Forum Debate: Is Being Single Better Than Having a Partner?

Having a Partner: An Asset or a Financial Loss?

The question of whether partnership is beneficial is as old as marriage itself, but the current economic climate has made it uncomfortable. The initial premise is stark: a source of stress, financial loss, and separation risks including alimony. From there, the conversation shifts to calculations sketched on napkins by participants. If regular sens were purchased, one user argues, a rate of €90 per hour across 16 monthly encounters totals €1,440. The implicit question is whether the average worker can afford this. The consensus in the thread is that they cannot.

The Calculation That Dismantles Romance

The first block of analysis is purely accounting-based. It discusses whether the average man can pay €1,440 monthly just to cover a physiological need regularly. The quick conclusion is no, leading to a comparison with stable partnerships: if sens is the only motive, costs skyrocket. However, some correct the figures: an hour of service might effectively last 15 minutes, and the real price per encounter ranges between €40 and €50. The full breakdown, item by item, reveals surprising differences that each person adjusts based on their own endurance.

The second layer of debate concerns frequency. It is argued that 16 encounters a month only happen at the start of a relationship. Over time, the average drops to one twenty-minute encounter weekly, reducing potential savings to about €80 a month. The joke is that partners are cheap if measured solely by this metric. The rest of the day’s remaining 23.5 hours is another matter entirely.

What Is a Partner For If Not Sens?

Here the issue splits into two camps. One defends that a partner only makes sense for reproduction and raising children. This is the legacy thesis: building a family and leaving something behind in your image. The other camp responds that society has reduced this goal to a burden: men become payers without receiving anything in return, risking loss of contact with their children and assets upon breakup.

In contrast, some advocate for emotional complicity as sufficient reason. A partnership would be a space for mutual support, shared plans, and emotional connection, with risks that are worth taking. While many relationships are acknowledged as overrated, a distinction is drawn between living with a partner and living with the wrong partner. Love, it is argued, does not appear initially; what exists at first is lust. Real bonding comes later, when chemistry fades and balance remains.

The Wear and Tear Starting With the First Child

The temporal evolution of the topic is clear. Several accounts converge on a turning point: the first child. After that, they describe a routine shift where partners stop paying attention to each other, tensions arise with extended family, and desire cools. The phrase summarizing this stage is that married men feel neglected. The recurring consolation is that parenting, at least for now, is still worthwhile.

The counterpoint comes from those claiming to have been together for 13 years while maintaining desire. This is not the norm depicted, but it breaks the generalization. Others argue that cohabitation is organized by agreed-upon rules and character, not gender, and that a messy person is unbearable regardless of who they are.

The Escape Route: Living Alone Without Regret

The option of solitude has explicit defenders. One states he has been living alone for twenty years without ever thinking he’d be better off with a woman in his home. Another says he knew clearly at age 8, upon discovering motorhomes, that his only mistake was buying an apartment. Criticism of partnership mixes with criticism of opportunity cost: purchasing power is generally higher when single.

Spending is another front. It is claimed that women spend more than half, and if they manage their own money, the joint budget suffers. The repeated conclusion is that being single is cheaper, and cohabitation only pays off if there is a strong desire for fatherhood and above-average financial stability.

What the Calculation Doesn’t Resolve

The point where the analysis stalls is always the same. The numbers for paid sens are clear, the marital wear-and-tear figures are recognizable, and the solitary lifestyle stats are defensible. But none explain why people continue to pair up. The lingering answer is that there is something outside the spreadsheet: parenting, complicity, or simply the antiestéticar of being alone. And that cannot be measured in euros.