Thread: Is it a crime to be single? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027731
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Maybe I've simply been unlucky, but on Facebook I've seen a lot of rejoicing that Cliff Richard is being investigated by the police. The crowd around the tumbrils grows with each new celebrity named by Yewtree, but there seems to be particular gloating about Richard. When pressed, some people seem to be saying, "Well, you could always tell he was weird - he's in his 70s and he's still single".

This is a separate issue as to whether Richard is guilty of anything. Personally I hope he is innocent but, if he has done something wrong, then I hope he will be punished by the due process of the law. Innocent until proven guilty seems to be disappearing in the public glee over paedophilia, and being single is the witches' mark that shows you are evil.

Quite likely I'm over reacting, but there's a lot of stuff around at the moment which I'm finding disturbing. Let me make this clear - I don't think anyone is above the law, and if anyone is found guilty of molesting children then I am horrified by what they have done and believe they should be punished. But being investigated by the police is not the same as having done anything wrong. And when did being single become so suspicious?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
For someone of his age and religious background, it would tend to be a flag for being in the closet. Given that he says he is not gay, and has had girlfriends, it is surprising that he has not found a partner, as his celebrity would give him more choice in that regard than most.

I'd like to believe that he is simply one of life's innocents, a decent man who put marriage on such a high pedestal he never quite felt he could commit to it, and strong enough in his faith to not succumb to the temptation of engaging in sex outside of marriage. Such people are rare, however, particularly among those who have as much fame as Sir Cliff. I hope the allegation turn out to be false.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For someone of his age and religious background, it would tend to be a flag for being in the closet.
Really? I find that an odd comment.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

The OP not only raises the general issue of singlehood but the specific case of Cliff Richard. Especially given the way the OP is framed, there should be plenty to talk about without speculating about potential illegal past activities.

Moreover, please remember that the Ship of Fools takes a very cautious line on issues which potentially may expose us to legal action.

Therefore, in addition to respecting the Commandments, Guidelines and FAQs as usual, please take special care not to post anything that might be grounds for libel.

The hosts will delete anything that they deem too close to the line of legally acceptable. If it becomes necessary to repeatedly edit or delete contributions along these lines, this thread will be closed.

/hosting

[ 16. August 2014, 07:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Wild Organist (# 12631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For someone of his age and religious background, it would tend to be a flag for being in the closet.
Really? I find that an odd comment.
I'm with Arethosemyfeet - I've always assumed that, because of Sir Cliff's very public Christian Evangelical image, he was unable to come out as gay, certainly years ago when it would have been unthinkable. And, even today, there are large swathes of Evangelicals who have a massive problem with the mere existence of homosexuality, let alone someone so famous actually being gay. What about the sportsmen and women who can't come out?

[ 16. August 2014, 06:54: Message edited by: Wild Organist ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
In general there's now a suspicion that old single people are closeted gays. Some of them might have been, but there have always been people who are single, or had only clandestine informal heterosexual relationships.

I think what the OP might be talking about is a loss of innocence of the public. People always suspect the single, but it's only now more common to talk about loves that dare not speak their name.
As an example of same as it ever was there's the classic Marty Feldman routine Funny he never married
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For someone of his age and religious background, it would tend to be a flag for being in the closet.
Really? I find that an odd comment.
There isn't a tradition of celibate religious life among evangelicals that I'm aware of, apart from that strongly encouraged for gay people. Evangelicalism also strongly encourages marriage for everyone, regardless of orientation. That Sir Cliff evaded that pressure is unusual and his being primarily attracted to men (even if he doesn't self-define as gay) is one very plausible explanation for that.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I would suggest being single is a rather poor indicator of a persons sexuality, otherwise how does one account for things like this? I'm sure that's not the only example one could dig up either. There could be any number of reasons, all legitimate, why a Christian (even of the Evangelical kind) might remain single.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Don't make this about being gay (or not). Believe me, it's increasingly a "crime" to be single in the UK gay community. You can't go anywhere just now without some smug queens flaunting their married status. Singleness is becoming a pathological personality deficit.

And in reply to the OP, yes it is tantamount to a crime in some people's minds. Try being 50, single, and a CofE priest. You're sometimes made to feel that your natural peer support group can be found living under a stone in the garden.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Don't make this about being gay (or not). Believe me, it's increasingly a "crime" to be single in the UK gay community. You can't go anywhere just now without some smug queens flaunting their married status. Singleness is becoming a pathological personality deficit.
It's increasingly a crime to be single, full stop. If you've been single for more than a few months, people start looking askance at you - there must be something wrong with you, or you must be hiding some non-mainstream form of sexual expression. They rarely ever allow for the fact that someone might be single because:
But the world judges by appearances and if you don't have someone in your life, or worse, still, don't want to, then there must be something wrong with you. Old maids and bachelors were a known and accepted part of society a century ago, and are likely to become so again as single-person households are on the increase.
 
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
I find being almost middle aged (not sure when middle age "officially" starts) and single, and also without children in a church community is strange. Not so much cos of other peoples opinions but because other single people are typically either much younger, or much older and widowed, or those closer to my age and single have children so I'm not really part of any particular group.

Ariel is right, there are many reasons people can be single. Looking at my friends, I'm not the only single person in my age group, I had thought it was becoming more common over the years but I may be wrong.

[ 16. August 2014, 08:47: Message edited by: Chocoholic ]
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Well, I'm 63, never married, though came close a couple of times. My closest friends are either widowed, divorced and/or, like me, on the other side of non marital (heterosexual) relationships. This is not just because we're all 60+ - the widow lost her husband to leukemia at the age of 30.

It used to be said that the live in relationships we had at UNI were the equivalent of that first marriage which then broke up. But I do know of at least two other never marrieds from my own year at school. I wonder if being brought up RC could have anything to do with it?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I rather thought we Westerners were now in an era whereby being single is regarded as positively OK. Surely the *being married* concept is something of a traditional, (Christian), expectation . Didn't think that secularism was much bothered about it .

As for witch-hunts and trial by IT ? This is indeed becoming an increasingly disturbing phenomenon . The fall-out from the savile debacle is going to take a long long time to go away . Thinking back though this paedo-paranoia is nothing new . There was that infamous 'name and shame' business , a time in the 90's when self-appointed vigilantes deemed it acceptable to drive single males of their choosing out of their locality .
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
But I do know of at least two other never marrieds from my own year at school. I wonder if being brought up RC could have anything to do with it?
It does in my case. But although single-person households are becoming more common, the default expectation, not just in the West, but anywhere else, is that you're part of a couple, or if you're single that you're actively striving to be part of a couple or have only recently broken up from being part of a couple.

Whatever the reality, it will be a long time before the world catches up on this and making allowances for single people becomes more mainstream. This is especially true where holidays are concerned - the single-room supplement is still very much the rule, and 99.9% of the offers you see for bargain holidays at attractive prices have in the small print "based on 2 sharing, single room supplement may apply" and you can bet that that £250 bargain rate for a couple, which works out nicely for them at £125 each, will work out at probably just under £250 for you as a single traveller or even more.

Being single isn't a crime but you don't half get penalized financially for it sometimes.

[ 16. August 2014, 10:01: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
Not to mention how it is much harder to get a mortgage on 1 salary.
And the government is set to further widen the gap by giving tax incentives to married people.
 
Posted by Wild Organist (# 12631) on :
 
I am single and gay, and have had a couple of relationships over the decades, but for the last eight years I have been carer for ageing parents and working full time with a mortgage and so on. I just dont have the time to find a relationship!
Perhaps I am lucky in that my colleagues, friends and neighbours know the situation.
However, those widowed and thus newly single can face suspicion when socialising, in that, as a single, they might be trying to poach partners. I seem to recall reading about it in a mag for the over 50s. A bit off the original post, but a related problem.
Why should singles be presumed to be in search of someone? No-one would put up with my snore.
 
Posted by Macchias (# 18192) on :
 
Addressing the OP, Cliff Richard has been extremely popular since the sixties and from memory the news at that time that he preferred to remain celibate, for the era was obviously met with some confusion or disbelief.

However, since then, through the decades and despite the rumours that he was gay and quite rightly he was accepted and loved by many. His christianity was taken seriously and the British population took him to their hearts.

I don't think in any way that you can suggest that as a single man throughout his life and now in his 70s he has been thought to be committing a 'crime'. Or even capable of doing so.

Indeed, I think you'll find that the vast majority of people are praying that this investigation is proved to be totally unfounded, a signal of high highly - whatever your music tastes - he is held in regard.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I think British culture is wary of people who never seem to be in a relationship of any length, but there isn't an obsession with marriage as such. Celebrities are under more pressure, perhaps, because a celebrity wedding is a news story and a PR gift. For ordinary non-religious folk, though, a wedding is an optional extravaganza.

As for church circles, there does seem to be a bit of awkwardness around unmarried, unbetrothed middle aged people. This is true even in MOTR environments, where on the whole there are too few nubile males for all the single women present. (My ex-minister used to drop hints about me 'finding someone'.)

Essentially, the unpartnered, childless middle aged woman is useful to the church for her labour, but she isn't the 'target customer', so to speak.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I rather thought we Westerners were now in an era whereby being single is regarded as positively OK. Surely the *being married* concept is something of a traditional, (Christian), expectation . Didn't think that secularism was much bothered about it .
Being married is not necessarily the thing, but being single is also not really acceptable. There is an assumption of being "in a relationship" of some sort.

If not in a relationship, you must be looking for a partner of some sort - short of long term. To be not particularly interested in partnering up is considered weird. The implication is that your sexual orientation is odd or unnatural.

Cliff suffers from the same problem that so many other stars do, that there are those who want to bring him down. His faith is another reason that people want to prove he is a fraud. It is because the model of life he demonstrates - single, happy, with a strong faith - is one that seems unacceptable, unreasonable.

Personally, I think his music sucks, but as a person, I have huge respect for him. He has his faith, and he keeps it despite everything. Good on him. As long as he doesn't release any more music.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I rather thought we Westerners were now in an era whereby being single is regarded as positively OK. Surely the *being married* concept is something of a traditional, (Christian), expectation . Didn't think that secularism was much bothered about it .
You're confusing 'single' with 'not married'.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For someone of his age and religious background, it would tend to be a flag for being in the closet.
Really? I find that an odd comment.
There isn't a tradition of celibate religious life among evangelicals that I'm aware of, apart from that strongly encouraged for gay people. Evangelicalism also strongly encourages marriage for everyone, regardless of orientation.
John Stott?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would suggest being single is a rather poor indicator of a persons sexuality, otherwise how does one account for things like this? I'm sure that's not the only example one could dig up either. There could be any number of reasons, all legitimate, why a Christian (even of the Evangelical kind) might remain single.
I think people give a lot of pain to others by speculating on the causes why they never married. We had a man in his late 70s in our congregation (a German-American, not a Vietnamese) who apparently bore this kind of speculation in silence for years and years--but he wept with gratitude when my husband mentioned in a sermon, just in passing, that there are people who stay unmarried due to obligations that make it impossible. His had to do with the lifelong care of his mother, who was unusually dependent.

Since then I have done my best never to speculate on such questions. You don't want to see Germans weep, trust me.

[ 16. August 2014, 14:23: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I rather thought we Westerners were now in an era whereby being single is regarded as positively OK. Surely the *being married* concept is something of a traditional, (Christian), expectation . Didn't think that secularism was much bothered about it .
What orfeo said: not single =\= married
But also, it is about human nature. We like to know, or think we know, who other people are. And the default status is relationship, either in or pursuing. So those who do not appear to be doing so are suspect to some. We do not truly tolerate other very well.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
LC's man might also have had to deal with the "he lives with his mother" slight. I had to write to the Guardian once about a piece by Mark Lawson which was wicked about such people, and had a very good letter back. So many men have had to give up even a solitary single life because of caring for a parent, and then are faced with the implication that there is something very, very wrong with them. I suggested that it was the last group that it was OK to be critical of, or use witch hunt language against.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're confusing 'single' with 'not married'.
I meant single in terms of people living on their own . There are of course people living this way who choose to have short-term relationships, and there was a time when this would have been judged harshly by the finger waggers.

CR does seem to have been something of an oddity to the popular press, and I agree there have been some who've been gunning after him a long while . I also very much hope nothing comes from this investigation .
 
Posted by Will H (# 4178) on :
 
I'm sick of hearing politicians talk about hard working families. The first party to stick up for lazy single people will get my vote.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wild Organist:
Why should singles be presumed to be in search of someone? No-one would put up with my snore.
It's the usual thing that people don't believe other people aren't exactly like themselves and would be desperate for a mate.

As for your snore, I liked the quote of a woman about how CPAP changed the noise of her bed partner from the howl of a silverback gorilla to the quiet bubbling of an aquarium. [Smile]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
For someone of his age and religious background, it would tend to be a flag for being in the closet.
Really? I find that an odd comment.
There isn't a tradition of celibate religious life among evangelicals that I'm aware of, apart from that strongly encouraged for gay people. Evangelicalism also strongly encourages marriage for everyone, regardless of orientation.
John Stott?
I think evangelicalism (does it need a capital E? I'm never sure!) does generally strongly encourage marriage for everyone, but Stott would be an exception. I think it might be seen as more understandable in academics?

Celibacy is strongly encouraged in the Jesus Army and you need permission to date let alone marry, but they're hardly the norm for evangelicals.
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:

It's increasingly a crime to be single, full stop. If you've been single for more than a few months, people start looking askance at you - there must be something wrong with you, or you must be hiding some non-mainstream form of sexual expression. They rarely ever allow for the fact that someone might be single because:
All of the above apply to me, still single in my fifties. Most of the time I don't even think about it, but then most of the time I don't socialise. A recent social engagement led me to realize that perhaps others don't see me in the same light as I imagine myself - free, independent, and happily single and childless.

There was a time when I hoped for a partner, and I don't rule out such a miracle occurring, but it's not the biggest priority in my life and never has been. Perhaps it hasn't been in Sir Cliff's, either?

I haven't come across people with an attitude that being single is a crime, but then the lack of socialising might have something to do with that, combined with obliviousness on my part to what other people think of me.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There are of course people living this way who choose to have short-term relationships, and there was a time when this would have been judged harshly by the finger waggers.
I have a friend like this, his relationships last - on average - a year. He never moves in with his partners but they always seem to part by mutual consent, no animosity. He remains friends with all of them, in fact they become best of friends to each other too.

I see no problem here at all.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Will H:
I'm sick of hearing politicians talk about hard working families. The first party to stick up for lazy single people will get my vote.
I'm sick of hearing politicians talk, full stop. [Biased] .

People tend to assume that what makes them happy will make everyone else happy. And, given that all marriages are fabulous (snark alert), everyone should want one.

The one thing I find odd about the whole thing is that, last time I looked, the police were investigating a complaint. Given it was only a complaint, it seems weird that they informed the press. Even weirder that they informed the press but not, according to Cliff, him.

Surely investigations should remain private until charges are brought?!

Tubbs
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
A family member is single, which should be his business only. But I find I face increasingly intrusive questions from people about his personal life and you can hear the cogs turning as they process my answers. In this over-sexualised modern society, anyone who doesn't obviously have a partner is viewed as rather abnormal and, maybe, even rather dodgy. How sad.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Evangelicalism also strongly encourages marriage for everyone, regardless of orientation.

John Stott?
I know John Stott wasn't married - and I don't think he touches on this aspect of his life in his writings.

Did he though, encourage others to marry?

[please preview your posts for superfluous tags. I'm always removing [quote] tags from yours! Thanks]

[ 17. August 2014, 07:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Will H:
I'm sick of hearing politicians talk about hard working families. The first party to stick up for lazy single people will get my vote.
At our (Canada) last election, we had a choice between those who fought for families, fought for hard-working families, or who fought for Canadian families. One shipmate calls this the war against bachelors.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I know John Stott wasn't married - and I don't think he touches on this aspect of his life in his writings.

Did he though, encourage others to marry?
singleness (he doesn't use the term 'celibate) mentioned is mentioned in his ethics book Issues for Christians Today (I used this as my textbook when I was involved in training Readers.

He also argued strongly in favour of singleness and chastity for gay men in a head to head with my former vicar on a TV programme.

It's also mentioned in Timothy Dudley-Smith's lovely biography of him.

I don't know about anything about him encouraging others to marry - I think he simply encouraged people to discern God's will.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
The one thing I find odd about the whole thing is that, last time I looked, the police were investigating a complaint. Given it was only a complaint, it seems weird that they informed the press. Even weirder that they informed the press but not, according to Cliff, him.

Surely investigations should remain private until charges are brought?!
It doesn't seem to have been the police who informed the press, or at least not intentionally. According to the BBC website the BBC had a tip-off in advance that there was a police investigation going on, and their reporter was waiting when the police arrived at Cliff Richard's residence. South Yorkshire police are apparently making a formal complaint to the BBC about reporting it.

Of course it could still have been someone within the police who tipped the press off, but it certainly doesn't seem to have been done by the police as an organisation.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There is a huge emphasis on pairing up in the media - films, books, advertisements, everywhere you look - I have not had so many problems being castigated for singleness - possibly because I avoid places where it might be a problem.

In this case, I did wonder if the police tipped off the media as a fishing expedition - in the hope that publicity might draw other stuff out of the woodwork. But that's a pretty unethical way of going about an investigation.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
My guess would be that it was the complainant who tipped off the BBC. The whole thing smells like a stitch-up to me. If so, I certainly hope it doesn't succeed.
 
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
My guess would be that it was the complainant who tipped off the BBC. The whole thing smells like a stitch-up to me. If so, I certainly hope it doesn't succeed.
That may or may not be the case, but I wonder if the BBC paid any money for the tip-off - that would be interesting...
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Perhaps not a crime to be single, but in British politics we're overlooked, ignored, maybe marginalised ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28831242
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
.... the BBC had a tip-off in advance that there was a police investigation going on, and their reporter was waiting when the police arrived at Cliff Richard's residence.
The use of a helicopter by the BBC suggests that the tip off was from a reliable and trusted source close to the investigation. Who's going to invest that kind of effort and cash for a wild accusation that can be made anywhere, by anyone?

I'd personally treat the Police denials with a pinch of salt until we are totally sure who tipped off the BBC. We are, after all, talking about the same force implicated (on the basis of "tweaked" evidence) in the Orgreave Mass Picket and Hillsborough Disaster cover ups.

Their track record of getting to the truth is rather tarnished especially as they didn't exactly react with the same speed (either historically or recently) over a certain discredited DJ.

[corrected code. Again]

[ 19. August 2014, 07:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Perhaps not a crime to be single, but in British politics we're overlooked, ignored, maybe marginalised ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28831242
In the article David Cameron is quoted as saying that parents and children are often overlooked. I was amazed at this, I thought this was the group most often considered in society.

I am also wondering what they will class as a "family" for this.
I'm guessing 2 parents with 2.4 children aged under 18 is a given, but what about childless couples, adult children living with one or both parents? Are they going to be saying one version of family is more valued than another?
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
We single folk can die of self neglect in our unheated, dilapidated flats, unseen and uncared for by the Big Society, or any society. Thanks Dave.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
In the article David Cameron is quoted as saying that parents and children are often overlooked. I was amazed at this, I thought this was the group most often considered in society.
Don't be amazed. It's just cheap politics. Of course the impact on people should be the focus of any policy decision... but this promise is so banal and meaningless.

However, those that define themselves as 'normal, hardworking families' are the most important segment of the electorate in terms of determining election outcomes in the UK.

I predict further such statements in the next 6-9 months that sound good but mean nothing. Whilst I suspect Dave will be the worst offender, I'm sure all parties will indulge.

AFZ
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I am firmly of the opinion that the stigmatisation of singleness is at least partly to do with the just world fallacy. Were the world fair, all well-adjusted, likeable people who wanted to be in a couple would be able to be in one. The trouble is that the world isn’t fair. Which sucks in respect of more things than singleness.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
We single folk can die of self neglect in our unheated, dilapidated flats, unseen and uncared for by the Big Society, or any society. Thanks Dave.
Indeed. It's not as if you ever worked, or paid taxes. Oh, and by the way, how many bedrooms are you hogging?
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
Society in general just assumes that we're all couples, probably with (maybe grown-up) children. Count me in with those who feel excluded when politicians use 'families' as a catch-all phrase intended to make people warm and positive. NO, it grates! Just say 'people'!

A stupid example use of 'family': a couple of years ago I bought a bag of onions from my local Co-op and they were labelled Family Onions. WTF? Proof here:
stupid exclusive marketing words

Churches in my experience are REALLY crap in focussing on 'family' which devalues singles. If you're young and single, then fine but if you're past your youth and single you're second class.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
... I'd personally treat the Police denials with a pinch of salt until we are totally sure who tipped off the BBC. ....
EM, I'm afraid you're probably right there. First of all the official line was 'other people have come forward', i.e. the publicity has been useful to our investigation - and surely nobody might disagree with anything that might lead to wicked criminals being brought to justice.

It was only later as people began to express hesitation about the prematurity of the publicity that we began to hear official denials that either police force was involved.

So it's possible the leak may have been from somewhere else, but I think we need to have its source clearly and provenly demonstrated before we withdraw our suspicions from one or the other of the police forces involved.

After all, the same day, on our local news, as is not that unusual, the police had invited along television cameras to film a dawn raid on some ordinary criminals.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Evangelicalism also strongly encourages marriage for everyone, regardless of orientation.

John Stott?
I know John Stott wasn't married - and I don't think he touches on this aspect of his life in his writings.

Did he though, encourage others to marry?

He does talk about it actually, in a really helpful interview in the book "The Single Issue" by Al Hsu.

I keep seeing it trotted out on the Ship that evangelicals are anti-singleness except for gay people. That hasn't been my experience at all - rather a lot of the grandees of conservative evangelicalism, including Stott, were/are single, and when I hung out in those circles there was an almost ascetic "single in order to do Gospel work" vibe going on that was almost anti-marriage. (Unhealthy in its own way.)

Increasing numbers of churches are forming community houses that, while not monastic, are Christian communities for single people, but sometimes including biological families as one component. The gay issue has brought the singeleness issue to the forefront, but I have never ever seen singleness derided in the evangelical churches I have been part of. Quite the opposite.

Edited for clarity.

[ 19. August 2014, 11:42: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Evangelicalism also strongly encourages marriage for everyone, regardless of orientation.

John Stott?
I know John Stott wasn't married - and I don't think he touches on this aspect of his life in his writings.

Did he though, encourage others to marry?

He does talk about it actually, in a really helpful interview in the book "The Single Issue" by Al Hsu.

I keep seeing it trotted out on the Ship that evangelicals are anti-singleness except for gay people. That hasn't been my experience at all - rather a lot of the grandees of conservative evangelicalism, including Stott, were/are single, and when I hung out in those circles there was an almost ascetic "single in order to do Gospel work" vibe going on that was almost anti-marriage. (Unhealthy in its own way.)
This is my experience too, at St Helen's in the 1990s 'single for God' was a phrase commonly banded around and I remember sermons discussing the advantages of singleness (though not dissing marriage). During this time the Rector was Dick Lucas, an older single man.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
... I'd personally treat the Police denials with a pinch of salt until we are totally sure who tipped off the BBC. ....
EM, I'm afraid you're probably right there. First of all the official line was 'other people have come forward', i.e. the publicity has been useful to our investigation - and surely nobody might disagree with anything that might lead to wicked criminals being brought to justice.

It was only later as people began to express hesitation about the prematurity of the publicity that we began to hear official denials that either police force was involved.

So it's possible the leak may have been from somewhere else, but I think we need to have its source clearly and provenly demonstrated before we withdraw our suspicions from one or the other of the police forces involved.

After all, the same day, on our local news, as is not that unusual, the police had invited along television cameras to film a dawn raid on some ordinary criminals.
It now transpires that the S Yorks Police were in touch with the BBC prior to the raid on the house. They do though claim that they did so because the BBC would run the story anyway.

It's destroyed any credibility the police have left.
 
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
In the UK the Equality Act defines a number of protected characteristics that people cannot be discriminated against including race and disability. The one for relationship status is 'marriage and civil partnership'. I note this is not just termed relationship status, so presumably we cannot be considered to be discriminated against if single?
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Evangelicalism also strongly encourages marriage for everyone, regardless of orientation.

John Stott?
I know John Stott wasn't married - and I don't think he touches on this aspect of his life in his writings.

Did he though, encourage others to marry?

He does talk about it actually, in a really helpful interview in the book "The Single Issue" by Al Hsu.

I keep seeing it trotted out on the Ship that evangelicals are anti-singleness except for gay people. That hasn't been my experience at all - rather a lot of the grandees of conservative evangelicalism, including Stott, were/are single, and when I hung out in those circles there was an almost ascetic "single in order to do Gospel work" vibe going on that was almost anti-marriage. (Unhealthy in its own way.)

Increasing numbers of churches are forming community houses that, while not monastic, are Christian communities for single people, but sometimes including biological families as one component. The gay issue has brought the singeleness issue to the forefront, but I have never ever seen singleness derided in the evangelical churches I have been part of. Quite the opposite.

Edited for clarity.
It's honestly just my experience, but IME of evangelical churches single people are seen as 'left on the shelf' and pitied. It's seen as OK in widow/ers but seen as a bit weird otherwise. I think in John Stott's case it was seen as harmless eccentricity. IME marriage is heavily promoted to the exclusion of everything else because marriage = kids = having more ~soldiers for the Lord~. Singleness was definitely seen as something that happened if you weren't lucky enough to get married, rather than a calling. I know intentional communities would be seen as a bit weird at best and too Catholic at worst.

This is just my experience - I realise there are other evangelical experiences out there, but what I experienced definitely happened to me. This was in an extremely conservative corner of Anglicanism, so perhaps they were trying to distinguish themselves from celibacy in the more catholic end of Anglicanism.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Evangelicalism also strongly encourages marriage for everyone, regardless of orientation.

John Stott?
I know John Stott wasn't married - and I don't think he touches on this aspect of his life in his writings.

Did he though, encourage others to marry?

He does talk about it actually, in a really helpful interview in the book "The Single Issue" by Al Hsu.

I keep seeing it trotted out on the Ship that evangelicals are anti-singleness except for gay people. That hasn't been my experience at all - rather a lot of the grandees of conservative evangelicalism, including Stott, were/are single, and when I hung out in those circles there was an almost ascetic "single in order to do Gospel work" vibe going on that was almost anti-marriage. (Unhealthy in its own way.)

Increasing numbers of churches are forming community houses that, while not monastic, are Christian communities for single people, but sometimes including biological families as one component. The gay issue has brought the singeleness issue to the forefront, but I have never ever seen singleness derided in the evangelical churches I have been part of. Quite the opposite.

Edited for clarity.
It's honestly just my experience, but IME of evangelical churches single people are seen as 'left on the shelf' and pitied. It's seen as OK in widow/ers but seen as a bit weird otherwise. I think in John Stott's case it was seen as harmless eccentricity. IME marriage is heavily promoted to the exclusion of everything else because marriage = kids = having more ~soldiers for the Lord~. Singleness was definitely seen as something that happened if you weren't lucky enough to get married, rather than a calling. I know intentional communities would be seen as a bit weird at best and too Catholic at worst.

This is just my experience - I realise there are other evangelical experiences out there, but what I experienced definitely happened to me. This was in an extremely conservative corner of Anglicanism, so perhaps they were trying to distinguish themselves from celibacy in the more catholic end of Anglicanism.
Jade, I think we are talking about the same corner of Anglicanism! But John Stott, Dick Lucas, even Bash of the Bash camps who was the biggest influence on all that crowd AFAICT - all single. I wonder if it had to do with where you were - was it somewhere suburban - so by default most of the people in the church were nuclear families? Certainly as I moved out of those circles, it was a surprise to me that so many of the people in it of my age got married, and, when I read the Bible, how positive it is about marriage. YMMV of course.

I certainly never heard the "more children to make more Christians line."
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's honestly just my experience, but IME of evangelical churches single people are seen as 'left on the shelf' and pitied. It's seen as OK in widow/ers but seen as a bit weird otherwise. I think in John Stott's case it was seen as harmless eccentricity. IME marriage is heavily promoted to the exclusion of everything else because marriage = kids = having more ~soldiers for the Lord~. Singleness was definitely seen as something that happened if you weren't lucky enough to get married, rather than a calling. I know intentional communities would be seen as a bit weird at best and too Catholic at worst.
I think that location and demographics probably do make a big difference on perspective. St Helen's evening congregation was made up of about 400 people, mostly young professionals or post-grads, many of whom worked in the City, and almost all of them were single. There were some married couples but they tended to move to the morning service when they had families as there was a Sunday school there. There was no pressure to get married or date, I'd say it was the other way, dating someone in your study group was seen as not the done thing (our study groups lasted a year and were based around terms). As I said, I knew several people who had chosen to be 'single for God' and this was considered quite normal as most of the evening congregation were single anyway.
Admittedly most of the evening congregation were in their 20s but I would expect the more 'older' morning service to be equally accepting as their bible study groups were single sex (the church originally started with a few Christian men meeting together in the City in the 1960s, and it was felt that it would not be helpful for businessmen and their secretaries to be meeting up to pray together in the morning!). During my time there St H did not have house groups, bible groups met in church, so bible study groups actually tended to favour singles with no childcare commitments; none of the congregation actually live in the parish as it is in the City.

[ 20. August 2014, 09:45: Message edited by: Heavenly Anarchist ]
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
Something I notice in church environments and elsewhere is that finding a partner is seen as the indicator of having achieved a healthy, fulfilled, 'normal' life. It's seen as the ultimate sign of a happy ending if someone who is 'abnormal' in other ways (particularly disabled in some way - mentally or phsyically - or just an outsider for whatever reason, or even just considered unattractive) is able to find a partner.

Often novels and movies about people on the autism spectrum focus on a character who is terribly lonely because of being unable to find a partner, and this is seen as the major disability of being autistic. As someone who is on the autism spectrum and is also asexual, with no desire for a partner, I find it really odd. People speculate about my singleness in all kinds of ways. People often think I'm a repressed lesbian. I don't bother to correct them unless they ask me outright - it's one of those things that if you deny it, it's seen as further evidence of it! Sometimes people want to help me 'find someone', and can be disbelieving that I really don't want to find someone. Some people don't believe that asexuality exists - they say that sexuality is a human trait that everyone shares (the implication being that I'm not human if I don't have it!).

I don't think it's actually seen as a crime in a female though - I haven't experienced that. In a female it's seen more as something being wrong with her, or that she is secretly a lesbian. It's men who tend to be regarded with suspicion for something more sinister.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Chocoholic:
quote:
In the article David Cameron is quoted as saying that parents and children are often overlooked. I was amazed at this, I thought this was the group most often considered in society.
Oddly enough, although all politicians talk a lot about 'hard-working families' and pay lip-service to the idea that they should get special consideration, this isn't followed up with action. Many of the people affected by the so-called bedroom tax are members of hard-working families (yes, Mr Cameron, because the minimum wage is so low that a lot of people in low-paid jobs have to claim benefits as well to make ends meet). This is the same government that cut funding for children's centres and axed the (admittedly very expensive) Schools for the Future programme. And what did we get in return? "Free" schools, which can be opened anywhere, regardless of whether the extra school places are actually needed in that area, and divert funding from the rest of the school system. A sop to the urban middle classes, in other words.

quote:
I am also wondering what they will class as a "family" for this.
I'm guessing 2 parents with 2.4 children aged under 18 is a given, but what about childless couples, adult children living with one or both parents? Are they going to be saying one version of family is more valued than another?
Two *working* parents (or one working in a job lucrative enough to support a family, one stay-at-home) with no more than three children. Single-parent familes, anyone with more than three children and any parents unfortunate enough to be out of work are reviled as benefit scroungers.

Of course, if you apply the term 'hard-working families' narrowly enough hardly anyone will qualify. I don't; I only have one child.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I have been single for most of my adult life and as far as I can see I will remain so. I occasionally get spurts of 'partner-itis' and make half hearted attempts but genuinely I am just not that interested. I think I might be at the point now where if someone else came along and butted into my life I'd see it as an intrusion.

I see myself as lucky, I am well educated and have the finanical freedom (as a result of my situation) to travel and move freely around the world. I don't regret this at all.

The pain for me comes when I let myself get talked into the 'everyone must have a partner to be happy' trap. I see people in my line of work whose lives have been wrecked by drugs, alcohol and abuse and who still have partners and long term relationships. I look at myself with my degree, my secure professional job and general stability and freedom and then at them and think 'well what is so terribly wrong with me that they have partners and I don't?'

I feel well adjusted I have plenty of friendships and interests. I don't feel particularly weird and unloveable except when I am made to feel that way by the general treatment and perception of singleness.

Hard working families annoys the heck out of me too, as does everyone everywhere assuming at ALL TIMES that there must be a second person attached to my hip in order to allow me to eat out, go to movies, go on holiday or go to any events. Although the person in the shop the other day did say 'and is it Miss?' rather than making me AGAIN explain I am not married and not a Mrs.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I sometimes try to get people asking for my contact details to put me down as Ms, just for the fun of watching them try to cope with the idea of a married woman who does not wish to advertise her relationship status to the world... they ALWAYS assume you're single if you say Ms.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I'm one of those people who would like to be married but for various reasons, mainly acute shyness around women, I never has been. To be honest, the future doesn't hold much prospect for hope. The thing I find hardest is trying to discern God's will in it all: is it his desire that I remain single? Being single does have its advantages but it doesn't stop the feelings of loneliness that I sometimes get. I don't, however, begrudge the attention families get.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I will acknowledge that I think whatever group or demographic you fall into you can easily think that you're overlooked or that other groups get more resources.

Of course sometimes this is true (notable historical cases of injustice) but other times it is just a cognitive bias that we have.

I'd be interested to know how being single vs being partnered works out for people financially when the chips are down.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I sometimes try to get people asking for my contact details to put me down as Ms, just for the fun of watching them try to cope with the idea of a married woman who does not wish to advertise her relationship status to the world... they ALWAYS assume you're single if you say Ms.
I am "Ms" on everything official, and the assumption I've come across most is that "Ms" = divorced or co-habiting. My left hand is prone to random tendonitis related swelling, so I don't wear my wedding ring any more, though my tendonitis-free husband wears one. That creates interesting assumptions, too.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Leprechaun and Heavenly Anarchist - oh yes, this was very much a church made up of nuclear families, very suburban. It also had a huge youth and children programme, and girls in particular were encouraged to help with the kids and then (ideally) train in youth work. Only one couple who married and didn't have kids that I can think of, I think the having children aspect was probably the more heavily emphasised thing.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Re assumptions - I obviously meet a different range of people from most. I sometimes call myself 'Ms' (although more often 'Mrs', I suppose); I sometimes wear a wedding ring, more often not (I very often get excema if I do). Macarius wears a wedding ring.

I have no idea whether anyone makes assumptions or not - they don't tell me. I did have one work colleague, with apologies for asking a personal question, ask me if I minded telling him why I often don't wear a ring. But that's all.

M.
 
Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I sometimes try to get people asking for my contact details to put me down as Ms, just for the fun of watching them try to cope with the idea of a married woman who does not wish to advertise her relationship status to the world... they ALWAYS assume you're single if you say Ms.
I am "Ms" on everything official, and the assumption I've come across most is that "Ms" = divorced or co-habiting. My left hand is prone to random tendonitis related swelling, so I don't wear my wedding ring any more, though my tendonitis-free husband wears one. That creates interesting assumptions, too.
Oh the assumptions! It is handy (and amusing) when someone asks 'is that Miss or Mrs?' to be able to respond with 'Actually, it's Doctor.' Not that I went and slogged my way through that blessed PhD just in order to have a title that didn't announce my marital status.
 
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :
 
A friend once handed over her credit card in Sainsburys (in the days when cards were still handed over) and the cashier clocked dr on it and asked " are you a real doctor or have you just got a PhD?" she was so shocked she said "just a PhD".
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
[Snigger]

When I got mine certain obnoxious people (who were also poor readers) insisted on addressing us as "Rev. Dr. and Mrs. Lamb".

My husband, of course, loved it. He got a doctoral degree without having to study!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
A friend once handed over her credit card in Sainsburys (in the days when cards were still handed over) and the cashier clocked dr on it and asked " are you a real doctor or have you just got a PhD?" she was so shocked she said "just a PhD".
A friend told me that ever since he had got his PhD, he had found he was looked after much better, and quicker, when he had the misfortune to visit the out-patients'.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
The attitude towards doctorates does vary according to the circles you mix in though: in Cambridge it is pretty much assumed that Doctor means PhD. I (nurse) once went to a friend's (with PhD) wedding with my husband (PhD). We sat on a table with 8 others, 7 of whom were Doctors and within a few minutes I turned to the health care assistant on the table and said 'are we the only two on here with any medical knowledge?'.
(As an aside, my Waitrose card appears to have confused myself and my husband, as it says I am a Doctor but he is Mr [Confused] ).
 
Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
A friend once handed over her credit card in Sainsburys (in the days when cards were still handed over) and the cashier clocked dr on it and asked " are you a real doctor or have you just got a PhD?" she was so shocked she said "just a PhD".
I am mostly careful not to suggest too frequently that all those MBChBs running around the hospitals are merely honorary, and I am the 'real' sort. Of course, I'm only any use if you want me to count you, although in the past I'd have been able to dissect you.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Single women vs single men - my grandmother (born before the old turn of the century) insisted a woman must "marry and settle down" but a man who does not marry is admirable. How every woman could find a husband if some men didn't marry was irrelevant. When I told her she wouldn't approve of the men who had proposed marriage to me she said "you don't have to liked him, you do have to marry."

For a woman, failure to marry was not criminal, but it was immoral.

The church I was going to a few years ago, the social atmosphere was similar. Couples socialized with other couples, their monthly supper club allowed a widower to stay with the group but instantly kicked out any woman who became widowed. Single men are OK, single women are not. (When I protested to the pastor I was told they believe single women are a threat to marriages and he didn't want to threaten the group's existence by insisting they change. Mainline church.)

Years ago I read a "Christian book" about dating and marriage that said anyone not married by age 30 obviously has psychological problems.

So yes there is a lot of belief "there's something wrong with her"; and my male single friends say they get similar social rejection these days.

There's also a lot of cultural assumption everyone is sexually active, so a single person must be actively gay - or a pervert, which can lead to suspicion of singles if there's an unsolved sexual crime.
 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
I don't think this is a new problem. Think of all those witch trials - if you were a mature/old woman living alone you were automatically suspected of being up to no good.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Any psychological problems in a single person over 30 would probably be due to the effects of all the people around making remarks.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...and who says married people are immune to psychological problems anyway?

<wanders off sticking straws in hair>
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...and who says married people are immune to psychological problems anyway?

<wanders off sticking straws in hair>
Just different problems.
Single people go mad wondering why they cannot find a relationship and married people go mad wondering why they did.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:


I'd be interested to know how being single vs being partnered works out for people financially when the chips are down.
Well a single person household costs more per head than coupled. eg heating is the same however many people are there. Rent/mortgage (if any chance of one of those) - well single to couple comparison would be a similar size space as both could live in 1 bed flats at equivalent rent but only one income.

But having a brood of dependants tips it the other way as they cost so much (how dare they grow out of clothes etc) Having a brood of dependents whilst a single adult....

I found that I was treated weird when younger for being single (proper single as opposed to a few months between relationships)but now I am older and arrive somewhere as a single people are more accepting. I think there is an assumption of some sad and difficult relationship in the past that I must have had, because all do right? The news that I never have had a relationship beyond a couple of dates would be profoundly shocking to them.

I was actually advised by a former minister (when I was about 22) that my lack of any relationships would go against me in offering for ordained ministry - as a sign of my lack of maturity!! Quite frankly I am happy to have missed the maturity of lots of the late teen early twenties attempts at relationships that I saw around me.
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
I was actually advised by a former minister (when I was about 22) that my lack of any relationships would go against me in offering for ordained ministry - as a sign of my lack of maturity!! Quite frankly I am happy to have missed the maturity of lots of the late teen early twenties attempts at relationships that I saw around me.
When I applied for the ministry, in my reference my then-minister put under 'Weaknesses', "Cottontail is single."

To be fair to the man, he apologised profusely when I challenged him. He had meant, he said, that I didn't have the 'in-built' support structure of a spouse.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Well, Cottontail, did you remind him that you didn't have the inbuilt ripe condition for marital problems, arguments, sleepless nights, potential divorce trauma and infidelity issues? I see marriage as a need for support as often as a source of.

I'm glad to see asexuality mentioned here. I think it's going to be the last accepted preference, long after gays and lesbians are fully understood people will still be trying to fix-up their asexual friends. It was a sad day for me when Amy Farrah Fowler kissed Sheldon and he liked it.

I know a man who has hypogonadism and the zero interest in sex that goes with it. He is tall handsome and looks twenty years younger than his age due to his barely detectable T-scores. Several times a year some young, straight woman or gay man gets a crush on him and makes his life uncomfortable until the day they give up in anger and go away muttering ugly insinuations.

Even his doctor finds him fairly unacceptable the way he is and is constantly pushing testosterone injections to make him "normal," in spite of all the side effects to the treatments. No one can believe he's happy the way he is.
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
I always thought John Stott was lacking in the maturity stakes. Why does marriage equal maturity?
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Any psychological problems in a single person over 30 would probably be due to the effects of all the people around making remarks.
Yup exactly. I feel entirely happy until made to feel strange and odd, then I start looking for evidence of my being strange and odd.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I have been single almost my entire adult life, and I am nearly forty.

I can not recall anyone ever making any unsolicited comment on the subject. I recall a couple of occasions in the last twenty years when people have simply assumed I am married - but that is about it.

Who is saying these things to you ?
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
Doublethink, you obviously feel good about yourself, which is great and how it should be. The secular world doesn't make judgements on your character, worth etc as an older single. The Christian world does. That's my experience.
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I have been single almost my entire adult life, and I am nearly forty.

I can not recall anyone ever making any unsolicited comment on the subject. I recall a couple of occasions in the last twenty years when people have simply assumed I am married - but that is about it.

Who is saying these things to you ?
- my minister (see above)
- my mother (she stopped when I hit 38 - gave up hope, I think)
- the man who came to service the Aga
- the psychologist when I applied for the ministry
- my second cousin
- my uncle
- the father of the groom I sat next to at a wedding last month
- it comes up every other parish visit I do, especially if it is a first 'getting to know you' visit.
- acquaintances and colleagues trying to work out if I am a lesbian or not. (My best friend is, so this comes up quite a lot.)

Don't get me wrong - they haven't all been rude about it (though some of them have been - Aga man, I'm looking at you!). But curious, yes, and puzzled, and looking for an explanation.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Looking at Cottontail's list, I have to mention that the window fitters, the plumbers, the electrician and the roofer, the people at the Art club and the local residents' association have all shown absolutely no interest at all in my singleness, not even commenting on my occupying a property that the government would consider much too big for one if I were renting on benefits. I must have got past the age of comments. That must be worth knowing.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
When you say it comes up every other parish visit - do you mean people ask you if you have a partner ?
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
When you say it comes up every other parish visit - do you mean people ask you if you have a partner ?
Sometimes. Obviously, they know I'm not living with anyone, but they wonder if there is anyone in my life. Alternatively, they ask me why I don't have one. I'm still pretty new in this parish, and we are still all getting to know each other.

Pastorally, what happens is that I go into their houses and they talk to me about their relationships. The dog collar means that people sometimes go very deep very quickly in conversation. But conversation is usually a two-way thing. So if they are telling me about how they miss their husband who died last year, it is natural enough to ask if there is anyone special in my life. It's an attempt at establishing common ground, and making things a bit less one-sided from their point of view.

I can fence off much of my life, and obviously I don't give out details. But I don't resent the questions in that context. Sometimes it is funny too, as when the father of the groom was simply very curious about what was 'allowed' for women ministers. But people do see it as odd to be single, and they do look for an explanation: "Oh, she is single because ..."

The thing is, in this job there isn't really such a thing as a private life. If I were suddenly to produce a partner, that would change the whole dynamic of the pastoral relationship - especially if there was a chance that partner might be same-sex. I also couldn't move any partner into the Manse without marrying them first - there would be serious repercussions, including in terms of church discipline. And even were I to marry an 'ideal' Christian man in the conventional way, that would still introduce a new set of loyalties for them (and me) to negotiate.

From their point of view, an already-married minister is a lot more 'stable', whereas a singleton is a potential loose cannon. So yes, they are interested. They are not prurient, and I am good at drawing the line, but they are interested. There is a lot at stake for them.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
On arriving in post I was informed with deep solemnity (and a hint of threat) that they had married off all the ones who arrived single.... Well they have only 1 yr left so better get moving

And yes like Cottontail in the pastoral conversations.

In general community helps that local vicar also female single and collared, and here a few years ahead of me.

I live with depression and every so often I am 'encouraged' that settling down and having a husband would reduce my stress levels [Confused] Didn't work for my sister!

As I said in general circulation I am also now old enough that I could have all sorts in the history and can blend in with the 'singles again' demographic where no-one asks about the past
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Single vs partnered cost of living? Kids cost money.

But my friends with grown kids get free help in fixing up the house, lots of automatic party invitations (birthdays, Christmas), places to go visit and stay for free, rides to the doctor when needed, help balancing the checkbook and figuring out the confusing medical bills, a place to live for the years between complete independence and needing constant care, visits to the assisted living and being taken out for a movie or meal.

Meanwhile, the many years when there are no kids at home, two incomes instead of one to pay for one house, one hotel room, two-for-one meals, two people to divide the labor of house and yard upkeep instead of one person doing it all, and some money still coming in when one loses a job.

My married older friends do a lot more traveling and expensive hobbies than my single older friends.

Marriage and singledom both have problems. But being single is not the road to a wealthy carefree life some married assume!
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Any psychological problems in a single person over 30 would probably be due to the effects of all the people around making remarks.
Yup exactly. I feel entirely happy until made to feel strange and odd, then I start looking for evidence of my being strange and odd.
I really appreciate your remarks on this thread. They reflect broadly my own experience. Any time I've stopped to think 'well, I MUST be odd, or there MUST be something wrong with me, because I'm not married or living with someone/in a relationship', has been because of discussions or environmental or social factors reflecting on the 'oddity' of maturing people (in particular) who aren't partnered.

It's worth bearing in mind, however, that even in Victorian times - when female population fairly far exceeded male population - (by a third, at its height, I think?) it was still expected that every 'normal' female would be married and popping out babies. Crusty bachelors were quite permitted their bachelordom, nevertheless!
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0