Can I ask a philosophical question?

[NY Disney fan]

Is love/intimacy/companionship a right or a privilege? Does one have a right to be in love/have (romantic) companionship?

Is it detrimental to the soul if one remains single (not by choice) for the rest of their lives?

 

[Buckalew11]

No, I do not think it is IF you give and get LOVE. There is no love like God's so if you have a relationship with your creator you will not suffer from lack of love. Then, as you know, there are many people in this world that need to be shown love and who will love you back!

They say married people fare better...but I doubt it, really, I think fulfilled people fare best. And that type of fulfillment comes from giving and sharing love, not fulfillment from success/money/power, etc.

 

[Tinkermommy]

OK, I'll bite.

Very few things are a right IMO. A right is something you have in and of yourself and no one needs to do or give you anything for it. You have a right to your thoughts, free speech (at least in our country), etc.

So no, having a romantic partner/relationship is not a right. It is a gift in my opinion that you give to yourself and the other person.

As to it being detrimental, only if you allow it to be. I can think of many people who lived long and rewarding lives without a partner (Mother Theresa comes to mind) and I have a uncle-in-law that is 78 never been married and has always seemed very content with his bachelorhood.

 

[AlleyKat]

Is it detrimental to the soul if one remains single (not by choice) for the rest of their lives?

Certainly not!

It's detrimental to be in a relationship that is soul-sapping!

 

[Gigi22]

Nope. If you can't be happy alone, could you possibly be happy with another person? You can't love another if you don't first love yourself.

 

[ols386]

I don't believe a person needs to have love, intimacy, whatever, in their life to be happy and live a full productive life. Personally, I think it's nice if you do, but certainly don't think it's required.

 

[Golf4food]

We need love, but it does not have to be romantic love. There are different types of love. And each person will be different based upon how introverted or extroverted they are. An introvert might be fine with one friend. An extrovert might want family, lots of friends, etc. But none of it is a "right".

 

[eliza61]

Nope. If you can't be happy alone, could you possibly be happy with another person? You can't love another if you don't first love yourself.

My older brother, who is not a nice person (long story) is on his 3rd marriage and it's in the toilet. He keeps trying to find a mate to give him love and happiness while he is such a miserable person.

We need love, but it does not have to be romantic love. There are different types of love. And each person will be different based upon how introverted or extroverted they are. An introvert might be fine with one friend. An extrovert might want family, lots of friends, etc. But none of it is a "right".

I'm a social animal. I need various relationships to feed my soul. My faith, my girlfriends, my cousins and my immediate family all fill a part of me. If I lose anyone I feel the loss.

I don't think it's a "right". I think of love as more of a gift that we have to nurture. ignore it, abuse it and you'll lose it.

 

[Sparx]

I've written about single vs. married (longterm relationship) a lot in my classes.

From all the data I've seen about studies on the long term single (those who have never been in a serious long term relationship and spend years and years single at a time) it is detrimental to the person's happiness.

I remember that the long term single person is more likely to attempt suicide, and often feels very disconected from society. For some reason they tend to not make as much money as a like-demographic married person.

I do think love is a right. I think we all deserve love. I think we make decisions or act in ways that sometimes prevent us being loved and I think many are in situations (due to no fault of their own) that they are not loved. But I think we all deserve love.

ETA
On Maslow's hierarchy of needs, love and intimate relationships is definitely a necessity on the path to self actualization.

 

[kaytieeldr]

So no, having a romantic partner/relationship is not a right. It is a gift in my opinion that you give to yourself and the other person.

That's an excellent way to put it, Tinkermommy. Neither "right" nor "privilege" seemed to make sense to me; "gift" does.

 

[luvmy3]

Having relationships is a privelegde and the only way being single is detrimental to one's soul is if they allow it to be.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I think we are all born with a need to be loved. Since I am Faithful I tend to think the fact we are born this way means we are born with a right that should be respected by our parents. If born lucky a child will be born to parents capable of love and that child will learn to love though example. If a child is not lucky he/she could still learn from others how to love and therefore be lovable in spite of earlier deficits. If that same child never learns to love by experiencing love he/she will grow up yearning for what they missed and either repeatedly destroy anyone who tries to love them or end up in a hateful angry solitary existence raging because of what they know was their right, which was to be loved.

I'm not sure if this is where you were aiming but love has been an interesting topic of conversation in my house recently. My DH studied Forensic Psych and a recent quadruple murder in our region (Michael Ballard) has gotten my DH and I talking about sociopathology.

Now, in looser social terms, your question seems to point at a person being deprived of a loving relationship. I don't really think anyone can actually be deprived of a loving relationship by another entity. Love comes in all forms, there is Agape, Eros, Philia and Storge. Each has a place in a humans experience and most humans have multiple connections which provide a 2 way flow. I do not think that one form over another is more or less advantageous. Sometimes more than one can be in one relationship while other people choose to separate them all out into separate sources, like the philanderer spouse who Agape loves a spouse but Eros loves strangers. I firmly believe that a non-deviant person will find some form(s) of human connection somewhere because we all crave it and are driven by our need for it.

The whole idea of a right to love and be loved sort of splinters off to me once a person outgrows the child-parent relationship. A person needs to be love worthy to be loved by others as an adult.

Again, maybe I'm totally off the mark on where your question was aimed. I tend to get a little theoretical with things. If you were looking for something else a few more clues towards the goal would be helpful

 

[MAKmom]

Is love/intimacy/companionship a right or a privilege? Does one have a right to be in love/have (romantic) companionship?

Is it detrimental to the soul if one remains single (not by choice) for the rest of their lives?

Yes it is a right to be able to seek love/intimacy & companionship.

 

[Nomi]

Is love/intimacy/companionship a right or a privilege? Does one have a right to be in love/have (romantic) companionship?

Is it detrimental to the soul if one remains single (not by choice) for the rest of their lives?

I don't think it is a right or a privilege so much as it is human nature.

I don't believe in souls, but I think that it is detrimental to be alone as humans are a social animal. However, not every person needs a romantic companion.

 

[whogirl'smom]

ETA
On Maslow's hierarchy of needs, love and intimate relationships is definitely a necessity on the path to self actualization.

That's exactly what I was thinking about...I think that love is a NEED, but not a right nor a privilege. You can't define something emotional as being a "right" b/c it is provided in a subjective manner, not like providing education, which is a right in this country. I think that if a person is single, not by choice, as in the original quesiton, then eventually the lack of companionship will have a detrimental effect on said person. But if a person is single by choice, as in not being in romantic relationships by choice, then as long as you have other loving relationships you can feel fulfilled. You can have intimacy in friend and family relationships that keep you connected to other people.

 

[emer95]

No, I do not think it is IF you give and get LOVE. There is no love like God's so if you have a relationship with your creator you will not suffer from lack of love. Then, as you know, there are many people in this world that need to be shown love and who will love you back!

They say married people fare better...but I doubt it, really, I think fulfilled people fare best. And that type of fulfillment comes from giving and sharing love, not fulfillment from success/money/power, etc.

What a truly beautiful response!

 

[Magic Mom]

Is love/intimacy/companionship a right or a privilege? Does one have a right to be in love/have (romantic) companionship?

Is it detrimental to the soul if one remains single (not by choice) for the rest of their lives?

It is your right to seek out love and companionship, but having it is a priveledge.