To provide some background to this blog post before beginning my response. In May 2011, I self-published my first ever book on loneliness entitled, The Lonely Screams: Understanding the Complex World of the Lonely. The book contains a compilation of 18 autobiographical stories of loneliness collected from visitors to the Web of Loneliness. In addition, it contained some of my thoughts concerning each of those stories. Later that year I had submitted a review copy to PsychCentral, in the hopes of getting both some more publicity about the book and some constructive feedback about how to improve the book or for future books. PsychCentral and the Web of Loneliness have a long, collaborative history, as PsychCentral lists the Web of Loneliness as a top-rated website (http://psychcentral.com/resources/Relationships/) and even ran a blog post about me and my activities with the website in 2010 (http://blogs.psychcentral.com/therapy-soup/2010/12/loneliness-support-with-sean-seepersad/). Much to my dismay, I did not hear back from PsychCentral and just assumed that they were either too busy or not interested in reviewing the book. However, just recently I discovered that PsychCentral had done a review and it was a very negative review. This blog post is a response to that review in the hopes of correcting what are some apparent misconceptions about me and about the book.

First off, let me start by saying that I am under no illusion that I had written a New York Times bestseller or a masterful literary piece. As I said, I fully expected PsychCentral to provide some constructive feedback about the book and suggestions about how it can be improved. What really disappointed me was PsychCentral’s Recommendation that the book is “Not Worth Your Time.” I find that recommendation to be, quite frankly, insulting. And it is not that it is insulting to me personally, but more than half of the book consists of contributions by visitors to the Web of Loneliness, visitors who took the time, the emotional energy, and the courage to write down their life stories in the hopes that it can serve as a source of strength and support to others who suffer from loneliness. To say that the book is “Not Worth Your Time” essentially sends a very loud and clear message that those 18 individuals stories are not worth anyone’s time. That is one of my huge disappointments about PsychCentral’s recommendation – the belittling of the stories of these courageous people.

Second, I wanted to say quite emphatically that I am not a clinical psychologist. The reviewer of the book wrongly labeled me as a clinical psychologist although nowhere in the book or anywhere else for that matter where I have contributed, have I said that I am a clinical psychologist or even therapist. Anyone who has asked me for advice or guidance would usually hear me say that one of the best things you could do is to go and see a therapist and that I am not one. I correct people who mistakenly think I am one because I do not want to give the wrong impression of myself or my training. That fact in the review is plain wrong and PsychCentral should, for the very least, correct that error in the review.

One of the things that struck me about this review is what appears to be the underlying assumption that the reviewer is apparently basing her analysis. Although it was not said explicitly, the assumption appears to be that this book is a self-help book designed to help lonely individuals, through a series of revelations or practical steps reduce their feelings of loneliness. For example, the reviewer uses the word, “solutions” and that I am giving “advice.” Anyone who has interviewed me will have heard me say that I think that self-help books are a waste of time trying to help chronically lonely people feel less lonely. If chronically lonely people could read a book and feel less lonely, they would have done it a long time ago. The fact of the matter is that real, meaningful change is going to require a much more deliberate, therapeutic effort. So while my “solutions” and “advice” may seem superficial because in the self-help framework they would be, these were much more my musings and thoughts about loneliness. They are meant to be a starting point for discussion, hence the format of the book offering links to continue the conversations online. They are not meant as a step-by-step guide for effectively reducing your loneliness because I know that is a futile effort to try to do through a book.

Another critique in the review was that the book was not focused enough on loneliness. The reviewer stated that contributors of some of the stories seemed to be exhibiting “profound clinical depression” and “suicidality”. I think the reviewer is even suggesting that I had chosen the wrong stories because apparently some of them were about things than other than loneliness. All of these stories were from people who self-identified as lonely, and might I infer, for whom loneliness is a core, central problem in their life. It is not just that loneliness and depression are “sorrowful bedfellows” but rather that loneliness is a core problem out from which flows these other clinical issues. Often the mental health field has not paid enough attention to the impact of loneliness as a causal, central problem, which if addressed can has a cascading effect on these others issues as well. Check out Emily White’s book, Lonely – A Memoir for a detailed discussion, or just check out my dissertation and see the effect reducing loneliness can have on other clinical issues.

Even if loneliness is a central issue, why not just focus on that in the stories and cut out the other “stuff?” The reason is that there have been ample books in the past that have done exactly that, dissected the issue of loneliness, cutting up people’s stories of loneliness, and distilling the problem of loneliness in an isolated vacuum. For me, something is lost in this process, a holistic picture of who that person is, where they come from, what they had to endure, what they are thinking and feeling, the whole messy picture that is that person’s life. I deliberately chose to include almost word-for-word autobiographical stories because I wanted readers to really enter into a lonely person’s world. That, to me, is the complexity of the lonely, and addressing it through a variety of different lenses is important to get a whole picture. If you want to call that a lack of focus, so be it, but to me, I call it seeing the whole picture.

Coming back to the issue of the reviewer’s comments that my commentary was “shallow” and that my advice “glib.” The reviewer thought I could have spent more time analyzing each person’s story and commenting on the exact origins of each contributor’s loneliness. In my preface, I discussed that my commentary is nothing more than an educated guess. I have no way of knowing for certain if I am necessarily interpreting these stories correctly. My analyses were based off of one story from each person. I am sure that any clinical psychologist or therapist will tell you that one story is hardly enough to make any sound basis of diagnosis or to do any more than speculate about what is going on with that person. It would have been futile for me to start constructing elaborate cause-and-effect models about what is going on in a person’s life based off of a story. Again, that was not the point. The point was to inspire introspection and discussion. At some point people want the story to be relatable to them, and that is where I was trying to take it in my commentary, not necessarily to answer the contributor’s questions. I’m not even sure some of the contributors will ever read the book because they gave me their story years ago, and the emails I have for them are no longer valid. So I am speaking to the current readers and trying to connect with them through the story of someone else. Getting down to the nitty-gritty of someone’s life and making elaborate assumptions about them seemed like a waste of time to me.

The reviewer also suggested that some of my thoughts about the origins were “often” contradictory. The word “often” was qualified with one, very shaky example given between two chapters. I cannot be sure exactly which two stories the reviewer was talking about, since she failed to mention the chapter names or numbers but I am assuming they were about Louise (Chapter 5) and Justin (Chapter 12). She said I “wondered” why Louise sought relationships even though she was afraid of intimacy and then I talked about the basic human need to belong with Justin. First off, the “wondering” was asking a question the reader might have been asking himself/herself. I went on to answer the “wondering” with a discussion about trust issues and how having a sense of mistrust can be a barrier to forming relationships a person may be longing for (because, you might say, of their basic need to belong). How these two thoughts are contradictory, is beyond me.

The reviewer concludes that in the end, it felt little more than reading a public website. Well, in the preface I said this book is an extension to the Web of Loneliness, a chance to voice some stories of loneliness and to put some thoughts down I usually cannot do on the website. And it is also a chance to do a bit of fundraising. See, every single penny of royalty I have received from the sale of this book has been reinvested back into the Web of Loneliness. I have been running the website (for a decade) mostly through my own financial resources. I thought this might be a good idea to raise some money for the Web of Loneliness and bring the issue of loneliness to a larger audience.

While I can accept critical feedback as an author, I think the "not worth your time" comment only reinforces the notion that lonely people are somehow victims of their own actions and could simply choose to engage if they so wished. Nothing can be farther from the truth and all the people I wrote about are bright and intelligent people, often with excellent social skills, who, none the less, have difficulty forming and maintaining intimate connections. While my writing skills may, indeed, be less than stellar, this topic deserves a deeper understanding and examination and PsychCentral's review does nothing to move this problem forward. 

When you hear the stories of the lonely, especially those that have been experiencing loneliness for a long period of time, one thing stands out quite clearly: There is usually no readily available one shot answer to helping them get out of loneliness. Of course, if you ask lonely folks what's the way out of loneliness, I'm sure at least 80% of them would say, finding a romantic partner. That is what most people seem to need, one person who will love and care for them the way no one is currently doing and arguably has done in their past. And sure enough, if a romantic partner came along, loneliness certainly does seem to vanish like a bad dream one is waking out of. Loneliness researcher, Robert Weiss, said that romantic relationships seems to be like an "anti-loneliness pill" providing immediate relief from the painful condition of loneliness. If we are lucky, the romantic relationship serves its purpose and we are forever cured of our loneliness, but I suspect for most of us, loneliness creeps back up into our existence once the euphoria of falling in love dies down.

I believe that the real, initial cure for loneliness, lies not in romantic relationships or friendships, but in our ability to be vulnerable. When we are born into the world, we are taught through a series of interactions whether the world is a safe place or not and whether others can be trusted. So, when we are babies and we cry because we are hungry , or hurt, or sad, does someone come and help alleviate our need? Or, are we left to fend for ourselves, at least until the parent or other caregiver has no choice but to come to our aid. Over time we learn the degree to which we can rely on and trust others. Some of us are lucky enough to have very nurturing and loving parents in our lives that give us a feeling of trust in others - we can expect in our hour of need someone we love will be there to comfort us. If we are not so lucky, we develop a sense of mistrust in others - in our hour of need, we have to do what we can for ourselves, no one else can be trusted or relied upon for help. Mistrust in others usually manifests itself in two ways, either we completely reject others and totally fend for ourselves or we demand help from others in a very possessive, jealous, dominating manner.

So what does this have to do with vulnerability? Well, essentially our life experiences teach us how much we have to guard the vulnerable parts of us. The vulnerable parts of us, psychologically speaking, is the emotional parts of us. Emotions reveal our weaknesses by showing others what is important to us. Sometimes our life experiences teach us that others cannot be trusted, in the sense that one day others will eventually hurt us. Sometimes our life experiences teach us that others are trustworthy and while they might hurt us, they genuinely have our best interest at heart. When we do not trust others, we form a defense barrier around ourselves, a way to protect us from outsiders, and to keep our vulnerable emotions hidden and locked away. The barrier eventually becomes so strong that even if we tried to remove it, it becomes difficult to do so. Someone who is very distrusting of others would become extremely anxious and fearful at the thought of removing their barriers. It is not a simple thing to remove.

The problem with our defense barrier is that it is the antithesis of forming a true and meaningful relationship. When you hide your vulnerable emotions on the inside, people cannot connect with you, and you cannot connect with others. You could have tons and tons of friendships or romantic relationships but at the end of the day they all feel superficial because you have still locked away the most vulnerable parts of you. So, you could certainly fall in love, and display a ton of emotions, but still have hidden away, your deepest secrets, desires, fears, hopes, and dreams. Eventually these relationships collapse because they cannot move forward.

The solution is not, of course, to be vulnerable to everyone, everywhere. We have to be discerning about who we choose to be vulnerable to. But we have to grow the ability to become vulnerable, and to become vulnerable despite experiencing numerous rejections. Those individuals with successful, deep, meaningful friendships have not avoided hurt altogether. No, rather they have learned to pick themselves up after getting hurt and being strong enough to be open and vulnerable to hurt again. That's an amazing thing to do, something I argue not many people can do. But if you learn to do it, you will have found your cure for loneliness.

I have been over the past year bookmarking a long list of links that are in some way related to loneliness. You can find the exhaustive list here: http://www.diigo.com/list/sseepersad/loneliness-news-and-resources. Since it is the end of the year and everyone is looking back at the year and seeing what has happened, I thought it would be great to do a blog on some of the interesting trends that I noticed over the past year. This selection is by no means exhaustive, but reflect some things that struck out to me as interesting:

1. The Evils of Facebook:

Not surprisingly, a lot of articles, blogs, and discussions revolved around relationships and the Internet. The biggest of these is about Facebook. One of them that gained a lot of traction early in the year was an article put out by Slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/01/the_antisocial_network.html. The article highlighted the fact that Facebook may be making some people depressed and sad. It even spawned a whole trend on twitter with the hashtag #sadbook. Basically tweets highlighted some of the pathetic things that people do on Facebook. Check out this article for a couple of examples: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/does_facebook_make_you_sad_joi.html.

Beside the whole #sadbook twitter trend, there have been numerous other studies looking at the negative effects of Facebook, including, for example this study published by Mashable (http://mashable.com/2011/03/30/women-facebook-survey/) which found that 84% of respondents who were mostly women, were annoyed at one time or another by the posts from their Facebook connections. Or another study here: http://www.newser.com/story/109676/20-of-your-facebook-friends-are-strangers.html which reports that only 20% of your "friends" are actually your friends. There are many other examples, but they all illustrative the growing destructive/isolating nature of Facebook.

Plus there have a ton of infographics all around Facebook, who uses it, and how it is used. Here is one by Mashable, which looks at Facebook and its effect on relationships: http://mashable.com/2011/05/31/facebook-relationships/. Here is another one that is a compilation of a variety of infographics:  http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/21610/14-Fantastic-New-Facebook-Infographics-in-2011.aspx 

2. Online dating: 

There were many, many articles that talked about how to do online dating, how successful online dating is, and the effect of online dating. I won't bother to list those as I'm sure a simple Google search will easily spit out hundreds of articles for you. This year, The New Yorker did a good job tracing the historical development of dating websites: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/04/110704fa_fact_paumgarten?currentPage=all. 

I did want to highlight a couple ones that aren't your typical, run-of-the-mill online dating advice articles. The first one was done by OkCupid, which used data from their dating website to generate some interesting pieces of information, which they called OkTrends. This one, for example, highlights 4 big myths about profile pictures: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-profile-pictures/. I like their blogs because it uses a lot of data to actually show what works and doesn't work on their dating site, and as they found out, some of what we assume to be true is often not. The other one was an article that interviewed AshleyMadison's website CEO, Noel Biderman - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-brooke/ashleymadisons-ceo-thinks_b_828012.html. The Ashley Madison website is a site where married people can hook up and have an affair with other married people. They have had some steamy ads on the TV in the past. What's interesting about this article is that he suggests that his website actually saves marriages. Read it and see if you agree with his logic.

Then there are a lot of new dating websites that try to approach online dating from new and interesting angles. For example here is one that matches you with people who look just like you:  http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/08/want-to-date-your-doppelganger-theres-a-site-for-that/. Here is another dating website for people who can't or don't want to have sexual intercourse:  http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/18/dating-site-for-people-who-cant-have-sex-takes-off/ 

3. Growing non-marriage trend: 
There were a number of articles talking about the growing trend of unmarried, live-in couples. Here's a good synopsis provided by the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/number-of-unmarried-livei_n_736828.html. There is the statistical side of the story, which looks at the demographic numbers and how they are changing in modern times. But there are also a number of articles that are talking about people's frustration with the whole dating and relationship scene. Here are a couple examples: The biggest one recently is an article that came out recently in The Atlantic that talks about choosing to remain single: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/?single_page=true. She talks about the gradual progress, through a series of life events that have led to her the conclusion that it might make sense to remain single instead of blindly pursuing a relationship because it is expected by society. Here is another article that talks about the troubles with dating and proposes that we "undate" instead:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kira-sabin/over-dating-join-the-unda_b_810436.html. Alternatively, an article focusing on the perspective from men, look at how young men have the upper hand in the sexual economy, because of the increased availability of casual sex partners and pornography -  http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/men-have-upper-hand-in-sexual-economy/?npt=NP1&on.cnn=1. For women, the article argues, the available pool of high-quality, marriageable men is decreasing.

4. Changing gender roles:

I also came across a number of articles that tried to dispel long held myths of what we think men and women want in relationships. This article by USA Today (http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/dating/story/2011/02/Men-women-flip-the-script-in-gender-expectation/43219110/1?csp=34news&utm_source=twitterfeed) shows research findings that demonstrate that men are more interested in love, marriage, and children earlier, and women want more independence in their relationships than their mothers. The article discusses how men are quicker to fall in love and more likely than women to want children. Other articles express similar ideas, such as this one in MSNBC (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43517490/ns/today-relationships#.TvKyuNRSSOI) which says that men are quicker to say "I love you" than women and this one in CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/04/28/men.give.love.advice/index.html) which talks about a support website for men who are "ready and willing" to talk about love. It would be interesting to see in 2012, what are some reasons driving these changes in gender roles.

5. The effect of pornography:

There have also been a large number of articles talking about the effects of pornography on relationships and men, in particular. This article for example ( http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/09/do-men-really-bond-with-porn-spoiling-them-for-real-life-sex/) talks about how the use of porn can spoil real life sex with their partners, in part because the sex depictions in porn are usually unrealistic. Ordinary real sex becomes disappointing compared to the  fireworks and whiz-bangs of porn. This other article (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201103/dating-heavy-porn-user) makes basically the same point, discussing how how people in coupling relationships prefer to watch porn instead of having sex with their partner and reasons why that might be the case.
This other article (http://blogs.psychcentral.com/sex/2011/04/compulsive-masturbation-and-porn/?utm_source=PsychCentral&utm_medium=twitter)  talks about the difference between regular and compulsive masturbation and the problems this can play out in people's lives.


6. The effects of hormones on feelings of love and relationships:

As there is growing research looking at the brain and its association to feelings of love and relationships, there have been more articles published highlighting these results. The most popular one of these is an article I saw in 2011, came out showing that expressing romantic rejection is the same as feeling that being punched in the gut: http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/28/the-pain-of-romantic-rejection-like-being-punched-in-the-gut/?xid=huffpo-direct. 

Another interesting article highlighted how serotonin, a chemical in the brain, can not only alter our perception of relationships, but with our partners and with other couples (http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03/14/serotonin-seems-to-skew-view-of-others-intimacy/24381.html).  According to the article, the less serotonin you have, the more likely you are to rate other couples as less intimate and romantic. It begs the question, if we pumped ourselves up with serotonin, would we view others' and our relationships more positively and thus more likely to try to make it work?
 
Lastly, there have also been a number of articles published this year talking about the "love" brain chemical oxytocin. Oxytocin has been shown to promote feelings of love and belonging, seen most strongly with mothers and their children. However, as this study (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-love-hate-relationship) points out, it may also promote feelings of discrimination and stereotypes.  

7. Loneliness in 2011
Two of the biggest news stories I've seen with regards to loneliness deal with loneliness among the elderly and also the effect of loneliness on sleep. I've bookmarked a good deal of articles looking at loneliness among the elderly and attempts to highlight this growing epidemic. Here are a couple examples:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009324/Elderly-hit-epidemic-poverty-loneliness.html and  http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/9047917.Shop_sit_in_to_highlight_old_age_loneliness/. It also spans different countries and cultures, as this article highlights a couple in India who committed suicide because of loneliness:  http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-15/ahmedabad/29545463_1_elderly-couple-vejalpur-police-suicide-note. I also blogged about Esther Rantzen who admitted publicly she was lonely and received a lot of negative feedback because of it:  http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/285689/Esther-Rantzen-Admit-I-am-lonely-Friends-say-I-should-have-more-pride.

The other big series of articles looked at loneliness and how it affects our sleep:  http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/27/cant-sleep-it-may-help-to-get-out-of-bed/. I thought this was interesting because I often saw a lot of loneliness tweets that talked about suffering insomnia. It seems like the two are very much related to one another and there have been quite a few articles published this year suggesting this. 

8. Lonely animal stories:

On the occasion I came across a heart-breaking story of loneliness in animals. Two touching ones were of a whale and a polar bear. This article about a whale (http://gizmodo.com/5772406/the-story-of-the-lonely-whale-will-break-your-heart) who is alone and has not bonded with other whales. Her problem is that she sings at the wrong frequency so that other whales do not hear her song. So, she spends her life alone in the open waters. 

The other story is of a polar bear, Gus, at the Central Park Zoo: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/opinion/sunday/03gus.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1. The story comes to a sad end when Gus loses his companion, Ida. He appeared trouble even before Ida died, but with the help of an animal psychologist was able to come around, only to have Ida die soon after. Both heart-breaking stories of animal loneliness.   

A recent article just came out by The Express  (http://bit.ly/ucA8M5) discussing Esther Rantzen's new mission to raise awareness about loneliness. Esther Rantzen is a TV-star and wife of the late film-maker Desmond Wilcox. What's interesting about Mrs. Rantzen's new focus is the push back she has received from family, friends, and professionals. The push back she received was because she has herself admitted publicly that she is lonely, especially after her husband died and more recently because she is now an empty nester with her last child just recently moving out of the house. It seems almost antithetical that someone as successful, popular, and outgoing as Mrs. Rantzen would experience any kind of loneliness at all. The push back she has received included reminders of just how lucky she is, and an invitation to have more pride. As Emily White, author of the book, Lonely: Learning to Live with Solitude, commented in a recent radio interview, lonely people are often assumed to be unsuccessful, unintelligent, passive, and unattractive. So, as you can imagine, when someone as successful as Esther Rantzen says she is lonely, it certainly challenges most people's stereotype of what a lonely person should be.

Why does admitting one is lonely such a deadly sin? Statistically, this population is increasing around the globe, especially with greater and greater trends towards individualism. There are more people lonely now than probably ever before. In the U.S. it is at least 25% of the population that feel lonely. That's 1 in 4 people who are currently experiencing loneliness. With so many people feeling lonely, one would think that people would be more accepting when someone says they are lonely and perhaps try to find way to help that person out.

Perhaps part of the problem has to do with the stereotypical characteristics associated with those individuals who feel lonely. If one says, "I am lonely," it is not just loneliness in itself that person is admitting to, but rather, he/she has also admitted that they are a failure: they are unsuccessful, unintelligent, passive, and unattractive. The responses Mrs. Rantzen received then certainly makes sense. You would get similar responses if you suggested you were ugly or stupid. People who care about you would say things to alter your perception about yourself. For example, if a person said, "I'm stupid" a friend might say, "but look at all the really smart contributions you have made" or even "you should have more pride in yourself." But what if we thought of loneliness the same way we think about diabetes or alcoholism (I'm not suggesting these are the same, just a hypothetical thought exercise)? Close family and friends would have a hard time saying, "no, you don't have diabetes," or "no, you are not an alcoholic." No one who really cares about the person is going to say, "well, you just have few drinks every day and you seem fine so you're not an alcoholic." There would be an acceptance of the problem and the focus would be on what can we do to help you get better. Why don't more people treat the problem of loneliness like this?

I think part of the problem has to do with how much can we blame a person for their own loneliness. Very often the assumption is that if you are lonely then it is your own fault and if you were successful, intelligent, active, and attractive enough then you would be able to overcome your loneliness on your own. Things like diabetes (I'm thinking Type 2 diabetes caused by obesity) and alcoholism, to some degree, become things outside of a person's control. There's an acknowledgement that they just can't turn it off like a light switch. Loneliness though according to the stereotype, should be as easy to cure as joining a Pilates class. The fact that anyone is lonely suggests laziness or a lack of effort on the part of the lonely person. It's very much similar to the idea of those that are unemployed. If you are unemployed for a long period of time, the assumption usually is you haven't tried hard enough. It is 100% the fault of the person. Sadly, especially with chronic loneliness, this is not the case. Chronically lonely people have experienced loneliness for a long time, and experience it because they possess certain hard to change characteristics that make them prone to experiencing loneliness. Some of it may be genetic: certain people have a susceptibility to experiencing loneliness more than others. Some of it may be due to very traumatic early life experiences, such as abuse, bullying, abandonment. Alternatively, some chronically lonely people experience loneliness for a long time because of the isolating, difficult-to-change situation that they are in, such as people with a crippling disability or living in an isolated area. One just cannot flip a switch, join a class, or change their way of thinking to make it go away. It requires much more of a deliberate effort, very much like people who have diabetes or alcoholism.

At the end of the day, it is a lack of knowledge that feeds into the negative stereotype of loneliness that often non-lonely AND lonely people hold. People often carry most of the blame for feeling lonely, thinking of themselves as a failure, as an outcast, and as part of a small minority of "weird people." Nothing is further from the truth. You see it so often on the Web of Loneliness, people feeling an instant sense of relief knowing that there are so many others who are experiencing exactly what they are experiencing, reading the words of someone else which sounds exactly like what that person would say. Like Esther Rantzen, we have to hold our ground, admit we are lonely, and change the stereotype: We are not losers, we are not failures, and we have been trying very, very hard to to rid ourselves of loneliness. We do not want your platitudes, we want your support.

If you have taken The Lonely Quiz, there is one question on there that asks if having a romantic partner is one of the most effective ways of permanently curing loneliness. Not surprisingly, 67% of those answering said that it is true, a romantic partner is an effective way of permanently curing loneliness. And, as you will see after you have answered the question, I said that it is not, in fact, true.

As a teenager I have been guilty of constructing in my mind, the image of the perfect woman. I am sure I am not the only person who is guilty of doing this. I would venture to say, most of us have some kind of list of what we think a potential partner should have. For some of us, our expectations are realistic, have a decent income, perhaps a non-smoker, etc. For some of us though, our expectations are a bit too detailed. In our minds we construct a caricature of a real person, like a Barbie doll, something that could never exist in real life but in fantasy is appealing.

If you ask the average lonely person, what do you need to cure your loneliness, most would agree with the 67% of respondents and say, having a romantic partner. The thought is, if I just had that one special person in my life, someone who would understand and love me, then my loneliness would disappear into thin air. In fact, back in 1976, when one of the founding loneliness researchers, Robert Weiss started his work, he found a similar phenomenon in a single parents group he was working in. He said that having that romantic attachment almost seemed like an "anti-loneliness" pill. By magic, falling in love made loneliness vaporize into thin air. The problem with falling in love though is that it doesn't last. In fact the brain is playing lots of tricks on you for you to fall in love. One of those tricks is that you tend to ignore all of the bad/incompatible traits in your partner when you are in that "cloud 9" stage. Once things cool down, you begin to notice all of those traits you had previously ignored. Another trick is that what appears to be love at the beginning of a relationship is in fact something else entirely. If you think about people in abusive relationships who grow up in a household with abusive relationships, you sometimes wonder, why is it, someone would choose to date/marry someone as abusive as their parent was. The reason is that familiarity is often mistaken for love.

I think when 67% or more of you say, a romantic relationship would cure your loneliness, you're not talking about a romantic relationship with someone with lots of emotional baggage or who needs things you are unwilling to provide. When you imagine a romantic relationship, you are imagining the Cinderella fantasy, a Prince Charming (or Princess Beauty) coming to rescue you from the abyss of loneliness you currently reside in. The trouble is the expectations can be unrealistic, people are going to fail you, and you will not have all of your needs met. In fact, even if you did get someone to "rescue" you, you're still not going to be happy. The illusion of perfection only exists in your head. Try putting those expectations on someone and watch that relationship crumble.

So, if you're lucky enough to find a partner, as my blog title asks, now what? Yes, your loneliness is going to disappear probably for three months, maybe longer. And then it's going to come back. If you had trust issues before, you're still going to have trust issues in your relationship. If you had communication issues before, it isn't going to magically disappear. If you really want to get rid of your loneliness permanently, you have to work on your own issues without expecting your romantic partner to do it for you. Romantic partners are exactly that, partners, they aren't your therapist or your parent that never loved you and quite frankly they can never be. You need to love yourself, to be content in your own skin, to be brave enough to be vulnerable before you can partner up with anyone. Otherwise, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.