Travelling - but who with?
 

So this is a subject of debate which has been quite common throughout my experience. And some of the justifications I've heard have been hilarious over the years. So, who would you travel with?

1. Alone
2. With 1-2 friends
3. With 3 or more friends
4. With your partner/spouse
5. With any number of random people
6. With family (other than spouse/partner)
7. Other

Personally, in 8 years of travelling, I've only ever travelled with 3 different people, including my husband (for the last 2 years). However, despite having a spouse, I still much prefer travelling alone. Crazy I know, but that's just the way I swing. Having said that, out of 85 countries visited, I've been to 22 with my husband (of which 5 I had been to already) and bound for another 8 in September (of which 1 I've been to already).

We both agree that there are countries that I'd go to that he wouldn't, such as Uzbekistan (which I went to this winter and loved!), majority of Africa (planning the West for early 2018), etc. But more often than not, he basically insists on going where I go. Understandable I guess...

What are your thoughts/views?

This has been discussed an awful lot (I won't do the links to other threads, but there are many). Generally the solo travelers have been well-represented, but nothing ever gets settled and if there have been any take-aways, it's that if something works for you, it's great, but it's very hard to convert people.

You've also got the great unwashed masses that don't travel much or may not even have a passport and might take a cruise to Alaska in their 70s or 80s at urging of sons and daughters but are unlikely to have discovered FlyerTalk.

And it's not even like there's just one good option for any given person anyway. I mostly travel solo but still enjoy vacations with friends; both have their places.

I've been to something like 155 countries alone, except for my bicycle. This includes 48 on Africa. I visited/revisited about half of those with my wife. (We we're extraordinarily compatible.). Forty-plus years ago, travelling in Africa or behind the Iron Curtain was difficult solo. Today, almost any place is easy alone. Now I've no wife and cannot imagine having such a compatible companion. (Nor many people interested in Chad, Niger, Yemen, Somalia.) So solo it is.

Partner. I have a few medical issues and the stress of getting sick can often make me sicker. I wouldn't feel comfortable with people I don't really know what well. This is why I don't do group tours.

At one time or another all of the above. There is no right answer and it depends on destination, purpose, planned activities and your own personality. Sometimes alone is better, other times with my spouse, friends can be fun depending on the situation.

Everyone's situation is individual.

One thing is living at a major air hub with work and most of your family next to you. Now imagine that you are having work visa in second country where you live with your partner/spouse, you have no kids or they are in school/college, you got assignment in third country for 6-9 month with people you never met before and none of your friends/relatives are closer than 3000 miles....

Travelling solo is normal and even expected when you are in your 20s or already retired. But travelling solo for people in their mid-40s with full-time office jobs (yes, show up at at 9AM, leaving at 5PM, with vacation days and so on) and committed relationships is kinda quite unusual setup - I yet to meet a person matching the above criteria....

I've done all of these.

An astute traveler recognizes that these are different kinds of trips. Each has tradeoffs with different pluses and minuses that make it more or less suitable for different goals. Ultimately they create different experiences. For example, solo travel offers the advantage of choosing exactly what you want (accommodations, activities, budget, schedule) but means less camaraderie as there's no partner to share experiences with. Travel with a small number of friends/relatives trades off a bit of control, though if the companions selected have fairly compatible styles and interests the loss there may be more than compensated by the presence of friendship and the richer perspectives others may bring to the trip. Travel with a larger number of people virtually precludes compatibility. At that level you've got to split the trip's activities into "together" activities that work for mostly everyone and solo/small group activities for whoever's interested.

Having recently had this conversation, one first must ask is it Travelling - but who with? or Travelling - but with whom?

Grammar would dictate that who is used as a subject whereas whom is used as the object of a verb or preposition. So the latter. But I digress. :D

I have done all on your list including "other" if you count my dog. It all depends on the trip and its purpose. It also depends on what you mean by traveling. That could be a day trip or multiple days.

The founder of Lone Planet, Tony Wheeler said something to the affect of, do not worry about what or with whom to do when you get there, just get there. I think that applies.

it can be very tough to find people (or family) one travels well with

best friends may have zero in common re traveling (or not traveling)

couples compromising is part of relationship, different from others

My neighbor
 

My neighbor and his wife do everything thing they can to get 2 seats together with no one either side. This means 2x2 seating 2x3x2, etc. This is required on all but the shortest flights.

As far as I know, most of his trips are either with his wife or with one friend, me.

Lavarock7, can buy extra seat, and many do

Even a reliable travel companion can change. A friend who I'd travelled with before became quite intolerable after he decided to give up alcohol. Never again.

indeed, or reverse, take up alcohol/gambling/etc

re giving up, cant be anywhere its around?