Yes. I’m married and have a polyamorous girlfriend, with no intention of reproducing. The relationships are fulfilling and provide social stability. And sex with a partner improves over time, so even if that were your only goal long term relationships might be worth pursuing.
Lots of talking with my wife to establish boundaries and make sure everyone was comfortable. A year or so of frustration at the lack of appeal in a married man. A few okcupid girlfriends that didn’t work out, and eventually one that has.
Sure. There are other people who have no interest in eventually procreating!
If you are far enough from the time in life when potential partners will eventually want to procreate and can deal emotionally with the certainty that you will have to break up at least at that point (although realistically you may well break up earlier), there is also a point in dating people outside that group.
EDIT: As an addendum, keep in mind that especially at a young age, people who say they will or might want to have children might do so only as a cultural default. Once exposed to the relevant mindset, they may figure out that they don’t actually need to (and shouldn’t) have children unless they really, really want to. I therefore suspect that the set of potential partners for child-free people is actually larger than one might think.
I sort of wonder why people bother marrying in that case. Although even in our case procreation was only 50% of the reason and basically doing a big thank-you ceremony to our parents was another 50%, we felt we owe them a wedding. But I think this is related—the wedding as a thank-you ceremony is a signal of the end of childhood to parents (at 34 it was about high time) but also a signal that we will take over the mantle of child-raising from them from now on, now we take over the job of continuing the family for them. So it had a bit if retiring them as parents, and we do the job of being a parent and doing the duty to the family now. (Nobody actually called it a duty, but it still felt like one generation stepping in the role of the previous one.) So the idea of “thanks parents your job is over” and “we do it now” was related.
A humble suggestion. (Apologies for not answering the specific question you are asking, but asking another one that you revealed when you framed the question in this way)
If you are not motivated to naturally go about “serious dating”. Then don’t do it. It may be a social norm, but thats usually because people are motivated to do it.
Having said that—if you are trying to convince yourself that it’s a waste of time; not this way. It’s not.
You don’t have to put up a massive investment in order to succeed in dating. A massive investment is something that I would equate to as “risky behaviour”. If you start small and grow gradually out of successes—that is how you can limit your risk while also winning at life. (arguments swing each way for “investment” and whether a big investment is needed to really make it big, but that’s always something you can chance after some learning)
I considered spending half an hour crafting my question so that people could understand me perfectly and clearly but sometimes I just throw a question out there and see what sort of responses I get. On the internet people respond more often to short questions than giant blocks of text anyway. (Maybe I should change my policy a bit on LW as compared to other locations? Probably.)
You answered one of the questions within the question that I was asking and thank you for that! People have lots of motivations and my motivations are occasionally different than other people’s. I don’t have the same hyperintense motivations in this area that other people have.
Your fourth paragraph is something that resonates with my brain a bit and I will be sure to think on.
On Lesswrong I usually suggest “be more specific”. I understand the “open question”, and can see how they are useful for times when you might want people to think freely in order to suggest solutions.
I first talked about the other side of the coin when answering an open question. this is the open thread, so answering is a bit more free than in a discussion thread.
I wrote paragraph 4 in such a way that it can be applied to a business decision (or the realms of startups). In that sense—an unmitigated risk might be providing a product that you have not confirmed with the marketplace (they don’t want it or they won’t pay that much for it). To continue that analogy; that would be to go and get buff to be more appealing to the opposite sex without actually looking at who is around and if they are interested in that gesture. (and continuing further) you can assume that “buff” is a more desired body state generally; but confirming the specific market and response would be ideal to mitigate the risk of invested time. as a contrast; if you looked at the available market and found that they were actually after skills in philosophy, or humour, or happiness, or money making—those too are known desired traits worth investing in.
In terms of emotional investment; you can try really hard, or you can at least be open to it; but not fussed if it doesn’t happen.
Sounds like you might like to put in a minimum investment; and relax about the whole thing. Occasionally meet strangers and chat to them; be social for social sake; enjoy life without the focussed lense of purpose towards the goal (which comes with stress).
Since you have also indicated that you are interested in finding a life partner, and since the value of a life partner is dependent on your personality (and not a hypothetical ‘ideal personality’), you may be asking the wrong question. A more relevant question might be “what are ways to reduce the investment cost of finding a life partner?” Once that question is answered, then you will have to decide if it is worth the investment.
I wouldn’t think about it as “dating” in general. It depends on whom you are dating. I think that if you perceive yourself as expending time and emotional energy, rather than acquiring more free time and more emotional energy, then the answer is “no” for that particular person.
This vaguely applies to any investment, doesn’t it?
So there are some relationships where you gain emotional energy from the time you spent with the person? This is different from basic extroversion ‘recharging’?
I am very glad I asked this question because I did not realize that was even an option. Thank you very much!
Right—and you should avoid relationships where both people aren’t on net gaining energy and time.
Extrovert/introvert “recharching” works because extroverts/introverts by definition like social activities/solitude. The general principle here is that people are recharged by spending time in a manner which they find simultaneously comfortable and engaging (“flow”?). An intellectual is recharged by thinking, an artist is recharged by creating, a romantic by romance, etc.
Beyond the obvious foundation of mutual love and affection, a good relationship is somehow creating or enhancing these dimension of life that you are energized by. On top of that it should ideally actually seem to free up time, as cooperating with a partner to tackle things generally cuts down work load, but even if it doesn’t, if you’ve got the mutual love and mutual energizing in place I’d count it as a win.
Yes, that is normal in healthy relationships. You should gain emotional energy and emotional stability from them. My girlfriend and I are both introverts, but we can spend hours together with no problem, while if we spend the same amount of time with other people we are very drained. We still do need alone time, but it’s not the same as spending the time with other people, even close friends.
This is a stupid question thread and I intentionally asked a question I thought was stupid. I think that lifelong companionship and emotional intimacy would be amazing. However, none of my attempts at achieving those resembled anything like that and when I look at people around me in relationships I don’t see it there either.
This doesn’t make me bitter or get weird stupid ideas about relationships like completely basing them on sex or abstaining due to not being interested in procreating. It doesn’t make me draw any conclusions and it doesn’t stop me from wanting a fulfilling relationship with someone else. All it made me do was stop for a second and double check (in a thread for stupid questions) that real, fulfilling relationships are a thing that actually exist within reality, not some sort of Hollywood bullshit, and are worth the effort to obtain and maintain. I can imagine all sorts of things, but checking that this sort of thing is actually real seemed like it could be worth a 30 second forum post.
Additionally, do you have experience of or have evidence that the benefits of companionship and emotional intimacy are worth high emotional and time investment costs? I am genuinely curious.
What are your interests then? Within and without the scope of a relationship? What is your interest in dating? Do you feel compelled to date because it sounds like something everyone should do, and not doing so marks you as abnormal or dysfunctional? If you don’t feel particularly compelled to date or enter relationship, then no, it isn’t worth it.
Similarly, if you suspect you have interests that would clash with having to seriously date or being in a relationship, then maybe the best compromise is not to get in a relationship. it may also be possible to enter a relationship more suited to your needs, one that can preserve your other interests, time and freedoms, if your drive to date and be in a relationship is strong enough to be unavoidable and compete with your other drives.
Besides, serious “classical” dating (in fact, what do you mean by dating? What kind of activities and investments were you thinking about?) is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a satisfying relationship.
Another data point: I’m wondering about this too despite kind of the opposite interests: Relationship without procreation feels like something important missing. I already have four sons so procreation is kind of satisfied. After breaking up I’m feeling kind of freed but I’m also missing company—so why not date to form a new relationship? Sure. But wouldn’t that mean that I’d ‘exploit’ a potential partner—her getting the worse end of the bargain given my children. I’d bet that corresponding calculations are deeply wired into our brains. I notice that I’d at least hesitate in the reverse case. So at the very least having common offspring seems like making even on that—and I’d be happy with that too.
But is that really that kind of ‘bargain’? Could it be that there is such a thing as ‘care orientation’ (see cuddle orientation) and a mutually satisfactory relationship can be found? Maybe. But in any case finding a partner matching this complex (emotional and otherwise) setup is arguably expensive in terms of time and possibly emotions. After quite some excursions in that directions I myself decided to ‘cut my losses’ or at least change directions. And the direction currently means not actively pursuing relationships.
I think sex with a suitable partner is one of the most fun and engaging activity on the planet. So I would say yes, unless you’re especially challenged in some way.
Either that or you need to have a lot of money, or you need to be unusually attractive.
Besides, sex with a partner that you have intimacy with I found it’s much more fulfilling.
If that’s all you want, aren’t there websites for finding other people who only want sex?
I can only speak for my country, and the answer is no.
Do you think the sex alone makes it all worth the time and emotional investment?
Yes, I do. In my opinion, people in general underestimate the sense of emotional fulfilling that good, regular sex has on the male brain (I’m assuming you’re male).
Separately (and now we’re getting completely hypothetical), what if sex was unavailable or impossible, would it still be worth it to you?
That would depend more on how challenged you are to find a suitable partner, I would still say yes, but in a narrower range of investment.
If you have no interest in eventually procreating, is serious dating worth the massive time and emotional investment necessary?
Edit: part of the reason i am asking is for external belief checking
Yes. I’m married and have a polyamorous girlfriend, with no intention of reproducing. The relationships are fulfilling and provide social stability. And sex with a partner improves over time, so even if that were your only goal long term relationships might be worth pursuing.
I like that. May I ask you how you were able to achieve this?
Lots of talking with my wife to establish boundaries and make sure everyone was comfortable. A year or so of frustration at the lack of appeal in a married man. A few okcupid girlfriends that didn’t work out, and eventually one that has.
Wonderful!
Thank you very much, short but very effective!
Sure. There are other people who have no interest in eventually procreating!
If you are far enough from the time in life when potential partners will eventually want to procreate and can deal emotionally with the certainty that you will have to break up at least at that point (although realistically you may well break up earlier), there is also a point in dating people outside that group.
EDIT: As an addendum, keep in mind that especially at a young age, people who say they will or might want to have children might do so only as a cultural default. Once exposed to the relevant mindset, they may figure out that they don’t actually need to (and shouldn’t) have children unless they really, really want to. I therefore suspect that the set of potential partners for child-free people is actually larger than one might think.
I have been present at the weddings of two couples who have no intention to procreate.
I sort of wonder why people bother marrying in that case. Although even in our case procreation was only 50% of the reason and basically doing a big thank-you ceremony to our parents was another 50%, we felt we owe them a wedding. But I think this is related—the wedding as a thank-you ceremony is a signal of the end of childhood to parents (at 34 it was about high time) but also a signal that we will take over the mantle of child-raising from them from now on, now we take over the job of continuing the family for them. So it had a bit if retiring them as parents, and we do the job of being a parent and doing the duty to the family now. (Nobody actually called it a duty, but it still felt like one generation stepping in the role of the previous one.) So the idea of “thanks parents your job is over” and “we do it now” was related.
Off the top of my head, some reasons why people would to marry despite intending not to have children:
residence permits
taxes (a pretty big deal in some countries)
warm fuzzy feeling about cementing a very-long-term relationship in the culturally approved way, signalling commitment
doing the culturally expected thing in a very-long-term relationship and not wanting to advertise their child-free status
Or in some cases, “yes I am serious about this stop giving us these looks already”.
A humble suggestion. (Apologies for not answering the specific question you are asking, but asking another one that you revealed when you framed the question in this way)
If you are not motivated to naturally go about “serious dating”. Then don’t do it. It may be a social norm, but thats usually because people are motivated to do it.
Having said that—if you are trying to convince yourself that it’s a waste of time; not this way. It’s not.
You don’t have to put up a massive investment in order to succeed in dating. A massive investment is something that I would equate to as “risky behaviour”. If you start small and grow gradually out of successes—that is how you can limit your risk while also winning at life. (arguments swing each way for “investment” and whether a big investment is needed to really make it big, but that’s always something you can chance after some learning)
Good luck :)
I considered spending half an hour crafting my question so that people could understand me perfectly and clearly but sometimes I just throw a question out there and see what sort of responses I get. On the internet people respond more often to short questions than giant blocks of text anyway. (Maybe I should change my policy a bit on LW as compared to other locations? Probably.)
You answered one of the questions within the question that I was asking and thank you for that! People have lots of motivations and my motivations are occasionally different than other people’s. I don’t have the same hyperintense motivations in this area that other people have.
Your fourth paragraph is something that resonates with my brain a bit and I will be sure to think on.
On Lesswrong I usually suggest “be more specific”. I understand the “open question”, and can see how they are useful for times when you might want people to think freely in order to suggest solutions.
I first talked about the other side of the coin when answering an open question. this is the open thread, so answering is a bit more free than in a discussion thread.
I wrote paragraph 4 in such a way that it can be applied to a business decision (or the realms of startups). In that sense—an unmitigated risk might be providing a product that you have not confirmed with the marketplace (they don’t want it or they won’t pay that much for it). To continue that analogy; that would be to go and get buff to be more appealing to the opposite sex without actually looking at who is around and if they are interested in that gesture. (and continuing further) you can assume that “buff” is a more desired body state generally; but confirming the specific market and response would be ideal to mitigate the risk of invested time. as a contrast; if you looked at the available market and found that they were actually after skills in philosophy, or humour, or happiness, or money making—those too are known desired traits worth investing in.
In terms of emotional investment; you can try really hard, or you can at least be open to it; but not fussed if it doesn’t happen.
Sounds like you might like to put in a minimum investment; and relax about the whole thing. Occasionally meet strangers and chat to them; be social for social sake; enjoy life without the focussed lense of purpose towards the goal (which comes with stress).
Good luck (hope this helps more)
Since you have also indicated that you are interested in finding a life partner, and since the value of a life partner is dependent on your personality (and not a hypothetical ‘ideal personality’), you may be asking the wrong question. A more relevant question might be “what are ways to reduce the investment cost of finding a life partner?” Once that question is answered, then you will have to decide if it is worth the investment.
I wouldn’t think about it as “dating” in general. It depends on whom you are dating. I think that if you perceive yourself as expending time and emotional energy, rather than acquiring more free time and more emotional energy, then the answer is “no” for that particular person.
This vaguely applies to any investment, doesn’t it?
So there are some relationships where you gain emotional energy from the time you spent with the person? This is different from basic extroversion ‘recharging’?
I am very glad I asked this question because I did not realize that was even an option. Thank you very much!
Right—and you should avoid relationships where both people aren’t on net gaining energy and time.
Extrovert/introvert “recharching” works because extroverts/introverts by definition like social activities/solitude. The general principle here is that people are recharged by spending time in a manner which they find simultaneously comfortable and engaging (“flow”?). An intellectual is recharged by thinking, an artist is recharged by creating, a romantic by romance, etc.
Beyond the obvious foundation of mutual love and affection, a good relationship is somehow creating or enhancing these dimension of life that you are energized by. On top of that it should ideally actually seem to free up time, as cooperating with a partner to tackle things generally cuts down work load, but even if it doesn’t, if you’ve got the mutual love and mutual energizing in place I’d count it as a win.
.
Yes, that is normal in healthy relationships. You should gain emotional energy and emotional stability from them. My girlfriend and I are both introverts, but we can spend hours together with no problem, while if we spend the same amount of time with other people we are very drained. We still do need alone time, but it’s not the same as spending the time with other people, even close friends.
Can you seriously not imagine any personal benefits from lifelong companionship and emotional intimacy other than the availability of a uterus?
This is a stupid question thread and I intentionally asked a question I thought was stupid. I think that lifelong companionship and emotional intimacy would be amazing. However, none of my attempts at achieving those resembled anything like that and when I look at people around me in relationships I don’t see it there either.
This doesn’t make me bitter or get weird stupid ideas about relationships like completely basing them on sex or abstaining due to not being interested in procreating. It doesn’t make me draw any conclusions and it doesn’t stop me from wanting a fulfilling relationship with someone else. All it made me do was stop for a second and double check (in a thread for stupid questions) that real, fulfilling relationships are a thing that actually exist within reality, not some sort of Hollywood bullshit, and are worth the effort to obtain and maintain. I can imagine all sorts of things, but checking that this sort of thing is actually real seemed like it could be worth a 30 second forum post.
Additionally, do you have experience of or have evidence that the benefits of companionship and emotional intimacy are worth high emotional and time investment costs? I am genuinely curious.
But why frame the question in terms of childlessness?
Because I am occasionally terribile at phrasing questions (though my odd phrasings usually get me the answers I’m searching for anyway)
Because the question was more of a ramblingly phrased question than a highly specific and carefully crafted framing
Because I have no intention of ever having children and the question pertains to me
What are your interests then? Within and without the scope of a relationship? What is your interest in dating? Do you feel compelled to date because it sounds like something everyone should do, and not doing so marks you as abnormal or dysfunctional? If you don’t feel particularly compelled to date or enter relationship, then no, it isn’t worth it.
Similarly, if you suspect you have interests that would clash with having to seriously date or being in a relationship, then maybe the best compromise is not to get in a relationship. it may also be possible to enter a relationship more suited to your needs, one that can preserve your other interests, time and freedoms, if your drive to date and be in a relationship is strong enough to be unavoidable and compete with your other drives.
Besides, serious “classical” dating (in fact, what do you mean by dating? What kind of activities and investments were you thinking about?) is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a satisfying relationship.
(after having read your replies to Elo’s reply)
Another data point: I’m wondering about this too despite kind of the opposite interests: Relationship without procreation feels like something important missing. I already have four sons so procreation is kind of satisfied. After breaking up I’m feeling kind of freed but I’m also missing company—so why not date to form a new relationship? Sure. But wouldn’t that mean that I’d ‘exploit’ a potential partner—her getting the worse end of the bargain given my children. I’d bet that corresponding calculations are deeply wired into our brains. I notice that I’d at least hesitate in the reverse case. So at the very least having common offspring seems like making even on that—and I’d be happy with that too.
But is that really that kind of ‘bargain’? Could it be that there is such a thing as ‘care orientation’ (see cuddle orientation) and a mutually satisfactory relationship can be found? Maybe. But in any case finding a partner matching this complex (emotional and otherwise) setup is arguably expensive in terms of time and possibly emotions. After quite some excursions in that directions I myself decided to ‘cut my losses’ or at least change directions. And the direction currently means not actively pursuing relationships.
I think sex with a suitable partner is one of the most fun and engaging activity on the planet.
So I would say yes, unless you’re especially challenged in some way.
Do you need to date to have regular sex? If that’s all you want, aren’t there websites for finding other people who only want sex?
Either that or you need to have a lot of money, or you need to be unusually attractive. Besides, sex with a partner that you have intimacy with I found it’s much more fulfilling.
I can only speak for my country, and the answer is no.
Unless you’re in the top 30% or so of attractiveness, I think the answer to that question is “yes”.
Do you think the sex alone makes it all worth the time and emotional investment?
Separately (and now we’re getting completely hypothetical), what if sex was unavailable or impossible, would it still be worth it to you?
Yes, I do. In my opinion, people in general underestimate the sense of emotional fulfilling that good, regular sex has on the male brain (I’m assuming you’re male).
That would depend more on how challenged you are to find a suitable partner, I would still say yes, but in a narrower range of investment.