Saying "You have to be happy by yourself first" is exactly like saying "Beatings will continue until morale improves."

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Do you agree with the statement from the title? Why or why not?

 

[tango]

Not really. If you're not happy in your own skin you're not going to be any happer just because you have someone else in your life.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Not really. If you're not happy in your own skin you're not going to be any happer just because you have someone else in your life.

I disagree with you on that. Someone else can absolutely contribute to improving your mood, provided they are an optimistic person who loves you and seeks to get you out of your depressive mindset through a positive attitude and fun daily activities.

 

[Castle Church]

Another person can certainly contribute, as you say, but we should never rely on another person to "make us happy". Other people can make us happier, and we can be happier to be around other people than to be alone, but if we are not content with our own consciousness then adding another person won't really make us happy, it just distracts us from our unhappiness.

It's not really about whether other people can make us happy or not, it is about understanding who we are and being content with that.

 

[Nazareth]

Do you agree with the statement from the title? Why or why not?

Not at all. Though both phrases pertain to self worth.

No one can make ''you'' happy if you are not happy in that relationship with self.

No one knows us like we do.
Parents think they know but after we're over away making our own life they aren't there to witness our personal evolution independent of their presence and influence.

Very often personal relationships, marriages, etc... will fail because we end up loving that person because we need them.

Rather than what is healthy. Needing them because we love them.

If we don't love ourselves first we can never accept anyone else does or can.

 

[tango]

I disagree with you on that. Someone else can absolutely contribute to improving your mood, provided they are an optimistic person who loves you and seeks to get you out of your depressive mindset through a positive attitude and fun daily activities.

I don't dispute that someone else can help improve your mood. The issue isn't whether someone else can improve your mood but whether you'll ever be truly happy until you are happy with who you are.

If you're really lucky you find two people who are unhappy but who improve each others' moods and they get together into the most unhealthy codependent relationship you can imagine, where sooner or later they are unhappy with each other so they split up only to find they are unhappy alone so they get back together again, only to find they are unhappy together again. Rinse and repeat until something goes spectacularly wrong.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Interesting how all the people who disagree in this thread seem to be married. Well, it seems that science disagrees with you as well.

Associations between relationship status and mental well-being in different life phases from young to middle adulthood

The aim of this study was to assess the associations between relationship status and mental well-being in four different phases during the life course…

www.sciencedirect.com

Being in a Romantic Relationship Is Associated with Reduced Gray Matter Density in Striatum and Increased Subjective Happiness

Romantic relationship, a widespread feature of human society, is one of the most influential factors in daily life. Although stimuli related to romantic love or being in a romantic relationship commonly result in enhancement of activation or functional connectivity of the reward system...

www.frontiersin.org

adding another person won't really make us happy, it just distracts us from our unhappiness.

That's basically what being happy is: being distracted from unhappiness or from boredom.

Even the Christian meaning of life, namely to glorify / worship God for eternity, is absurd if you think about it. Why would a Being want to be worshipped for eternity by other beings? Sure, He is the source of love and goodness, but there's nothing intrinsically logical in wanting to be worshipped, in wanting other beings to exist in a state of constant gratitude to you for the experiences they are going through. In the Christian worldview, being happy is basically distracting yourself from acknowledging the absurdity of existence by engaging in worshipping God.

 

[tango]

Interesting how all the people who disagree in this thread seem to be married. Well, it seems that science disagrees with you as well.

Associations between relationship status and mental well-being in different life phases from young to middle adulthood

The aim of this study was to assess the associations between relationship status and mental well-being in four different phases during the life course…

www.sciencedirect.com

Being in a Romantic Relationship Is Associated with Reduced Gray Matter Density in Striatum and Increased Subjective Happiness

Romantic relationship, a widespread feature of human society, is one of the most influential factors in daily life. Although stimuli related to romantic love or being in a romantic relationship commonly result in enhancement of activation or functional connectivity of the reward system...

www.frontiersin.org

I'm not sure these articles have anything to do with your comment about the beatings continuing. Being in a relationship is better, in many ways, than not being in a relationship. But if you're in an unhappy relationship and always dealing with tension between yourself and your partner that's not a good place to be. And guess what sort of relationship unhappy people end up stuck in...

That's basically what being happy is: being distracted from unhappiness or from boredom.

Seriously? Happiness is merely the absence of unhappiness?

Even the Christian meaning of life, namely to glorify / worship God for eternity, is absurd if you think about it. Why would a Being want to be worshipped for eternity by other beings? Sure, He is the source of love and goodness, but there's nothing intrinsically logical in wanting to be worshipped, in wanting other beings to exist in a state of constant gratitude to you for the experiences they are undergoing through. In the Christian worldview, being happy is basically distracting yourself from acknowledging the absurdity of existence by engaging in worshipping God.

If a being so much more advanced than we are wants something it's a bit silly to think we should understand better what is right. Seen through the eyes of less intelligent beings many things make little sense. We might as well borrow the logic from a child and ask why we bother washing today when we'll only get dirty and have to wash again tomorrow.

 

[Castle Church]

Interesting how all the people who disagree in this thread seem to be married. Well, it seems that science disagrees with you as well.

You can't simply dismiss the opinions given by waiving them away with articles that don't really tie into your initial argument and discount the possibility that the people that are married were also happy with themselves prior to (and during) marriage.

I spent some time alone before getting married and I was a happy and grounded person during that time, and I remain so now. I can honestly say that I am happier with my wife, but I was also happy before her.

 

[ValleyGal]

I can see why you think the two quotes are the same because the first quote feels like an emotional beating especially if it's not true. But the two quotes are not alike at all. Being single is not like a beating and being happy is not simply improved morale.

Happiness is largely set in stone thanks to genetics, which account for 50% of our happiness baseline. Only 10% of happiness level is because of circumstances, which means you can control 40% of your happiness level. This is based on a whole lot of research by Sonja Lyobirmowski (and others). That 40% that can increase your happiness level also feeds mental health, self-confidence, self-esteem - all the things that make you attractive to others, including platonic friendships.

So while I don't agree the two quotes are the same, I do agree - even though it feels like an emotional beating to hear it - that it's important to be secure in who you are, emotionally healthy in order to have a fulfilling relationship with someone who is also secure and emotionally healthy. I have seen this personally, professionally, and I experience it personally. I have been married and am now single, and I have also had very healthy relationships as well as very unhealthy relationships.

 

[Stravinsk]

Heh, I can't say I agree with the statement because it sounds as if the person considered singleness a daily torture. It's not.

However, being single can be hard and even more difficult if one's circle of friends/human contact is severely limited. We are wired for human contact. Married folk have it (usually) on a daily basis but also have to tolerate the little things in the partner's (or extended families) they find annoying (or get out if it's a serious issue). Single people are free of this but can suffer the lonely existence of solitude.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

A response to those who say that a relationship will not fix you or your life, adapted from a Reddit post.

While people are more than their ability to make you feel better, to say through implication a relationship won't radically improve your life if that's what's missing is daft. Whether it's the only thing that's missing, in which case it's the most natural thing in the world to want that, or everything is generally unpleasant but would be made better with a supportive partner, it's perfectly valid to want it and even despair at not having it.

We never hear, "friends won't fix your life", "a good career won't fix your life", "eating well won't fix your life". Because it's absolutely insane. Anything good will enhance your quality of living. You just have to hold out for good things and not settle in their absence or difficulty in obtainability.

As a perpetually unhappy single person, you want to know what probably upsets me more than the status itself? People telling me I should be happy being independent. Ignoring how I feel on the matter. As if I'd need to sacrifice independence in a relationship. The condescension is insulting.

Hating being unlucky in love is normal. Not everybody finds meaning in being single, or great mental health even if it's always important to make the attempt. Stop trying to convince us this is an epidemic that needs to be quelled with cliché affirmations like "You can't love others until you love yourself" or "Nobody can fix you." I'm begging you. While you might have good intentions, you're actually doing more harm than good by invalidating the importance of a relationship through such affirmations.

 

[tango]

I think you're mixing and matching things that don't mix and match here.

Being in multiple relationships (meaning a romantic relationship, having close friends etc) is good for you in many ways. The thing is they don't tend to fix you. If the reason you hang out with your friends is that you hope they will fix you in some way the chances are your friends will soon find they have other things to do. If anything this holds even more for the closest romantic relationship in your life.

To be clear, friends can and do support each other. I've been thankful for a few close friends who have supported me through tough times and I've been there for friends who have needed me through their tough times. The key thing is that the friendship existed long before the tough times happened so it was natural to step up and help out. The person who has never really engaged with me but suddenly wants to be my friend because they know I have a certain skill or experience and wants to tap it because they are in a tough spot isn't necessarily someone I want to devote a lot of time and energy to helping. Even if you tone down the "tough times" to something much more mundane, friends can be there for friends who just need a hand with something, whether that's a bit of expertise or just an extra pair of hands when something needs doing.

As to whether friends, career etc will fix your life, it depends what needs fixing. If you're a jerk and you get a high flying career you'll be a rich jerk. If you're a jerk you'll struggle to find friends who enjoy your company, unless they are also jerks who want something from you just as much as you probably want something from them. If you're not comfortable in your own skin when you're on your own you won't be any more comfortable in your own skin if you're with other people either.

The issue isn't about being happy being single - not everybody is happy being single. The issue is about being happy with who you are. If you're not happy with who you are it probably makes more sense to address that before expecting someone else to be happy with it.

 

[Albion]

deleted

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

If you're not comfortable in your own skin when you're on your own you won't be any more comfortable in your own skin if you're with other people either.

Speaking from personal experience, for me at least, this is absolutely false.

 

[ValleyGal]

Speaking from personal experience, for me at least, this is absolutely false.

I wonder if this has to do with locus of validation. If it's internal, then you don't rely on others to fill that need, and you don't need others to make you feel more comfortable about your identity, your worth, esteem, etc. These people exude confidence and can feel content being both single and partnered up even if they have a preference for one or the other.

If you find Tango's comment false, I would challenge you on that. Relationships are pretty amazing at the beginning because they are so validating. It isn't long before that dwindles away, though, and the reality that Stravinsk talks about, sets in. And if your partner stops offering validation or "comfortableness" (a need you have that you are unfairly expecting them to fulfill), then your discomfort will set back in, self-esteem will plummet and it leads to significant relationship problems. Making someone else responsible for your "comfort" is poor boundaries. You are responsible for your own comfortableness, your own feelings, your own happiness. In other words, it might be necessary to change your locus of validation and control.

 

[tango]

Speaking from personal experience, for me at least, this is absolutely false.

From my personal experience it's absolutely true, which is why I wrote it.

If you don't fundamentally like yourself, how can you expect anyone else to like you? It's kind of like a salesman who is trying to sell something that he wouldn't buy himself, except your sense of identity and self-worth is on the line to get kicked again and again.

It's also worth considering that if you don't fundamentally value yourself, being in a serious relationship is likely to involve ever-more unhealthy levels of sacrifice as you bend and twist more and more to meet what you think your partner expects. In all likelihood that will cause their respect for you to drop until eventually it all falls apart and your self-esteem takes another kicking.

 

[tango]

I wonder if this has to do with locus of validation. If it's internal, then you don't rely on others to fill that need, and you don't need others to make you feel more comfortable about your identity, your worth, esteem, etc. These people exude confidence and can feel content being both single and partnered up even if they have a preference for one or the other.

If you find Tango's comment false, I would challenge you on that. Relationships are pretty amazing at the beginning because they are so validating. It isn't long before that dwindles away, though, and the reality that Stravinsk talks about, sets in. And if your partner stops offering validation or "comfortableness" (a need you have that you are unfairly expecting them to fulfill), then your discomfort will set back in, self-esteem will plummet and it leads to significant relationship problems. Making someone else responsible for your "comfort" is poor boundaries. You are responsible for your own comfortableness, your own feelings, your own happiness. In other words, it might be necessary to change your locus of validation and control.

To follow on from the first paragraph here I'd raise the question of what value you (generic you, not ValleyGal specifically!) have in and of yourself. What do you bring to a relationship? Why would someone want to enter into a relationship with you? Whatever the nature of the relationship - whether it's a friendship, employment, romantic relationship, or whatever else, if you can't answer the question of why the other person would want to enter into it there's a fair chance you don't have a concept of your own value.

Put another way, what value do you have if those things are taken away? If your sense of worth is derived from your job then your boss has the power to strip you of your self-worth as well as your job. If your comfort is based on having a partner then your partner can leave you alone and without value, rather than just alone. And so it goes.

Even in a regular friendship with no romantic ties, there needs to be something about the relationship that benefits both sides in some way. If you don't enjoy each other's company the friendship isn't going to last long. What about your company is enjoyable? What is it about you that your friends seek out? If you have no sense of your value outside of your friends, what sense of value do you bring to your friendships? What reason do friends have to spend time with you - if someone doesn't really enjoy your company the only reason to hang out with you is either because they want something or they are taking pity on you. Frankly most of us can do without friends like that.

As far as more romantic relationships go, just think how things turn out in relationships where he's only in it for the sex and she's only in it for the money, or some similar scenario that isn't based on mutual love and respect. You get the guys who hook up with some "hot babe" who soon finds just how needy she is, or the people who marry someone for their money only to find themselves permanently unhappy because they are expected to act a certain way that doesn't work for them, and so on. At least a sham marriage for a visa usually involves both sides knowing it's a purely business arrangement.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I wonder if this has to do with locus of validation. If it's internal, then you don't rely on others to fill that need, and you don't need others to make you feel more comfortable about your identity, your worth, esteem, etc. These people exude confidence and can feel content being both single and partnered up even if they have a preference for one or the other.

If you find Tango's comment false, I would challenge you on that. Relationships are pretty amazing at the beginning because they are so validating. It isn't long before that dwindles away, though, and the reality that Stravinsk talks about, sets in. And if your partner stops offering validation or "comfortableness" (a need you have that you are unfairly expecting them to fulfill), then your discomfort will set back in, self-esteem will plummet and it leads to significant relationship problems. Making someone else responsible for your "comfort" is poor boundaries. You are responsible for your own comfortableness, your own feelings, your own happiness. In other words, it might be necessary to change your locus of validation and control.

If your partner stops offering you the happiness that they did at the beginning, then something changed about them or/and yourself, and you need to explore through therapy what changed, so you can work on getting things back to how they were at the beginning.

I absolutely disagree about the rest of the things you said. Please read post #12 carefully one more time. And if you still hold to the same beliefs after you do, there's no need to continue replying because we have opposing views on the matter, and I don't think you will change mine.

 

[ValleyGal]

As a perpetually unhappy single person, you want to know what probably upsets me more than the status itself? People telling me I should be happy being independent. Ignoring how I feel on the matter. As if I'd need to sacrifice independence in a relationship. The condescension is insulting.

I don't think anyone (here) is telling you that you "should" be happy being independent. But what I see here is a little contradictory. You are single and independent and unhappy about it, but then you go on to say "as if I'd need to sacrifice independence..." as if you value independence.

In a relationship you DO sacrifice independence. Healthy boundaries say that you are responsible FOR yourself (including your own happiness), but you are responsible TO others. That includes your partner. If you have a partner, you can't just go on living your life as though you don't have one.

I might venture to suggest that your perpetual unhappiness with your marital status is likely what is keeping you in that situation. If you ever would like to work on that, try a CBT therapist who can help you get to the core of how you are contributing to your own situation.

While you might have good intentions, you're actually doing more harm than good by invalidating the importance of a relationship through such affirmations.

People are naturally, instinctually driven to seek out relationships. People might be saying some harmful things, but when they do, it might be a good time to open up some real, intimate, heart-to-heart discussions about what they are saying, about empathy, and about their intentions, which are probably good even if they hurt. Years ago my partner died, and people would come up and say "he's not in pain anymore" or "he's in a better place". These comments were well-intended, spoke to the idea that they were uncomfortable with my pain, they cared about me because they wanted to make me feel better, and didn't know what else they could say. But rather than focus on the words, I focused on the intent. I wasn't going to let their painful words rain on my grief! It's the same with you and your relationship status. Rather than focus on the words, try focusing on the intent behind them. That is, they are trying to help you by showing you what could change to start drawing people to you. I don't know you, so being happy might be one of them. I will tell you that most women want someone who is content, confident, positive, optimistic, fun, and good company, a best friend. Let me ask you: are you your own best friend? Would you want to be best friends with you?

As for replying to this thread, I have to say that I'm finding the discussion interesting as it's making me think more outside my own little box, as will happen when discussions take place when there are differing opinions. Life would be really boring if you limit it to only people who agree with you all the time. People can disagree and still have wonderful conversations and agree to disagree if the point isn't about winning or changing someone else's mind. If the point is simply stimulating conversation and critical thinking, then it's worth it! Case in point: I used to belong to a discussion forum years ago and would "have it out" with one of the members there. There were about 3 conversations that we totally disagreed on (one of which was boundaries), but those conversations were amazing and difficult and challenging and stimulating. Back then he was my sworn enemy. But I was in college taking a course in stats, and it just so happened he was a stats professor in a different country. He offered me to ask him anything and he would help me through it. If it weren't for him, I would never have passed. Because of his gesture, I had a whole new take on him and have very fond memories of our discussions and his tutoring me. So don't discount discussions like this one and turn it into a stimulating conversation where you and all of us can think outside the box, see it from all sides, and increase understanding rather than decide if we agree or not and leave it at that.