Are you emotionally attached to where you live?

Is it just a house that could be swapped quite willingly for another, or is it a home that holds lots of memories that you hope you never have to leave till you die?

I was reading of Dawn French selling her house,  it must be a real wrench sometimes having to leave a home you have loved.


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/dawn-french-sells-her-treasured-house-in-the-cornish-town-of-fowey/ar-BB1gw9jk?ocid=msedgntp

I have to say no. We moved around a bit due to my dad’s job and then after my parents divorced and then moving to England and then marrying the military. I love my current house, our first one but I have no deep attachment to it. I do admit to feeling more at home on the US east coast and the UK, but ultimately I’d love to end up in a small village/town near Versailles/Paris.

Not really. I moved as a kid. I was emotionally attached to the house I had when I was married because I raised my girls there. Now I'm just a gypsy..

Cass wrote:I have to say no. We moved around a bit due to my dad’s job and then after my parents divorced and then moving to England and then marrying the military. I love my current house, our first one but I have no deep attachment to it. I do admit to feeling more at home on the US east coast and the UK, but ultimately I’d love to end up in a small village/town near Versailles/Paris.

I hope you get to your destination in Versailles one day Cass.
I have visited Paris (fabulous) but not Versailles.

Maddog wrote:Not really. I moved as a kid.  I was emotionally attached to the house I had when I was married because I raised my girls there.  Now I'm just a gypsy..

I think having children and bringing them up in a certain house does form an emotional attachment.
I certainly have one with my house, my son grew up here, grandson spent lots of his childhood here, and my mums ashes are buried in the garden here.

I have a recurring dream where I no longer live here, someone else is....I HATE that dream.

I still am emotionally attached to the house I was born and raised in for 16 years even though the house no longer exists. The village and surrounding area has changed a lot as well, posh now anything from 300 odd thousand to a million for a property but it was still in my memory a place of happiness and security, as it should be, with very ordinary families. I am quite attached to my current home, I should be after all these years. I have been to places for holidays or visits and found them nice but now and again I have been somewhere where I feel so comfortable and at ease I'd swear I'd lived there at some time previously.

Vintage wrote:I still am emotionally attached to the house I was born and raised in for 16 years even though the house no longer exists. The village and surrounding area has changed a lot as well, posh now anything from 300 odd thousand to a million for a property but it was still in my memory a place of happiness and security, as it should be, with very ordinary families. I am quite attached to my current home, I should be after all these years. I have been to places for holidays or visits and found them nice but now and again I have been somewhere where I feel so comfortable and at ease I'd swear I'd lived there at some time previously.

Deja vu, maybe you have lived there in the past.

I have never felt that about anywhere, it must be an eerie feeling.

It is, I can't say I ever have any real memories or know where anything specific is but I just feel I fit in. There were a couple of places in Wales and Cornwall and a village in Hampshire called Haslemere which seemed like home, it was a classic English village, with posh houses here and there a village green and the ordinary cottages etc. I could have easily moved there, now though I've been told there are very many more modern houses built around the village, so the vibe wouldn't be the same. The strongest feeling came when we stayed at Pevensey Bay very at home there but we visited New Haven and the fort there and I was stopped in my tracks when we walked into the fort, the feeling of familiarity was intense, it could be that there was a museum and exhibition of its use in WW2, the history of that era is very interesting to me, so maybe I was just drawn into that.

That's really interesting, it could be you just have an open outlook and feel you could fit in, in different places, or it could be suppressed memories from somewhere you have had connections with in a previous life.

I have no idea, I think Digger and Mags are far more knowledgable than me in all this.....but in any case, it's fascinating.

Oddly, Wales and Cornwall are both places I have felt at home in, but in my case I think it's just because they are both so lush and pretty,

I end up getting emotionally attached to the places I've lived, but it's really just the setting for my memories, not the place itself. The only place I've ever lived as an adult that I have no feelings about whatsoever was the place where all the memories were bad.

I rarely get emotionally attached to anything that isn’t a person, and even then....

I have to say though, this house and area that I live in, I really like. I’ve never felt more at home anywhere. I used to see the name of my town on a tube map and always thought it would be cool to live there - it was at the end of the tube route from London so I saw it often when I travelled.

Then I ended up here years later.

I have the opposite condition. I get emotionally attached to everything just about, places, houses,
land (as in Wales primarily but UK as a whole) animals, trees just think about what has happened in the lifetime of some of the older trees, various objects and even people to a lesser degree.

Vintage wrote:I have the opposite condition. I get emotionally attached to everything just about, places, houses,
land (as in Wales primarily but UK as a whole) animals, trees just think about what has happened in the lifetime of some of the older trees, various objects and even people to a lesser degree.

I do feel attached to "areas", not buildings per se.

Ben Reilly wrote:I end up getting emotionally attached to the places I've lived, but it's really just the setting for my memories, not the place itself. The only place I've ever lived as an adult that I have no feelings about whatsoever was the place where all the memories were bad.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, for me anyway.
It's the memories that form the attachment, not the bricks and mortar.
I have only ever lived permanently in 5 houses....the only one I have a real attachment for is where I am now, and that one has the happy memories of raising a family in.


My childhood home though often features in my dreams.

eddie wrote:I rarely get emotionally attached to anything that isn’t a person, and even then....

I have to say though, this house and area that I live in, I really like. I’ve never felt more at home anywhere. I used to see the name of my town on a tube map and always thought it would be cool to live there - it was at the end of the tube route from London so I saw it often when I travelled.

Then I ended up here years later.

The fascination of a place you often hear of or see on a sign somewhere can be a pull when you are deciding to move house.

I used to drive past a road that led down to a private lane where a big old mill was converted into flats, it was in a beautiful setting, only residents were permitted entry to the grounds because every resident needed a pass code to get in the gates.

Years later my son eventually decided to get a flat there....so I had access to his code, and after years of wondering I finally managed to get in the place.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:I rarely get emotionally attached to anything that isn’t a person, and even then....

I have to say though, this house and area that I live in, I really like. I’ve never felt more at home anywhere. I used to see the name of my town on a tube map and always thought it would be cool to live there - it was at the end of the tube route from London so I saw it often when I travelled.

Then I ended up here years later.

The fascination of a place you often hear of or see on a sign somewhere can be a pull when you are deciding to move house.

I used to drive past a road that led down to a private lane where a big old mill was converted into flats, it was in a beautiful setting,  only residents were permitted entry to the grounds because every resident needed a pass code to get in the gates.

Years later my son eventually decided to get a flat there....so I had access to his code, and after years of wondering I finally managed to get in the place.

Syl, I liked your narrative until you got to "gated communities". Ugh...nothing turns me off as much as a bunch of nouveau riche wannabes, trying to distance themselves from the rest of the rabble by building fences. In addition to being quite artificial, it’s destructive to street life and the rest of culture.

I doubt your son arranged it that way, so I don't criticize him. But that whole scene turns me off.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The fascination of a place you often hear of or see on a sign somewhere can be a pull when you are deciding to move house.

I used to drive past a road that led down to a private lane where a big old mill was converted into flats, it was in a beautiful setting,  only residents were permitted entry to the grounds because every resident needed a pass code to get in the gates.

Years later my son eventually decided to get a flat there....so I had access to his code, and after years of wondering I finally managed to get in the place.

Syl, I liked your narrative until you got to "gated communities".  Ugh...nothing turns me off as much as a bunch of nouveau riche wannabes, trying to distance themselves from the rest of the rabble by building fences.  In addition to being quite artificial, it’s destructive to street life and the rest of culture.

I doubt your son arranged it that way, so I don't criticize him.  But that whole scene turns me off.

I think it was more for security than anything else Quill. It was quite isolated with no other houses or buildings down that lane.
Most of the residents were singles or young couples, out all day, so I suppose it suited them.

My son didn't actually stay there that long, the place was freezing and cost a fortune to heat.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Syl, I liked your narrative until you got to "gated communities".  Ugh...nothing turns me off as much as a bunch of nouveau riche wannabes, trying to distance themselves from the rest of the rabble by building fences.  In addition to being quite artificial, it’s destructive to street life and the rest of culture.

I doubt your son arranged it that way, so I don't criticize him.  But that whole scene turns me off.

I think it was more for security than anything else Quill. It was quite isolated with no other houses or buildings down that lane.
Most of the residents were singles or young couples, out all day, so I suppose it suited them.

My son didn't actually stay there that long, the place was freezing and cost a fortune to heat.

I'm sure it was for alleged (perhaps even perceived) security reasons. In America, that's how racist-tainted whites justify their attempts to keep up the racial distance. See, Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

I doubt that upwardly-mobile souls need security from the riff-raff, when their own ranks produce murders, such as what happened to Jeff Epstein. Lower-class criminals are as much a myth as upper-class Christian-charity givers.

The gates have more profound purposes.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think it was more for security than anything else Quill. It was quite isolated with no other houses or buildings down that lane.
Most of the residents were singles or young couples, out all day, so I suppose it suited them.

My son didn't actually stay there that long, the place was freezing and cost a fortune to heat.

I'm sure it was for alleged (perhaps even perceived) security reasons.  In America, that's how racist-tainted whites justify their attempts to keep up the racial distance.  See, Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

I doubt that upwardly-mobile souls need security from the riff-raff, when their own ranks produce murders, such as what happened to Jeff Epstein.  Lower-class criminals are as much a myth as upper-class Christian-charity givers.

The gates have more profound purposes.

In that case, thankfully this isn't America.
The gates were for security, not to keep blacks out. From what I saw, the people paying rent there came in every shade from black to white, it was simply to protect their property from thieves.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm sure it was for alleged (perhaps even perceived) security reasons.  In America, that's how racist-tainted whites justify their attempts to keep up the racial distance.  See, Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

I doubt that upwardly-mobile souls need security from the riff-raff, when their own ranks produce murders, such as what happened to Jeff Epstein.  Lower-class criminals are as much a myth as upper-class Christian-charity givers.

The gates have more profound purposes.

In that case, thankfully this isn't America.
The gates were for security, not to keep blacks out. From what I saw, the people paying rent there came in every shade from black to white, it was simply to protect their property from thieves.

There are hundreds of black folks living in gated communities in the wealthy suburb that Quil's daughter lives in.

There are also gated communities in very black areas because lo and behold, some black folks like the idea of more security too.

Never, never listen to that fool about the US. Even Ben has to call out his bullshit on a regular basis.

You bet I am. It’s a lovely cottage in the English countryside that has been my home since 1962, and my late wife’s final resting place (and mine, in due course) is in an ancient bluebell wood attached to it.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm sure it was for alleged (perhaps even perceived) security reasons.  In America, that's how racist-tainted whites justify their attempts to keep up the racial distance.  See, Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

I doubt that upwardly-mobile souls need security from the riff-raff, when their own ranks produce murders, such as what happened to Jeff Epstein.  Lower-class criminals are as much a myth as upper-class Christian-charity givers.

The gates have more profound purposes.

In that case, thankfully this isn't America.
The gates were for security, not to keep blacks out. From what I saw, the people paying rent there came in every shade from black to white, it was simply to protect their property from thieves.

Your problem isn't blacks. But judging by comments on this site, it is Muslims and North Africans. Regardless of the particular otherism, the one thing you guys have in common with America is the tilt toward white supremacy.

The gates aren't for security.

Well, this started out as interesting then was manhandled into bigotry/racism accusations - again.

Vintage wrote:Well, this started out as interesting then was manhandled into bigotry/racism accusations - again.

Some folks have OCD.

And others have blinders on.

Original Quill wrote:And others have blinders on.  

Nah, I see you just fine.

You're that drunken uncle at family gatherings blabbering the same nonsense.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:And others have blinders on.  

Nah, I see you just fine.  

You're that drunken uncle at family gatherings blabbering the same nonsense.

You don't see the problems facing the world?? That must be because you are free, white, and over-21.

Original Quill wrote:And others have blinders on.  

The thing is Quill, I know where my son lived, and I know the set up of the place. The gates were locked for security, because during the day very few people were at home in these apartments.
It's in a quite isolated area, surrounded by woodland, security was needed.

The only people being discriminated against were people who had no right to be on the property...irregardless of colour.

Many people of all colours manage to make it rich and decide to live in a place with security,
its not about colour its usually, although not always, about having enough money to buy security and peace of mind for your family and goods.

It's about otherism. Have you seen the film, Elysium?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Nah, I see you just fine.  

You're that drunken uncle at family gatherings blabbering the same nonsense.

You don't see the problems facing the world??  That must be because you are free, white, and over-21.

Lie down Uncle Quill.

It's time for your nap.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:And others have blinders on.  

The thing is Quill, I know where my son lived, and I know the set up of the place. The gates were locked for security, because during the day very few people were at home in these apartments.
It's in a quite isolated area, surrounded by woodland, security was needed.

The only people being discriminated against were people who had no right to be on the property...irregardless of colour.

How could you know the situation better than Quill?

Syl wrote:The gates were locked for security...

That's what you tell yourselves...so often that you genuinely begin to believe it.

Do take the time to watch the film, Elysium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:The gates were locked for security...

That's what you tell yourselves...so often that you genuinely begin to believe it.

Do take the time to watch the film, Elysium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)

Yeah Syl. Watch a movie and educate yourself about where your son lived.

Elysium has always been the way it is and will probably continue. The have nots eventually bring down the haves, does anyone actually win anything? Do the have nots get a better deal?
The entire problem is the same though, too many people, two few jobs, too few resources.
Those with the means money, power or excelling in some required field will be cossetted and given privileges. The rest will just exist however possible unless they can get some leverage to improve their lot and join the privileged. There will always be people who have more than you, be more intelligent than you, be more resourceful than you. Until we tackle overpopulation and everyone is useful and needed we won't change things. its going to be a real problem getting to a Star Trek scenario as we are.

You obviously haven't seen the film.

The over-population angle is interesting, but it only provides the setting. Otherwise, you miss the point. The message isn't it's a dog-eat-dog world. There's more to it than that.

The point is, if the race isn't fair at the start, the finish means nothing. Notice, at the end, they are starting over?

Yes they are starting over but probably will end up in a similar scenario again. How many times have there been revolutions or moving to a new country to be free from elitism only for the new system to be as bad, even worse or eventually just the same.?

Maybe some people take their deep-seated beliefs with them...so there will always be trouble wherever they go.

Vintage wrote:Yes they are starting over but probably will end up in a similar scenario again. How many times have there been revolutions or moving to a new country to be free from elitism only for the new system to be as bad, even worse or eventually just the same.?

That's interesting. So you believe that otherism and inequity is the natural human condition? Should it also be the moral human condition? I mean, should it be what we strive for?

Syl wrote:Maybe some people take their deep-seated beliefs with them...so there will always be trouble wherever they go.

Do you believe that all disenchantment and desire for change is trouble? Think of computers, automobiles, airplanes, microwaves, refrigerators, cell phones, as well as open-heart surgery, medications, etc., etc...are they all trouble? They are change, and obviously someone wanted them.

Or do you believe, only, that changing the human arrangements leads to trouble? Were we were better off staying with Mesopotamia or Rome.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Maybe some people take their deep-seated beliefs with them...so there will always be trouble wherever they go.

Do you believe that all disenchantment and desire for change is trouble?  Think of computers, automobiles, airplanes, microwaves, refrigerators, cell phones, as well as open-heart surgery, medications, etc., etc...are they all trouble?  They are change, and obviously someone wanted them.

Or do you believe, only, that changing the human arrangements leads to trouble?  Were we were better off staying with Mesopotamia or Rome.

I didn't say desire for change was wrong....the opposite in fact.