SoulWolf Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Doesn't actually mention aromanticism anywhere, but it's still relevant... Snippet: Quote Older women are just as psychologically healthy with or without romantic partner When adults get into their mid-fifties and beyond, how much does a romantic partner matter to their psychological well-being? Matthew Wright and Susan Brown of Bowling Green University, authors of a study recently published online at the Journal of Marriage and Family, expected to find a hierarchy of good outcomes. They predicted that married people would enjoy the greatest psychological well-being. Cohabiters, they thought, would do next best, and daters would follow in third place. They expected unpartnered single people to be worst off, psychologically. That is not what they found. Link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201611/no-partner-no-worries-new-study-psychological-health Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hey you in the corner Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Nice read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kojote Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Thanks for sharing =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philbo Wiseroot Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Nice read. I like how the article singles out how privilaged married people are over cohabiting partners, even romantic ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassiopeia Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 It would be interesting to see this study as an international comparsion. How different people's lives are depending on how and where they live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EveryZig Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Interesting study. I also noticed the article mentioned something called being single-at-heart, which when I follow the link on it seems to basically be a way of describing aromanticism before there was the word aromantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 15 hours ago, EveryZig said: Interesting study. I also noticed the article mentioned something called being single-at-heart, which when I follow the link on it seems to basically be a way of describing aromanticism before there was the word aromantic. I'm not sure that these are exactly the same thing. Since there are aromantic people who desire very couple oriented relationships. There are also alloromantic people who seek relationships with very different dynamics and structures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Untamed Heart Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I think the 'single-at-hearts' aren't necessarily aromantic, and an article I read that was specifically about that (link below), didn't really imply they preferred to be single because of being aro or aro spec, or not liking romance for some reason - rather it applied to people who feel more self sufficient. Like Mark said, being aro doesn't always preclude a desire for a relationship of some kind. Also, it sounds like a relatively newer term to me than aromanticism, but I might be wrong. There's definitely some overlap, in any case - different causes with similar end results for some people https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201003/are-you-single-heart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.