It certainly seemed to start out like that. I really liked this sentence: "Being single doesn't necessarily disregard the importance of companionship and love." That's great, because being single doesn't mean you're an unwanted, bitter spinster (also mentioned in the opening of the piece). It doesn't mean that finding love is no longer important; to me, being single just means that you're in your own place for the moment, and being in love might even be something you're not looking for right now. And that is fine, and even good; being single SHOULD be completely awesome! Again, I liked this: "...but they also know that being in a relationship is not the end-all-be-all of your awesomeness." That's a great message, because sometimes, that's how relationships are treated, that you can only be happy, only be your best person, in a relationship. That's not true at all, and it's great to get the opposite message to that out there.
So why am I writing about this? And why is this titled Relationship Prison? Because the author's five kind of justifications or reasons really, really bothered me. It made bad, abusive relationships to be the norm; that was the message that jumped out at me while reading.
I have been in a relationship for almost three years, but I was also single for a long time before this relationship, and these descriptions of relationships were never what I thought of when thinking of being in a relationship. And now that I'm in a committed relationship, it is definitely not what I think of my relationship being; because I'm happy.
The first reason - well, that made some sense. You can be enamoured of people, and go on dates, and maybe find that next great love, and you're single so you're not blocked from going on those dates and finding those other people. Sure. There's that. (At least it's not advocating cheating.)
But the next ones? I could find nothing good. This sentence: "You don't have to check in with someone if you want to travel or spend an exorbitant amount of money..." That's not okay. Addressing the first part: if you have any relationships, friendships, family ties, etc, you're going to have to check in with SOMEONE if you're going to travel. And there shouldn't be a rule in your relationship that the two of you must ALWAYS travel together. That doesn't make any sense. It makes it sound like you're kept under lock and key, having to check with your partner if it's okay for you to do something, and that's a bad relationship. The second part, about the money - if the money you're spending is coming out of your personal bank account, where you earn the money you receive, it shouldn't be up to your partner to say you can't spend money. That's a bad relationship. As long as the money isn't coming out of a joint account for the two of you, and as long as you pay your share of the bills (mortgage, rent, Internet bill, whatever), it should always be your decision to spend too much money on something. This sounds like a very controlling relationship, not to be able to do those things. I can see where their intent with this was, but in the end, all the things mentioned here, including not being able to see your family on holidays (it's called split time between families - my parents did it and still do it with our separate sides of the family!), just sound like a bad relationship that you don't want to be in.
The next part was depressing to me; that the person you're with could always wake up and leave you, and when you're single, you don't have to worry about that. It's a little sad, and if you're single, no, you don't have to worry about that. But it could happen with friends, too. And if you're sincerely worried, every day, that your partner is going to wake up and leave, that's not good. You're not in a good place if you're sincerely worried about that, every day. What REALLY bothered me about this, however, was the way they made it sound. "There will always be struggles, and you have to realise that being completely invested in another person without anything or anybody else in your life is dangerous because that person could leave you one day - and what would you be left with?" You're in a bad relationship if that is how your relationship works! If you have no other friends, and you don't go out unless you're together, and if you'd have nothing, a la Bella Swan in NEW MOON, if the person left? That's a bad relationship! (No one on Earth can pretend that Bella and Edward were not in a co-dependent, abusive relationship. Not the best thing to aspire to, and saying you'd be left with nothing if the other left - that's what TWILIGHT was ABOUT.)
The next reason given bothered me, because you can be independent in a relationship. You don't have to be married/in a relationship to be happy, to function, to be independent, go to school, work for yourself, whatever. That didn't make sense to me; it seemed to be saying if you're in a relationship, you must rely on someone else to help make every single decision; and if you're single, you can do what you want. If you're in a relationship, you should always have the option to do what you want; you should, of course, communicate your decisions and ideas to your partner, but you shouldn't be hobbled just because you're in a relationship and can no longer make any decisions. That's a bad relationship.
The last reason perhaps bothered me the most. "You can do what you want on the weekends." Again, I'm sorry, why can't you do what you want on the weekends anyway? Yes, in a relationship, you may have some commitments, family and otherwise; but even if you're single, you're going to have those commitments sometimes. Being in a relationship does NOT mean you can't watch Netflix by yourself, or that you can't hang out with your best friend all the time. It mentioned that you don't have to shave; again, it's a bad relationship if you can't choose to do something. If I didn't feel like shaving my legs, my partner would not force me to do it because he preferred it. I can see what they MEAN; I don't like a big, bushy beard because it scratches my face when we kiss, but if he wanted to keep it, I wouldn't say, "We're in a relationship, you have to listen to me, I won't let you do that." You're adults in this relationship, presumably; continue to make your own decisions! And if you are referring to your partner as the "old ball-and-chain" - you are in a bad relationship.
You shouldn't feel like that about someone you profess to love! If you want to refer to them like that, and you feel like you're being controlled, and they don't let you do what you want or make your own decisions, you should get out. Your relationship should not be a prison. (Which is EXACTLY what ball-and-chain refers to. Imprisonment.) I know that is all easier said than done, but I mainly didn't think it was fair of this piece to make it sound like if you get in a relationship, that's how it's going to be, when happy, stable relationships do not have either partner treated in ANY of these ways. If it's so, you MAY be in a bad relationship. I also know people who spend their time together, and they're fine, but they can go off by themselves if they want to, as well.
I just felt this article did not depict relationships fairly, accurately, and seemed to be promoting singledom by disparaging relationships. Maybe I took it too seriously. But this is my blog, my opinion, and it really bothered me. So I decided to write about it. I may not be Laci Green, qualified to discuss relationships so deeply, but I do have common sense and what I consider to be a good heart, so I think that can qualify me.
The Thought Catalog article
As an addition, check out Laci's newest Sex+, about relationships!
