Single, Self-Partnered, or Simply You?

When Emma Watson declared herself “self-partnered” back in 2019, the media had a field day. A new label to add to the pile, a new way of framing what it means to be single. For me, though, late to the party as always, this news only filtered through in the past few weeks, and it sparked something deeper.

As someone who often appreciates my own company more than anyone else’s, I found myself quietly grateful to Emma for bringing this conversation into the spotlight. There’s a lot of pressure on women to seek partnership as though it’s our ultimate purpose. Yet the truth is, I’ve never felt entirely comfortable in a full-time, traditional relationship. I thrive on balance. More solo time than coupled-up time and for me that feels healthy.

Some might argue this means I simply haven’t found the “right person” yet, and I'm not ignorant enough to believe that my train of thought is right and everyone who tells me otherwise is not, so perhaps they’re right. But I’d counter that maybe the right person is… myself. Or at least someone who respects my need for more space than most would need without taking it personally.

So while part of me cheers at the celebration of single women enjoying wholesome, drama-free lives, another part of me wonders: what was wrong with the word single? Did it become a dirty word? Why do we keep inventing new labels for what has always existed? And does any of this actually matter, or should we just… be?

What does “self-partnered” actually mean, and why did it catch on?

The phrase itself is catchy. Unlike “single,” which has long carried connotations of lacking something, “self-partnered” suggests completeness. No waiting, no longing, just a person fully whole in themselves. It’s PR-friendly and positive, which might explain why it went viral.

But do we really need another word to soften the blow of something perfectly ordinary? Perhaps the appeal is less about accuracy and more about marketing self-sufficiency in a world where partnership is still the default expectation.

Why do we feel pressure to be in a relationship?

The expectation to couple up runs deep. From fairy tales to Hollywood rom-coms, partnership is presented as the ultimate goal. Family dynamics, cultural norms, and even government policies (think tax benefits for married couples) reinforce this idea.

For women, the pressure can be even more acute. Studies have found that single men are often seen as independent, while single women are more likely to be labelled as lonely or incomplete. Bridget Jones epitomised this in the 1990s: a woman whose “flaw” was her single status.

Emma Watson, by contrast, represents a modern counter-narrative: singlehood not as lack, but as choice.

Is “single” really seen differently depending on gender?

Absolutely. Research from the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships shows that single women are judged more negatively than men in similar circumstances. In fact, men over 30 are often called “eligible bachelors,” while women over 30 face the far less flattering “spinster” or “left on the shelf.”

That language alone shows us how much weight gender carries in shaping perceptions of singlehood.

Do labels empower or pigeonhole us?

For some, labels can be empowering. Words like “asexual,” “polyamorous,” or even “introvert” help people make sense of their identity and find community. For others, labels feel limiting, as though you must fit into a box to be valid.

Personally, I find myself leaning towards the latter.

While I admire Emma’s attempt to reframe singlehood positively, I also wonder whether we’d be better off ditching labels altogether and just living as ourselves. Do we really need to be self-partnered or single, or could we simply be Katy, or Emma, or whoever we are?

How common is it to actually prefer being single?

More common than you might think. ONS data shows that in 2021, 37% of UK adults lived alone or without a partner. Some of this reflects circumstances, but surveys suggest a growing number of people are choosing to remain single.

A 2019 Pew Research study found that 50% of single adults in the US weren’t interested in dating or a relationship at all. Interestingly, many reported higher satisfaction with their independence, friendships, and hobbies compared to their partnered peers.

Happiness, it seems, doesn’t necessarily come from coupling up.

Interestingly, research on longevity reveals a fascinating gender twist: married men generally live significantly longer than their single counterparts, while some studies suggest single women may experience better health and greater happiness than married women.

Fascinating dichotomy! 

Married men living longer than single men is apparently thanks (in part) to the emotional, social, and practical support that a spouse can provide. For example, a 2023 study found married men with heart failure survived considerably longer than unmarried men.

On the flip side, improved health and greater happiness for single women seems to be possibly because single women avoid the stress and compromise that can come with traditional marital roles.

That said, not all research points in this direction — other longitudinal studies show that consistency (whether consistently single or married) may be more important than relationship status itself.

So, the picture isn’t entirely straightforward. But it does highlight that for many women, singlehood isn’t just acceptable, it may also align better with their health, happiness, or values.

Does income affect the decision to be in a relationship?

This is where it gets interesting, and sadly, not entirely surprising...

Household income plays a quiet but powerful role in relationship dynamics.

• In lower-income households, partnership can be seen as a survival strategy: pooling resources to manage housing, childcare, or basic living costs.

• In higher-income brackets, individuals may feel freer to live alone without financial strain — making “self-partnered” less a luxury of choice and more a reflection of privilege.

ONS figures show that single-person households tend to have lower disposable incomes and are more vulnerable to economic shocks. Yet at the same time, more young professionals are delaying or avoiding marriage, prioritising career and financial independence over partnership.

It raises the question: do we choose partnership, or does our financial reality sometimes choose for us?

Does “self-partnered” destigmatise singlehood, or just rebrand it?

On one hand, it offers a refreshing alternative to the pity sometimes aimed at singles. On the other, it risks overcomplicating something that doesn’t/shouldn't need explanation.

Perhaps what Emma Watson really did was give people permission to frame their singlehood positively, in whatever words they choose.

For some, that word might be “self-partnered.” For others, it might simply be “happy.”

Final thoughts

At the end of the day, maybe the point isn’t about labels at all. Maybe it’s about freedom — the freedom to define your life on your own terms, whether that means building a family, living solo, or somewhere in between.

Many people feel an unspoken pressure (and others a very loudly-spoken one) to 'settle down'. These words have never sat well with me personally and I'd prefer to feel that contentment can come from within than from a person quietening my wilder side. This pressure can have a lot to do with the values of our families or communities which are quietly peppered into our psyche from a young age, telling us exactly what the broader society expects of us. But it's useful to explore your own values and understand when the ones we've inherited or developed unquestioningly may no longer serve us or are causing us an unease in ourselves.

There is no rulebook, every single thing we know is made-up. Structure and labels may feel stabilising, but when you've found your own mind to lead from, the stabilisers can come off, if you choose!

I admire Emma Watson for pushing the conversation forward. But I also believe that wholeness doesn’t need a catchy label. It’s enough to be who we are, without apology, and without waiting for a word to make it acceptable.

If you'd like to talk about anything from this article, you can seek direct support or thoughtful discussion with Happy Citta, by completing a contact form, here: