Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Almost everyone seems to equate retirement with travel. They seem disappointed when they ask about my travel plans and I explain that I don't travel. DH and I have traveled to a number of domestic and foreign cities in the past, each for a week. Never really enjoyed it all that much. By the fourth day I was itching to come home.
Mostly we have done city sight-seeing vacations and I've never loved the tourist thing. No city lived up to my expectations. The planning was more fun than the reality. On the couple of times we have done relaxing vacations like cruises or resorts I was bored with that as well.
We aren't great sleepers and prefer our own bed. Eating away from home can be a problem for us (whole foods plant-based). And we'd miss our cat terribly and she would miss us.
A new friend invited us for a weekend in a mountain cabin they are renting. Don't like long car trips. Again, eating would be a problem. And as introverts we like to be with people for just a few hours and go home, not be with them for 48 hours. I feel horrible about declining the invitation, but I really don't think I want to go.
We aren't hermits. We go out every day to the gym, which we love. We socialize numerous times each week. We love our life and don't want to escape from it, even for a weekend.
Is this pathological----or just a difference in preferences, even though easily 95% of the population wants to travel and get away?
I think it's pathological if you live with others who have different preferences. I rent a room from a not-retired drunk who has not worked a day in over 5 years. he gets up in the morning, drinks all day, mopes around, blows up a lot, and makes life miserable for the rest of us.
How do we define "active"? To me, playing bridge is part of an active lifestyle, on two levels.
1. Our minds are active when playing bridge.
2. We are interacting socially with others when playing bridge.
I completely agree. A person can be "active" without working up a sweat of any sort, IMHO. But the ads for these Active Adult communities seem to present a subtextual message that people who wouldn't particularly care to live in that type of environment are probably those who would spend their waking hours doing nothing but vegetating in front of a tv set. :-/
Or perhaps it's simply a marketing effort to distance themselves as far as possible from the stereotypical "retirement home" image of rows of old people sitting on a front porch in rocking chairs, who knows? ;-)
I completely agree. A person can be "active" without working up a sweat of any sort, IMHO. But the ads for these Active Adult communities seem to present a subtextual message that people who wouldn't particularly care to live in that type of environment are probably those who would spend their waking hours doing nothing but vegetating in front of a tv set. :-/
Or perhaps it's simply a marketing effort to distance themselves as far as possible from the stereotypical "retirement home" image of rows of old people sitting on a front porch in rocking chairs, who knows? ;-)
The marketing is very different from what I have seen when visiting these places. When I was considering FL I went to the "hot" spot in Bonita Springs and the place was totally deserted. This was late Nov so the snowbirds should have been there but nobody was outside, at least they weren't out and about in the community.
Then I visited a popular spot in Leland, NC- twice on 2 different days and each time I saw 1 guy walking his dog. It looked spooky. There are things to do there but I believe people stay inside their homes and - gasp - sit on the computer <naughty>. Maybe they all sit inside and play cards. I'm sure there are events where the people all come out but this is not the normal day to day thing.
I need energy around me - not all the time - but I would shrivel up and die in a place like that. I need a location with personality and I just don't think you find that in many of these "active adult" places. I have retired couples on each side of me and you never see them outside. I get away to one of the city lakes, just about 1 mile away, and there is life - people - activity.
I must remember this when I start seriously looking for my next home.
I need energy around me - not all the time - but I would shrivel up and die in a place like that.....
What a great way to put it! I am just like you (in that respect, at least). It's probably one reason I like my involvement in schools. as there is plenty of energy in kids of the age I work with (fifth graders and middle schoolers). I'm not saying everyone who wants "energy around them" is going to want to get it from young people, as kids of that age cannot be everyone's cup of tea. I am just addressing the general concept, because what you wrote seemed to hit the nail squarely on the head for me personally.
The subject of being a homebody is entirely relative:
1) If you like your lifestyle and are comfortable with it. . . continue on with it and enjoy!
2) If you don't like your lifestyle and feel the need to be more active. . . then go for it.
The only thing I find irritating is when anyone thinks its their duty in life is to tell others how to live 'their' lives, because in the final analysis, it's no one else's business. On the opposite side of the fence, perhaps people could come to the conclusion that anyone who is constantly on the go has emotional problems because they are unable to spend time with themselves. Neither side makes any sense.
There are some who thoroughly enjoy being a homebody, but end up thinking they must invent reasons for their choice. There are no reasons to invent, because again, it's no one else's business.
I have no idea how, why, or when the debate regarding lifestyles came about. Maybe it was something said in the media about a serial killer being a loner and too many made the decision that if you're not socially active, or on the go most of the day, there must be something wrong with you. Baloney!
The question of whether it's anyone else's business
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie45
The subject of being a homebody is entirely relative:
1) If you like your lifestyle and are comfortable with it. . . continue on with it and enjoy!
2) If you don't like your lifestyle and feel the need to be more active. . . then go for it.
The only thing I find irritating is when anyone thinks its their duty in life is to tell others how to live 'their' lives, because in the final analysis, it's no one else's business. On the opposite side of the fence, perhaps people could come to the conclusion that anyone who is constantly on the go has emotional problems because they are unable to spend time with themselves. Neither side makes any sense.
There are some who thoroughly enjoy being a homebody, but end up thinking they must invent reasons for their choice. There are no reasons to invent, because again, it's no one else's business.
I have no idea how, why, or when the debate regarding lifestyles came about. Maybe it was something said in the media about a serial killer being a loner and too many made the decision that if you're not socially active, or on the go most of the day, there must be something wrong with you. Baloney!
Being content with who we are is priceless.
Sure, we can all turn anything we want into our private business; this is a public internet forum and no one is required to divulge anything at all. Some things are inherently no one else's business, such as one's sex life or whether one has hemorrhoids. Other things are less clear cut - it is certainly rude to ask other people about their personal finances, but personal finances get discussed often, both in the sub-forum of that name and here in the Retirement Forum.
As for the basic "no one else's business" issue, are you forgetting that the original poster of this thread specifically asked for people's feedback on the question she introduced? That means that our opinions are legitimate responses here, whether you happen to agree with the opinions or not. That is, lifestyle issues as they relate to retirement are one of the main topics in this Retirement Forum, along with financial issues and location issues.
It is not as simple as "I like this, but you like that" because being isolated is a medical issue which affects health outcomes. Henry S. Lodge, M.D., has a lot to say about isolation in retirement in his book (co-written with Chris Crowley) "Younger Next Year". For example, he notes on page 259 that following heart attacks, "Having close friends predicts survival, and the more connected, the higher the survival rate." I could continue with more quotes, but I think the basic idea is clear enough.
In the aggregate, medical epidemiological evidence does not support being a recluse, in terms of its effects on health. Now if someone insists that he is happy as a recluse, I say fine, as there are certainly outliers and exceptions to the general rule that we are hard-wired as a species for connection to others. But there are certain general truths which are relevant to the subject matter of this thread.
This is a legitimate sociological topic with special relevance to retirement.
Sure, we can all turn anything we want into our private business; this is a public internet forum and no one is required to divulge anything at all. Some things are inherently no one else's business, such as one's sex life or whether one has hemorrhoids. .
"We aren't hermits. We go out every day to the gym, which we love. We socialize numerous times each week. "
This is a quote from the original post.
I don't understand bringing the words recluse and isolation into this conversation. It started as a question about whether or not others liked to travel after they retired or if they were "homebodies", and if they would rather not travel, did this mean that there was something wrong with them, as a specific person who had invited the op to stay for a few days appeared to imply.
I don't think many would advocate for being an isolated, vegetating recluse. I don't think anyone has. I do admit to like sleeping in my own bed.
Exactly.....there are a few posters on here (won't mention any names but if you search around you'll find them....one having the initials "ER") who think they are the sole arbiters of what is "normal" and/or dictate what is acceptable as far as living life goes.
They look down upon or judge people who don't live up to their ideals of how life should be lived based on their narrow mindsets.
There is nothing wrong with living life on your own terms......again, the whole different strokes thing.
I'm ok with limited travel & social interaction but realize others may disagree and want to go all over the place and want constant interaction.
I'd rather relax at or around home than deal with the stresses of travel (ESPECIALLY driving long distances).
Well that's just wrong! I can't imagine telling others how to spend their time.
DH and I did our traveling when we were young, the planes were new, and the lines were short. Now we take day trips and love it. Lol we have a very cheap retirement!
The world would be a better place if people minded their own dang business.
one of the consequences of excessively long car rides
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Energy around us" - what a great way to put it!
