“Bachelors ” And “Bachelors ” Or Bachelors Without Obligation?

It is fashionable to escape the love commitment and there is a whole argument to defend this attitude. The rejection is such that many people think that a great love runs the risk of ending just when a pact is agreed that commits both parties. That is why today’s world is increasingly full of “bachelors”, “spinsters” and  singles without commitment.

Not many years ago, he was called a “bachelor” who was not married at 35 years. And “spinster” the one who reached 30 without a wedding ring on her finger. The world has changed a lot and now no one can agree on the age at which someone can be called a “bachelor.” In fact, many already doubt that this exists and insist that this word leave the colloquial dictionary.

Now,  singleness is a civil status legitimately seen by much of society and it is not so relevant to reach middle age without having signed a marriage with someone. There is talk of flexibility, of greater freedom, of rejection of pressures. The figure of the bachelor has appeared and, above all, the single happy and in harmony. Everything is going perfectly. Apparently?.

The “bachelors” and the bachelors

Until just a few decades ago, the couple’s bond and the decision to marry was a somewhat simple affair. A more or less continuous relationship inevitably led to marriage. This was considered a way of entering adult life and it was seen as natural that everyone wanted to get married, have children and grow old alongside their partner.

The fact that divorce was beginning to be an option and that the ideologically traditional scheme was faltering caused many to opt for a new applied philosophy of life. It began to be thought that marriage should not and should not be the excuse to endure suffering, which at least apparently had no solution within the very framework of that couple’s union.

There was also a kind of return to the idea of ​​romantic love: people started getting divorced because their spouse was not “the love of their life” who was surely somewhere else, waiting to reveal himself.

And everyone too, we see more and more people refraining from trying. They then immerse themselves in their jobs, in their successes, in their plans, and they look at their relationships either as a terrain that they avoid (the bachelors), or as a hunting ground in which they do not leave a puppet with a head. Some, more moderate, seek and maintain relationships until the shadow of something more formal appears on the horizon (singles without commitment).

Better alone than in bad company

That’s what many singles say: “better alone than in bad company.” This, in truth, is not always true. Despite the bad reputation of commitments, science has found that those who live with a partner suffer less from diabetes, heart disease and depression. They also live longer and have a lower risk of Alzheimer’s and lung disease.

When reading this, surely many will think “Sure! The ideal is to live as a couple. The trap is that “the right person” does not exist, because in all love, no matter how true, there is always a component of failure. And it is precisely that component that some people take as a sign that it should not be tried or that it is time to finish.

Couple love has become fetishized, many long for it to be the answer to all their voids and since it is not, nor will it be, they renounce it. In most cases it is an unconscious inhibition against the fear of suffering. You do not trust your own resources to process a difficulty that hurts. There is fear of being intimate with another person.

Those who are not capable of being alone have as many difficulties as those who are not capable of being with a partner. In any case, what defines whether your singleness is healthy or neurotic is the way in which you perceive that this state responds to your expectations and your needs. What do you think about singles today?