Yup; I figured that out. But it’s still not the blush icon.
Of course, even if it were, I wouldn’t necessarily remember that. I don’t use it all that often.
I’m not following the difficulty here. Or are you just expressing a peeve?
I click the button to trigger the pop-up with all the emojis, click the section for faces, and scroll down until I see the one I want.
This 
is flushed
This 
is hot_face
This 
is rage
There doesnt seem to exactly be a blushing emoji.
You sure?
There’s a search box and that one above is explicitly called : blush :
Wow. There it is. D’oh!
I don’t associate blushing with smiling, so I wrote that one off as “couldn’t be” without clicking it to see what it was named.
I guess it does take a village to find the blush. Thank you.
Oh, there is. There are just so many of them that you didn’t see it.
That’s my peeve, I think. I can never find the one I’m after because it gets lost in all the others. And most of them seem to require an explanation, at least for me – and sometimes the name doesn’t help. What, precisely, am I supposed to make of hot_face? Is it supposed to express anger? That the room or weather is hot? That somebody’s sexy? Something else?
So there is!
Much of the source of peeve removed. Thanks! Don’t know why I didn’t notice it before.
I’ll quote myself from upthread in response to both these statements: “A YouTuber who I like and respect, in no small part because he’s analytical and thoughtful, said that you can’t be considered fully “grown up” if you don’t have and raise a kid. Dogs and cats don’t count. I was rather taken aback at that statement, and my knee-jerk reaction was “fuck you, you don’t get to decide that.” It’s basically a case of “well that’s just like, your opinion, man.” Because in this day and age, that seems like a rather antiquated notion, especially considering the quotes above. It comes across as selfish, bringing children into a harsh world just to tick some checkbox on your own scorecard of maturity.”
Or selfishness as I alluded to above.
And I think that’s what turns a lot of people off of it. While it may average out to a similar level of middling happiness, those high highs and low lows are much more stressful on your system, mentally and physically. The big increase in divorce rates illustrates that these family structures actually don’t work that well. It’s only in recent history that it’s actually possible to get out of them, whereas in the past people were forced to stay in relationships that weren’t actually working.
Is working on one’s career an end unto itself? More and more the answer is no, especially when employees are treated as interchangeable cogs in an uncaring system that will replace them at the drop of a hat. On top of that, enjoying one’s time when it’s available is perhaps more rational than preparing for a future that may never come. You could get run over by a bus tomorrow, or a financial crash could render your decades of carefully curated savings worthless. Then all your grinding will have been for naught.
The notion that work, raising a family, and settling down are righteous, if not the only acceptable activities comes from puritanical religious practices where suffering and sacrifice are glorified. It’s a means to ingratiate yourself to a spiteful god that’s dangling a carrot of eternal bliss in one hand, while wielding a stick of eternal torture in the other. As fewer people believe such things, there’s less impetus to torture one’s self in hopes of achieving an afterlife that’s not guaranteed. Sure, living entirely in the now with no plans for the future is risky too, but “because this is how it’s ‘supposed’ to be” or “because <insert_deity_name/> says so” isn’t gonna fly anymore.
I’m kind of old and I don’t really know anyone who got married or had kids or “settled down” or “worked at a career” because that’s how it’s supposed to be or because some deity said so. However, some people I know did one or more of those things less because of their own desire to do them and more because they didn’t want to become the people who didn’t. They didn’t want to be the person who grew away from their friends in their 30s (as the friends got married and had kids) and ended up being “that old guy” at the bar full of people in their 20s. They didn’t want to be the person who ends up alone in their 40s and older because they either never had a relationship or haven’t had one since their 20s and don’t really know how to have one now. They didn’t want to become the 60 year old who never worked at a career and was fine with just a job and never saved money because they didn’t plan to retire who ended up disabled and unable to work before they could collect social security.
I didn’t mean anything like that. Different people get self-actualized lives worth living from doing different things. Some people absolutely should not have children (and I don’t only mean the terrible people, I mean also the good people who just aren’t good with kids). Other people would probably do OK with kids if they had them, but have perfectly good and entirely grownup lives without having any.
What I was pushing back against was the implication, in the post I was replying to with the one that you quoted, that one can’t have a good self-actualized life if one does have kids. Again, people vary; not everybody needs, or does well with, the same kind of life. I absolutely need to live out in the country. One of my sisters absolutely needs to live in New York City. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with either of us; or not “self-actualized” about our lives.
For someone who doesn’t want to do those things, it would indeed require suffering and sacrifice.
For someone who does want to do those things, the rewards far outweigh the downsides.
If you don’t want to settle down, raise a family, or have a life’s work: then don’t. But don’t assume that everybody who does so is only doing so because they’re being forced to by “puritanical religous practices”, or even by the demands of secular society. Not everybody is you; and not everybody is like you.
For sure, I’m not claiming that people only do it because they’re forced to, but some definitely were, and fewer people are letting themselves be forced into it. The same goes for “why haven’t you made me some grandchildren yet?” I’m making the same argument that “not everybody is you; and not everybody is like you.” We’re on the same page.
Another factor I haven’t mentioned is the growing discontent with suburban living. Suburbs have expanded so much that they’re not an escape from the city anymore, they’re not even an escape from each other. Traffic is miserable, and moving farther out doesn’t solve that. You’re likely to have more lawn to mow too, and the plethora of lawn care services show that most people don’t want to do it themselves. Suburbs have been so overbuilt while quality urban living has been so underbuilt (or demolished) that demand for urban living is outstripping supply. Thus, someone (or a couple) who wants to stay in the city is finding it harder to do so if they need more space or want to raise kids. Urban school districts haven’t really been able to keep up, so families often have to move to the suburbs for that reason alone. The ones who do are lauded for “finally growing up and buying a house and a minivan” even if it’s a tradeoff they didn’t want to make.
I don’t know how old you are, but I can see why many young people would be relationship-averse if they shared your POV. But to my mind it also sounds like various flavors of “life is too hard and potentially scary so don’t try”.
People raised children when the world was a lot harsher than it is today.
Yes, but keep in mind children used to be raised by a vast network of family members and people in the community, not two parents alone. The isolated nuclear family today is an incredibly punishing structure for would-be parents. Especially as people are having children later in life and help from grandparents is becoming more and more uncommon.
I don’t have a relationship with either of my parents, my husband’s mother is elderly and lives in Florida, and his Dad is a grade A asshole who has barely a passing interest in our lives. I have nobody to whom I can just drop off my child in an emergency or even for a date night. I haven’t had a full 24 hours without child care since he was born.
I think it’s overwhelmingly worth it, but I’m also privileged in many ways, including having very flexible work hours and employers that understand the demands of child rearing. I don’t know how people who don’t have that manage to hold down jobs, especially during the Winter when the whole family has some awful illness every ten days.
But that’s coming from both sides. There are some people not having kids basically because they’re scared to, and also some people having kids basically because they’re scared not to. As doreen said upthread,
It’s sad when anybody does anything primarily because they’re afraid of the alternatives. The human potential to create essentially infinite ways to have a satisfying and meaningful life is so immense.
It’s a pity that human fear and insecurity lock us into mental life-straitjackets like “Being a spouse and parent would be too hard and scary so I gotta stay single” or “Being an aging single person would be too hard and scary so I gotta marry and procreate”. Those are not good reasons to make those choices.
I don’t think “not wanting to be the old guy in the bar with no friends or relationships” is that unreasonable of a goal.
I watch a lot of reality shows on Bravo and VH1 with my wife (really she watches them and I just sort of keep her company). They are interesting in that I think many of them capture some of the mentality I witnessed in my 20s (albeit in a highly exaggerated and insane manner). And from what I can tell, they seem to be dealing with many of the issues I’ve observed people face as they get older.
Basically young people in their 20s have all the time, energy, and attractiveness in the world. So many of them want to take advantage of that as much as possible - partying, sleeping around, trying different careers or focusing on jobs that enable your lifestyle even if they have no long-term future. Particularly if you have a little bit of money.
Now you can do that for awhile. But not forever. Friends get married. People get more serious about their careers and those careers become more demanding. Behaviors leading to short-term sexual gratification may hinder your ability to build deeper long-term relationships. At some point, you will look like the old weirdo who stayed at the party too long.
Of course, this is largely viewed through the lens of my peer-group of largely conventionally attractive (or at least not unattractive), highly educated, reasonably financially successful adults. This isn’t even getting into “incels” and other subgroups who are not so much “relationship-averse” as they are “below the threshold of suitability of most people to form a relationship with”.
Sure, and “not wanting to be that unfulfilled sad sack trapped in a miserable marriage with estranged unhappy children” is not that unreasonable of a goal either.
My point is that being an unfulfilled sad-sack destroyed by negative experiences with marriage and parenthood is not the only possible way to live one’s life as a spouse and parent.
And being an “old guy in the bar with no friends or relationships” is not the only possible way to live one’s life as a single person.
Stop trying to put everybody into the same limiting set of boxes. Not everybody drifts away from their friends just because they get married, or don’t get married. Not everybody avoids having a serious and fulfilling career just because they decide not to have children. Not everybody who continues having short-term sexual relationships is missing out on deeper relationships in other aspects of life.
Maybe stop taking reality shows, and your one friend group of socially-conformist people from a very narrow socioeconomic demographic, as a blueprint for life success for all of humanity, though? There are many different ways to be a happy and fulfilled human being.
Then why do you sound so defensive? I’m not the Marriage Police. What do you care what I think people should do? (I, in fact, don’t care).
Maybe stop acting like people who do normal conventional shit like get married, have kids, and pursue relatively lucrative or otherwise successful careers are some sort of weirdo “conformists” or “afraid of” whatever.
The one thing I will say though is I do believe that marriage, and having kids in particular, is definitely the riskier option. You know what happens if someone decides to be single for the rest of their life? Nothing. They can stay single. They can change their mind at any time. They can go join various clubs or activities if they feel lonely.
“Oh man, I don’t know what I’m going to do to save my failing 'being single”." said no one ever.
Marriage OTOH sometimes doesn’t work out. And when it doesn’t there are usually emotional and financial costs.
And you can’t really decide to “un-parent”. I mean I guess without being a shitty parent who ignores or abandons their children, which I guess some people are fine with.
If you think that anybody who wants to can find a suitable marriage partner at any time: that is just plain not so.
Lots of people have said this, if not in those words.
There’s nothing wrong with getting married. There’s nothing wrong with not getting married. There’s nothing wrong with having kids (presuming one’s willing to take care of them.) There’s nothing wrong with not having kids. And different things suit different people: some people are much happier single, some people are much happier married.
But there are “emotional and financial costs” to either being married or being single.
Of course not. My point is simply unlike marriage or children, being single is not something one is contractually, economically, or otherwise locked into (beyond their ability to find a partner, obviously).
Do people believe that young singles are more apt to be single because they aren’t interested in relationships or because they are unable to find one?
I’ve heard stories about how in China their one child policies have led to an imbalance of men to women. I remember from my college days where my school also had a bad men to women ration how that sort of thing doesn’t do a society any good whatsoever.
You’re the one sounding defensive here, ISTM. I’m the one maintaining that there are great ways to be married and great ways to be single (as well as not-so-great ways to be either one), and that nobody ought to be avoiding either marriage or singledom because of reductionist fear-filled stereotypes about them:
Thank you. Didn’t realize that some people might find this view so controversial; it looks pretty self-evident to me, tbh.
In general, married people live longer than single people, for both genders. So it seems that single might be the harder life overall.
Of course, with marriage there is the possibility of divorce, which is also not very good for the mortality tables.