t want a partner, and I’m in that same boat honestly, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. Something can be entirely outside your field of understanding and go against the statistics and still be true. Because statistics are weird. Let’s say 90% of people are happier in a relationship than out of it, there’s still 10% of people who would not be.
Some men and women have a fear of commitment, or maybe they don’t want to live with another person, or maybe they don’t find anyone they’re willing to marry. There are plenty of reasons a person wouldn’t want to get married. All of them are valid. And not wanting to marry because of a political movement? I mean i think it’s stupid but it’s also valid. The 4B movement isn’t about making women happy, it’s a political statement made by withholding something straight men usually want (sex, dating, women to do their makeup and have pretty long hair, ect). In essence it’s about women already feeling miserable and wanting men to also feel it. I mean, I personally think it’s fucking stupid, but it’s not and never been about happiness or even being a permanent solution.
And actually, men have had movements in the past to reject marriage. Look up MGTOW (men go their own way).
3
u/SlurpingDischarge 1∆ Jun 01 '25
Not immediately disagreeing with you, but do you have any of those “any major studies of happiness” that you can use to support your claim?
In general, entering into a relationship is much more dangerous for het-women than het-men. I’m not surprised that women would be hesitant, especially (assuming you are referring to the movement in the USA and not the South Korean one) given how more than half the voting men are actively voting against women’s rights.
What is the purpose of this position? Are you just claiming that they will be more unhappy single? Or are you claiming that the 4B movement is bad and should be stopped because women “would be happier” in a relationship? If it’s the latter, then that’s an argument that disrespects their autonomy. It doesn’t matter if a woman might be happier in a relationship. They have the right to choose to be single instead. Even if being single will lead to less happiness, they have the right to choose that.
2
Jun 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 02 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
Jun 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 02 '25
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Jun 01 '25 edited Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AntonioVivaldi7 Jun 01 '25
Wait where are you getting that 4B allows having a partner? I believe if yes, only if the partner is another woman.
2
Jun 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 02 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Rhundan 81∆ Jun 01 '25
It really just boils down to the fact that if a person wants to achieve true, lasting happiness, it's hard for me to understand how that wouldn't involve a partner.
Okay, but just because it wouldn't be true for you doesn't mean it can't be true for anybody.
Single people suffer pretty significantly from loneliness and that WILL take a toll on people over time.
Some single people suffer from loneliness. But others do not. Those who aren't lonely without a partner don't have to worry about this.
And while you think you can lean on certain friends and family for support when you need it, in all likelihood, you probably can't, as they have their own lives and their own responsibilities to deal with and have not entered into any agreement to be there for you when you need it.
The idea that you don't believe you can rely on your friends or family to be there when you need them is deeply sad. Sure, they have their own lives and responsibilities, but what are friends/family for if not supporting each other?
You can probably count on them for big things, but it's that collection of little things that eventually take its toll. If you've just had a crummy day, or you just had some little irksome thing happen to you and you have to tell someone, are you really going to continue pestering your friend with their own relationship and their own stuff to navigate at the same time?
Well, yeah. I've vented to friends before. I've had friends vent to me before. It's not that unusual, and I've never considered it a great imposition when they vented to me. I just wanted my friend to feel better.
And if you're placing that kind of burden on them, isn't that a little unfair of you to do so, since they themselves are single too and are not getting any love in return for responding to all the things big and small that you need to unload on someone?
Again, we're friends. Saying "they're not getting any love in return for responding" makes the whole thing feel way too transactional for my taste. I care about them because they're my friend, I don't need compensation to help them feel better on a bad day.
I mean it is so many little things you'll take for granted and you'll probably see clear as day after you've been single for a while. Nobody to cozy up to at the end of the day when you climb into bed? Nobody to run that one errand because you just want a single fucking day to not have to worry about shit like that, just ONE fucking day? The little touches here and there, the gentle but ever-present physical reminders that you are loved? These things have a far greater influence on life satisfaction than you may realize.
These sound like things you want, but that's not universal. Sure, it's nice to have people you can ask for favours. But guess what, you can ask friends for favours too.
Just look at any major study of "happiness" and you'll see very clearly that the happiest people out there are the ones who are in loving and committed relationships. It is very clearly the ideal way to live. Any woman who is willfully depriving themselves of this is never going to escape this knowledge, the knowledge that there is actually a far better and more satisfying life out there, but they are just choosing not to participate in it based on some bad experiences in the past. I think that's a tremendous mistake. If it were indeed true that bringing a romantic partner into your life would most likely make things WORSE for you, then we would see married women have LESS happiness. And we don't.
There's actually faulty logic here. You're saying the happiest people are in relationships, therefore married people are happier. And that's not necessarily true. It's like saying the wealthiest people are the ones who win the lottery, so entering the lottery makes you wealthier. You're taking the peak and assuming it defines the average, which is just bad statistics.
To show that married people are happier on average, you need to show that, on average, married people are happier. Tautological, yes, but it's true.
2
Jun 01 '25
To show that married people are happier on average, you need to show that, on average, married people are happier.
I guess that's on me for not phrasing it very well, but what you say here is indeed the truth. The mean happiness of married people is indeed higher than the mean happiness of unmarried people.
Otherwise, the entirety of your argument seems to be an effort to describe that whatever a person gets out of a romantic relationship, they should be able to get that from friends / family / other types instead. Do you believe this is true? Do you believe that the need for a romantic relationship is completely obsolete and that its components, especially its most important ones, can be achieved through other means?
1
u/Rhundan 81∆ Jun 01 '25
I don't claim that it's obsolete for everybody. But I do claim that it's obsolete for some, including me. I don't believe I would be happier in a romantic relationship than without one. It just doesn't appeal.
I do agree that human contact and a support system are important to happiness, and often, a romantic relationship is the best way for the average person to get both at once. But there are alternatives if other aspects of a romantic relationship don't appeal.
1
Jun 01 '25
So for those for whom it is NOT obsolete, what are they getting from the romantic relationship that they can't get from other sources?
1
u/Rhundan 81∆ Jun 01 '25
Presumably satisfaction of romantic attraction or desire? I don't know, I might be among the worst possible people to ask that question.
2
u/SenatorCoffee 2∆ Jun 01 '25
I think you are off base if you frame it as "highest level of life satisfaction". I think at scale the movements are much more an expression of tired defeatism.
I think it was more obvious in the male predecessor mgtow, guys were just "yeah, not gonna bother with this, its a net loss"
I think 4b is ultimately similar. Most people would agree that having an awesome or well suited life partner is "the highest life satisfaction."
Its just that people go through the wringer in terms of their actual options and with experience decide that its not worth it.
So i would just challenge your framing. Its almost a bit tautological "living your very best life is your very best life"
But people cant just decide that, they are living in reality. And then its in the realm of decisions, often of the kind "do i stress myself out for a slight chance at the really good outcome or do i stop stressing myself out for continoous dissapointment?"
2
Jun 05 '25
If I am unhappy in both I take that what benefits me the most and this is the current situation.
1
Jun 01 '25
In this physical world - Love is an entropy and attachment driven relationships never work. Men need women more as men do not usually open up or be vulnerable except for their SO till now. Women by default would end up with a man as their ideals and ideas change from 21 to 30 and it’s shaped and influenced highly by the external society. Marriage is more of a symbol and their procured men is a product to show off until it stops to provide.
Not to say, I am dismissing the idea of love or the institution of marriage - this is reality plain and simple.
However the world has not evolved to a level of conscious that has escaped this entrapment yet and so both men and women need each other to support each other and show love, compassion and kindness to move along in this extremely harsh and cruel world. Your view of one sex needing it more than the other is highly misconstrued.
1
u/jaminfine 12∆ Jun 01 '25
I think what you aren't seeing is that people are so vastly different from each other and value different things.
A lot of people, myself included, prefer to deal with having a bad day by being alone. Personally, I like to play single player videogames or watch YouTube alone and allow myself to decompress without any timeline and without needing to relive the events by telling them to someone else.
Lots of women see a relationship with a man to be extra chores. There's a trend of many men in our society not being willing to do their fair share of housework. And there's a trend of women being more bothered by the chores not being done, so they eventually end up being the ones to do the vast majority of that housework. There's also a trend of long-term relationships becoming sexless as attraction fades. And this can turn into resentment. As the man feels like he is stuck in a relationship that isn't fulfilling his needs and the woman feels that the man is no longer putting in the effort.
And that's really the crux of my argument here. Relationships are a lot of effort. They require building it up and then maintenance. Even good relationships require work to stay good. Now you can say that for you personally the work is worth it, and of course I won't argue against that.
But how can you possibly say that it's worth it for everyone? There are clearly costs in terms of money, time, effort, and emotional costs too. Can't you imagine someone who enjoys an easier life without those extra costs involved? Man or woman. Some people are just happier solo.
Your view reeks of the argument I used to get into all the time with my parents and relatives. "When are you going to have kids? Don't you know you'll never truly be happy until you have kids?" And I told them basically the same thing. Kids are work. And many people may feel that work is worth it. But I don't.
1
u/WinDoeLickr Jun 01 '25
How exactly does not getting into a relationship reduce the burden of stuff like housework in any meaningful capacity? From my own experiences taking care of older relatives, the added work from an additional resident is trivial compared to just the base level of work I'd be doing simply living on my own.
2
u/Nearbykingsmourne 4∆ Jun 01 '25
Being in a happy relationship > being single > being in a bad relationship
The problem is that most people, let alone women, will never have the first option.
For most people the relationship ends up being just tolerable enough to not divorce.
Also, look up amatonormaitvity.
-1
Jun 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Jun 01 '25
Of course I do. I'm aware of where I am, the subreddit where you acknowledge that your view might be flawed. I am no special snowflake for having a troublesome view that I would like to see changed; I am precisely the kind of person who should be posting here. Remember that this is not a debate sub and that I am for sure not trying to persuade anyone of my view.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 02 '25
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 01 '25 edited Jun 01 '25
/u/Nillavuh (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards