I Love You, Man: A Singletude Review

It's official! I have a crush! Since it arrived from Netflix, I've been in deep like with I Love You, Man. The bromance of the century is as spit-out-your-Sprite funny as the likes of Wedding Crashers and Knocked Up, but the themes it addresses through dialogue so achingly real it feels like a hammer to the funny bone elevate this flick several cuts above. So why am I still withholding affection? Because while the movie skewers matrimania, it still demonizes singles.

Meet Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd), a straight-laced, dependable, ambitious yet sensitive real estate agent in touch with his feminine side. Now meet Zooey Rice (Rashida Jones), sweet, attractive, easygoing co-owner of a retail boutique. The two live in a beautiful house in the suburbs of LA, and Peter has just proposed. They have it all, which usually signals the end of the movie. Not in this case.

See, Peter is missing something--friends. Oh, he has co-workers and acquaintances, even fencing buddies, but no one close enough to stand up for him at his wedding. After he overhears Zooey's BFFs critiquing his social skills, he has an epiphany: "I gotta get some f****** friends!" he vows. From that point on, he becomes a man on a mission to cleverly exploit every parallel to contemporary dating cliches. In the process, he endures misguided "set-ups" (one of which includes possibly the best projectile vomiting scene in cinematic history), discovers that men online lie about their age, and agonizes over how soon to call for that first "man date." The expected hilarity ensues, not just because Peter isn't actually romancing these guys but because it hits home that much of the same hope, anxiety, frustration, and excitement that we associate with dating applies to courting a new friend, as well.

Now enter Sydney Fife (Jason Segel), a womanizing, Cheeto-munching, bar-brawling, air guitar-riffing man's man. Here the movie takes a detour to Fight Club Lite as Sydney bonds with Peter, teaching him to speak Guy (a language he flubs often and spectacularly), obey the rules of the brotherhood, and grow a pair. It's all good, and Peter is feeling the brotherly love until his fiancee fears that their relationship is threatening to become a menage a trois.

Because this is, after all, a Hollywood comedy, alter egos Peter and Sydney must each know something the other needs to learn in order to grow and change. Peter, obviously, needs friends. Director John Hamburg has decided that Sydney needs a girlfriend. Or maybe not a girlfriend yet--mercifully, the set-up that Peter and Zooey force on him doesn't work out--but the maturity and interpersonal skills necessary to land one. Therein lies the reason for my love-hate relationship with I Love You, Man.

What the movie does right is present a positive model for a balanced relationship that is not overly couplecentric. Peter and Zooey love each other and enjoy spending time together, but, by the end, they also have fulfilling lives apart with their own friends and career interests. The message that marital partners can't be each other's "everything," that they need platonic friends outside the relationship, is so enlightened and exceptional in the entertainment world that singles with singletude can't help but fall hard for this film.

On the other hand, as much fun and heart as Sydney brings to this story, he's still a caricature of the aging bachelor who refuses to grow up while all his friends are settling down. In one troubling scene, he phones everyone he knows to make weekend plans but is rejected by one after the other. Turns out his friends have wives and children who top their priority lists. Ok, Mr. Hamburg, we get it. When push comes to shove, family trumps friends. Fine. But then you pull out the heavyweights, the three Bs, and leave Sydney looking bummed, bored, and bereft. This is a guy who supposedly has a successful investment business, a collection of high-end guitars he rocks out on, a dog he's devoted to, and friends he hangs with a few times a week. Yet the one day everyone is busy, he's presented as a pathetic no-life who can't find a way to amuse himself on his own. Then there's Zooey's token single friend, who is, of course, a whiny, desperate Plain Jane (the cool, sexy one is married) and a mini-lesson toward the end about respecting the privacy of interactions within the sanctum of the relationship. These elements combine to proclaim a message that matrimaniacs are losers, but singles are losers, too, that to strike a successful balance, one should find a happy, healthy relationship or at least accept that relationships make the world go round. I'm down with the first half of that thesis but not the second.

In fantasyland, Sydney teaches Peter what he needs to learn without ever succumbing to the vices of stereotypical bachelorhood. But then there wouldn't be a conflict, and as all wannabe screenwriters know, a script without conflict is like a platinum wedding without a bridezilla. Or something. Anyway, it doesn't sell. Though I can't commit my whole heart to I Love You, Man, as the only movie in recent memory to call out matrimaniacs and lampoon intensive coupling, it still has me pretty infatuated.




How important do you think it is for a couple to maintain separate friendships outside their relationship? What can couples do to balance time together and time apart? How do you think bachelors are usually portrayed in Hollywood? Is the Hollywood version of the bachelor at all representative of the single men you know? If you've seen I Love You, Man, what are your thoughts on the movie? Do you think it has a positive or a negative message about singles in general and single men in particular? What does it say to you about matrimania/intensive coupling/enmeshed or codependent relationships? By the end of the movie, do you think Peter and Zooey provide a healthy model for couples or not? Can you recommend any other movies that tackle matrimania?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have an unpublished rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"! Singletude makes every effort to republish submissions in their original form but reserves the right to edit your submission for length and clarity.

"A Critical (But Highly Sympathetic) Reading of New Yorkers' Sexual Habits and Anxieties" by Wesley Yang: A Singletude Response

Have you read New York Magazine's "A Critical (But Highly Sympathetic) Reading of New Yorkers' Sexual Habits and Anxieties" by Wesley Yang? If browsing singles sites or dating blogs is part of your routine, chances are you haven't been able to avoid this article or someone's opinion of it. Like sex itself, it has spawned a wide range of heated responses, from prophecies of impending moral apocalypse to passionate defenses of Gen Y's highly evolved textual shorthand. Because although the title suggests a bland report peppered with decimals and percentages in tables that list "number of times per week" and "number of partners per year," it's actually all about the wireless hook-up network that connects young, urban singles. It's one writer's response to the online New York Magazine column called "The Sex Diaries," in which one lucky male or female gets to play Carrie Bradshaw for a week and record his or her dating woes and sexual exploits. Yang's central question: "Are the digital tools that make it easier to find sex compounding the confusion that accompanies it?"

Yang says yes, and he's not the first to reach that verdict. Since the cell phone became a must-have accessory and the code of texting a lingua franca--since the Internet Age multiplied our social options to the infinite power, really--academics, politicos, pop psychologists, and lifestyle journalists have obsessed over the paradox of perceived choice in sexual or romantic partners. The idea is that as our choices increase, we become paralyzed with indecision and end up making no choice at all. When too much choice intersects with the impersonal void of wireless communication, some experts argue, human beings become disposable objects that exist only for momentary gratification, their existence erased afterwards with the touch of an address book key.

This is the theme of Yang's analysis, too. He reviews the diarists' weekly entries since 2007 and describes a cutthroat world of sex games in which everyone is a player, like it or not, and you can trust no one because your partner is also your opponent. The object of the game is to have as many partner options as possible. To handicap yourself is to reveal emotion your partner/opponent does not feel, and to lose is to have no options at all. The jackpot is "true love," but in this virtual reality, the winner is too disconnected to know when it's real and so forfeits the prize.

The sticking point for most commentators is whether or not the tech revolution is to blame for this state of affairs, but I'll reserve judgment on that because it doesn't really matter. The BlackBerry didn't come with a set of instructions on "Using Speed Dial to Juggle Hook-ups," "Using the Calendar to Create a Safe Emotional Distance," or "Using Autocomplete to Send a Break-up Text." People, singles out there on the dating scene, decided to use those features to that end. The technology facilitated it, but the idea was all human. My interest is not in how young, single Americans got to this place but in how they are functioning in it and whether it needs to be made a different and better place.

What strikes me about the voices Yang quotes is that they're not the voices of empowered, sexually fulfilled, enlightened singles. They're permeated with angst, frustration, disappointment, and bitterness. It's possible that a selection bias is interfering here, but I believe that Yang is sincere in his attempt to represent the zeitgeist as he admits, "Reading the Sex Diaries all in one enormous gulp...caused me to surf on the edge of a terrible vertigo as I thought of the many wounds I had myself endured and inflicted during my brief career as a person with a New York City sex life." When he's moved to tears by an entry with a happy ending, I don't doubt that he's stumbled on a needle in a haystack, a Shangri-la unattainable to the multitudes of earnest diarists.

Is it any wonder that singles are unhappy trying to keep their personal lives impersonal? Yang describes how the "compulsive toggling of options winds up inflicting the very damage it was designed to protect against," noting how hard singles work to disguise "the fond hope, better kept to oneself, that one yearns to leave behind the serial f*** buddies, friends with benefits, and other back-burner relationships." This is not living with singletude, people. Singletude is about being authentic to your own wants and needs, not trying to repress what you feel to best someone else in a game of emotional one-upmanship. It's about promoting healthy attachments to others and concern for the community (as opposed to just one person), not using your singleness as an excuse to role over other people because you think you're a free agent and have no responsibility to anyone but yourself. Of course this lifestyle produces insecurity, loneliness, and disillusionment.

But, like ravers in some kind of dating trance, everyone keeps dancing. Why? Perhaps the answer lies in this nugget of wisdom, as Yang tries to explain why droves of single New Yorkers, some of the most entitled people in the world, would tolerate being manipulated like so many pawns in a casual after-dinner game: "The back burner is a confusing, destabilizing, and exhausting place to be, and yet none of the Diarists...appear to view it as anything but a fact of life. It is clearly less terrifying than the alternative, which is to not be on anyone’s." (italics added)

Ah-ha! There's the crux of it. Desperation. Millions of single daters have sold out on their ideals because they believe the alternative is to be alone, and that prospect is intolerable. They would rather have relationships that are unsatisfying at best and damaging, degrading, or depressing at worst than be single.

Let's clear up some cultural myths that seem to have resulted in a mass Millennial delusion: One, if you feel like your love life has forced you into a game of relationship poker that you never wanted to play, you should know that you can put the cards down. You can opt out. There will be people who will tell you to resign yourself to the way dating has changed, that this is the way of the world. That is, in effect, what even this New York Magazine article says, right? Well, believe me, you do not have to resign yourself to anything. All you have to do is be honest with yourself about what will bring you long-term happiness and what will derail you from that and then pursue the former single-mindedly. If someone is intimating that you have to let others treat you in a way that makes you feel hurt, anxious, ashamed, angry, depressed, devalued, deceived, manipulated, disrespected, or just plain uncomfortable in order to have a shot at a more meaningful relationship, that is a lie. Anyone who expects you to feel that way as a matter of course doesn't have your interests at heart and never will.

Two, you don't have to be a swinging, cybering, cell-wielding single to find a relationship. This is Peer Pressure 2.0: Adult Version, isn't it? It's the same lie--that if you don't conform, you'll be alone and unwanted. But the truth is that you don't have to cave to be with someone great. If you don't want to play the game, there are other singles out there who don't want to play it, either, and they will admire you all the more because you share their values. It may seem like "everybody's doing it, " but the more you refuse to, the more other singles you come in contact with will feel confident in their own decisions to opt out. That's how change happens.

Third--this is the most important part--even if you don't end up in a relationship, you don't have to be alone. The only reason this disposable dating movement has so much leverage is that it's powered by the sheer terror of being single (or maybe just sexless, in which case see "No Sex for Singles"). If you're so horrified by the prospect of singleness that you'd rather agonize over whether your booty call is ignoring you because you freaked him/her out with a kissy face text, then maybe you should ask yourself why. What's better about feeling like you have to map out elaborate schemes to get someone to see you and not just your cam phone shots? Today there's more literature than ever before to verify that singles can be as happy, healthy, socially active, and professionally productive as couples, if not more so. Anyone who doubts it should spend some time reading through the Singletude archives and visiting the blogs and web sites on Singletude's blogroll. Many of these sites also have information and tips that can help you learn how to resolve common problems and make the most of your life as a single. Above all, you should know that being single doesn't mean being alone! Research shows that singles, especially single women, aren't very likely to be lonely at all.

If New York Magazine's "Sex Diary" series is representative of how single adults in the U.S. date and mate, then it does seem like our shrinking, global society has paradoxically made us both more detached from any individual and more demanding of perfection from everyone. But even if technology has enabled this line of thinking, we can step back and consciously reevaluate how we choose to interact with others. Yang bemoans the transactional nature of wireless dating, naming "a certain callousness toward the merchandise" as "an unavoidable side effect of entering a marketplace as both buyer and seller." But each one of us has the choice to put ourselves up for sale or buy what is offered. Or we can decide that some things are priceless and treat them accordingly.


What are your thoughts on this article? If you're a fan of the New York Magazine "Sex Diaries" column, what are your observations about it? Do you think the tech revolution is responsible for the way sexual behavior has evolved over the past decade? If not, what is? What are some of the positive and negative consequences that have resulted from how dating and mating trends have changed? Can you relate to Yang's characterization of the current dating scene as a fast-paced, competitive world of superficial relationships, or has your experience with dating been different? Do you think the rise of the casual dating culture has generally made singles happier or unhappier? If the latter, why do you think so many singles continue to participate in it?

"Bachelor Portraits": Photographs of Single Men by Justyna Badach

Bachelors sometimes complain that "single" has become synonymous with "woman," that the media overlooks the single male and his unique interests and concerns. Well, photographer Justyna Badach is focusing the world's attention on single men through the intimate lens of her camera and illuminating the obscure, sometimes misunderstood corners of their inner spheres with her bright studio lights. In a series entitled simply "Bachelor Portraits," she captures the so-called untamed bachelor in his own abode to examine how single men can be both masculine and domestic. She is also interested in the symbolic resonance of the home for single men, portraying it as both a retreat from society and a barrier to interaction.

In an excerpt from Badach's artistic statement on the "Bachelor Portraits," she says:

The images . . . depict the safety of places where the men withdraw from the world to think, meditate and act out their fantasies. I am interested in the way that these personal spaces serve as both portrait and the junction between masculine and feminine, the man and myself.

Like bachelorhood, these spaces are both a refuge and a prison; the place where the man gets back in touch with themselves by depriving themselves of an emotional connection with the outside world . . . Many of the men expand [sic] a great deal of effort to arrange their living space, developing a kind of personal iconography or domestic vernacular. At times, this space is so profoundly personal, that it feels like I am standing in someone else’s skin.

The photos do conjure a private, cave-like realm for each of these single men, intensified by Badach's choice of subjects with individualistic and highly developed decorative styles. But there is a darkness to these photos, too, both literal and metaphorical. Although the subjects are bathed in white light, the rooms in which they pose are almost uniformly dim, muted, and often cluttered. The observer can almost smell the mustiness and feel the dust tickling the back of the throat. Most of the men are casually dressed, even unkempt, and sprawl or slouch in their environments, reinforcing the impression that the onlooker is on the threshold of the bachelor's personal territory, in which he is both sovereign lord and endangered species. While more visually interesting this way, Badach's representation of single men plays into the stereotype of the bachelor as odd, incompetent, and antisocial.

She provides a more detailed rationale for the web site Thomas Kellner--Photography in Art, in which she tries to categorize the single men she encountered, explaining, "Some are extremely shy; others have dedicated their lives to caring for a family member, while another group was so completely immersed in creative or intellectual pursuits they had little time for a relationship." Yet there are only hints of these other dimensions in her collection. The men are frozen like specimens to be studied rather than dynamically engaged in their daily lives. Badach could have showed us a bachelor getting ready for work, maybe shaving or adjusting his tie. She could've showed us bachelors passionately pursuing the hobbies she refers to, perhaps reading, painting, cooking, or playing instruments. She could've showed us a bachelor doing the household grunt work that single men are responsible for when they live alone. She could've showed us bachelors surrounded by photos of family and friends, talking on the phone, or chatting on the Internet.

But she doesn't. We see the occasional pet, maybe a child's toy in a nook or cranny, waiting for a visit, but the predominant tone is one of isolation. So it's not surprising that there's also an air of melancholy about this series, which Badach acknowledges when she says that tragedy reverberates in more than a few of her portraits. The solitude in so many of these pictures is less meditative or stimulating than it is lonely and remorseful, the light ghostly, the color palette subdued, the men themselves glum.

Badach is to be commended for exploring the lives of single men at all, and I understand that she wants to explore a side of singleness that's private, sometimes to the point of detachment. But by magnifying that side, she minimizes the side that is actively connected to the world despite the sense of physical disconnection. In my mind, it would've been more interesting--and truer to the lives of single men--to see photos that depict this contrast. Furthermore, by presenting single men as inherently different, as other, the photographer shies away from that about them which is universal. Again, it would've been refreshing to see portraits that demystify bachelors, showing them engaged in relatable activities instead of withdrawn into cocoons from which they emerge remote and eccentric.


What do you think about Badach's "Bachelor Portraits"? What message do they communicate to you about single men? If you're a single man, how is this similar to or different from how you view yourself and other single men? If you're not a single man, how is this similar to or different from how you perceive single men? What kinds of photographs of single men would you like to see in a series like this?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have an unpublished rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"! Singletude makes every effort to republish submissions in their original form but reserves the right to edit your submission for length and clarity.

Single Edition's "Live the Life You Love" Discussion Panel for Single Women

Single ladies in NYC, I have a treat for you! Single Edition, the sponsor of Singletude's awesome singles gift basket, which could be yours when you enter the Singletude giveaway contest, is partnering with online dating behemoth Spark Networks to host a three-night discussion series entitled "Live the Life You Love" at Saks Fifth Avenue.

You may remember from Singletude's interview with Single Edition founder Sherri Langburt that one of my favorite aspects of the site is its panel of experts, who regularly answer reader questions. Well, this is your chance to ply the experts with queries over cocktails...and meet some of your single sisters in the process. Single Edition's panel of trusted advisers will tackle Money, Home and Security on 9/15; Health, Mind and Body on 10/6; and Cooking, Career, Love and Entertaining on 11/3. And when the Q&A winds down, the evening is just revving up at Saks, which will be closed to the public with its personal shoppers and cosmetics consultants at your disposal!

Advance tickets are $25 or $45 for all three nights. I plan to attend at least one night, so if you live in New York or its environs, maybe I'll see you there!


Fun Link of the Day


Don't forget to enter the Singletude giveaway contest for your chance to win over $150 in prizes from SingleEdition.com!


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"!

No Sex for Singles

This week, Singlutionary has a brilliant post entitled "Sexless Singlutionary Experiment." Casual sex, including one-night stands, friends with benefits (FWBs), and f*** buddies (aka, "just benefits, hold the friendship please"), has been a hot topic in the singles blogosphere in recent months. Maybe it's the steamy weather with its requisite bikini beach days and titillating romcom movies, or maybe it's just the greater visibility of singles issues in general. Whatever it is, the Web is abuzz with opinions about how sex fits into the single life.

All long-term singles with a sex drive must confront this dilemma. Often, it remains the only stumbling block in an otherwise satisfied single's life. Go to any web site, blog, or message board for singles, and you'll see the ubiquitous complaint: "I love being single--the freedom, the flexibility, the self-determination--but I hate not getting any!" Sooner or later, every single has to make a decision about how he or she will channel sexual energy and whether that outlet will involve another person.

Without spoiling the details of the Singlutionary's gem of a post, which you should have a look at before you read any further, she decided to give intentional celibacy a try. Other than discussing the potential fallout of FWB relationships and hook ups in "Friends With Benefits and the Lowdown on Hook Ups, Part I" and "Part II," Singletude has been silent on this issue. That's because it's so personal and wrapped up in centuries of moral, psychological, and religious layers that can be hard to separate from it. However, I'm highlighting the Singlutionary's blog because she perfectly articulated my thoughts about the conundrum that is sex for the single person and chose an undeniably smart, safe, and sensitive solution for this time in her life.

Please keep in mind that I'm not saying any other choice is dumb, dangerous, and insensitive. But, as a single, whenever you add another person to the mix in your sex life, you have an unknown element that could become explosive at any time, so you have to be vigilant. When sex is an activity just between you and yourself, it's totally risk-free. STDs, jealousy, ruined friendship? Out of the question.

Again, I don't want to make a blanket statement implying that all casual sexual relationships go downhill or do damage, physical or emotional. But many of them do. That may not be politically correct, and it may not be popular, but sometimes the truth is neither. I have to call it as I see it, and time and again, I see these relationships beginning with two happy people and ending with at least one of them sad, regretful, or disillusioned. Casual affection turns into unrequited love, "friends" with benefits fail to deliver on the friendship, opportunities to pursue more meaningful relationships are missed. If even one person gets hurt, how can the relationship be considered "successful"? How can a few minutes of pleasure be worth this risk?

As singles, we're so used to living for ourselves that sometimes we forget sex involves someone else. It's an interpersonal experience, whether or not we want it to be. You can ignore the other person's feelings, pretend they're nothing more than a body. Hell, you can even ignore your own feelings and pretend you're nothing more than your body. But our minds and our hearts are an inseparable part of who we are, and we carry them into every interpersonal exchange. Of course that doesn't mean the feelings we bring to a sexual encounter will be love or other warm-fuzzy emotions. There will be feelings, though, of one sort or another, quite possibly intense feelings because sex is a physically intense experience, associated with a powerful physiobiological response as well as with powerful episodes in our personal histories and sometimes powerful beliefs and values. So when we imagine that this kind of interpersonal experience can be casual or only about the body or only about ourselves (as opposed to our partners) just because we're single, we don't prepare ourselves for how emotionally messy it can be.

No one wants to hear that these days, and I'm sure I'll get flak about voicing it. Everyone wants to believe that we singles can have our single serving and eat it, too. But I think this emanates from the flawed belief that life can be perfect, that we can search for and find a lifestyle that is all pros and no cons. That's the same trap that matrimaniacal people tumble into when they fantasize about living "happily ever after." They dream that marriage will give their lives an instant makeover, a quick fix after which there will be no conflict, no hardship, no sacrifice, just smooth sailing into the sunset. Sometimes, singles seem to believe that singlehood can have a similar transformative effect, that if we don't couple, we won't have any conflict, hardship, or sacrifice. That's not true. There is no perfect way to live. Both states, single and coupled, have advantages and disadvantages unique to each. Maybe living without partnered sex is just one of those disadvantages of singleness.

And is it really that much of a disadvantage anyway? Why is it that so many of us think we can't live without partnered sex? Is that really because it's so indispensable or because the dictum that we can't live without it has become as unquestioned as the tradition of marriage? One element of the Singlutionary's post that fascinated me was how she acknowledged her envy of all those nameless, faceless people out there getting it on. As she said, "I'm going to quit thinking that everyone out there doing-the-nasty is happier and healthier and having more fun than me."

For a long time, I felt the same way as Singlutionary. When I had to endure a dry spell without sex, I felt like I was suffering and envied couples who, I presumed, were getting laid on the regular. If I was abstinent for long enough, I started feeling insecure about myself, like I was a "loser" because I wasn't having The Sex. Then, as I was in the process of choosing singleness for myself, I also started reexamining my attitude toward sex.

What I realized was shocking. All my life, American culture had been sending me the message that sex was amazing, stupendous, the best experience that humans could aspire to. When I finally started having sex, I expected it to live up to the hype. I was so sure it would that I kept telling myself and other people how much I liked sex. But the fact was...it wasn't all that. Sex was a hit-or-miss experience. Sometimes, with a partner who knew me well, understood what I liked, and was willing to do what I liked...and at certain times of the month...and when I was into it and not tired, uncomfortable, tense, irritated, etc....it was very pleasurable. Other times, it was just blah or downright painful. If I was honest with myself, I had to admit that, more often than not, the sex that really blew my mind was battery operated.

The fact that I have to "admit" that, that it's embarrassing, tells me a lot about how our society pushes intercourse. Why? I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet it's tied to the push for coupling and, ultimately, marriage. After all, isn't that one of the supposed benefits of marriage that matrimaniacs advertize all the time? If we get married, we can have better, more consistent sex, or so we're told. We need to reproduce to keep society functioning, so society tells us to reproduce. Even though we can experience as much physical pleasure on our own as with a partner, partnered sex is portrayed as the ultimate experience, like an ice cream sundae compared to a scoop of vanilla. If we're not constantly having sex, thinking about it, or trying to get it, we're pitied, derided, even diagnosed! To be fair, at least part of this is probably a backlash against the repression of previous generations, and it's totally normal to like sex, think about it, and want it. The problem arises when it's considered abnormal to not be that interested in sex.

Once I had separated out the physical aspect of sex, I was able to identify what it was that I really craved--acceptance. Social programming had done it's job, and I'd learned that as a normal, healthy woman, I should want sex and lots of it. So, naturally, I wanted sex just like I'd wanted a Champion sweatshirt and Z. Cavaricci jeans in junior high--so I could have what everyone else had and fit in. There was something competitive about it, too. From women's magazines to talk shows, I started noticing how sex had been commodified. It was like a resource you could accumulate for bragging rights: "I've had more sex than you and for longer and in more positions, too! Neener neener neener!" It seemed like no matter how good your sex life was (with yourself or otherwise), there was always someone out there taunting you with how much better it could be. Under the circumstances, no wonder I'd felt left out! I'd internalized the notion that "winners" have heaps of wild, crazy, earth-shaking sex.

Now that I understood the cultural messages I'd absorbed, I could focus on what really did distinguish partnered sex from single sex. First, there was the beautiful human body, which I had always admired and loved to touch. But was that in itself worth tolerating the trappings of a relationship or undertaking the risks of casual sex? I knew that, for me, the answer was no. Second, there was the personal connection, the closeness, and that's something I do miss about relationships. But it's not something I can get from a casual relationship, and it's not enough to justify a serious, committed relationship.

Perhaps you'll think about it and decide that sex does justify either pursuing a monogamous relationship or accepting the risks inherent in something casual. Just like the decision to get married, though, it should only be made when you can separate what you really want from what mainstream America has taught you to want. You may be surprised to discover how little your happiness really depends on getting off with someone else.


Okay, bring it on! What do you think about the cultural messages we receive about sex? Can you identify some beliefs about sex that you've internalized from society? Why do you think U.S. culture pushes partnered sex so much? Have you had a casual relationship primarily or just for sex? If so, what were the pros and cons as you experienced them? Were the pros worth the cons?


Fun Link of the Day


Don't forget to enter the Singletude giveaway contest for your chance to win over $150 in prizes from SingleEdition.com!


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a "Singletude Q&A" or your rant or rave in a "Singletude Sound-off"!

Director of Seeking Happily Ever After Seeks Single Women for Book

Single? Female? Over 26? (Or 26 for the past five years now? ;) Don't worry; we'll use the honor system.) Want to make your voice heard?

If so, head on over to this questionnaire for single women from Michelle Cove, director of the forthcoming documentary film Seeking Happily Ever After. The questionnaire, which consists of just three short- (and sweet) answer questions, will be used to help Cove write a companion book, which she describes as "a feel-great guide to seeking your own happily-ever-after." It "will address the issues/concerns of being a single woman today that go beyond 'landing a husband,'" Cove says.

Seeking Happily Ever After doesn't have a release date yet, but Singletude is eagerly awaiting it. The trailer has already made a splash at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, where it was voted the Top-rated Trailer. Through interviews with familiar faces like Leslie Talbot (Singular Existence) and Jerusha Stewart (The Single Girl's Manifesta) and ordinary single gals over 30, the filmmakers ask why women are staying single in such unprecedented numbers and conclude that they can't be pigeonholed as either trailblazing feminists or desperate biological clock watchers. In a three-minute feature on the making of the film, Cove muses about the myth of the life lived "happily ever after" and how it can be reinterpreted by women creating their own happy endings. As she says in her bio, "The goal of this film is to challenge women to stop thinking about happily-ever-after in terms of princes and picket fences and get them to start thinking about what happiness looks like now for them as individuals--and how to get it."

In a world in which Sonia Sotomayor has replaced Cinderella as the role model for women, a documentary like this is poised to speak to a generation of females at just the right moment. Singletude can't wait for the reaction!


What are your thoughts on the Seeking Happily Ever After trailer? What does living "happily ever after" mean to you? Has that meaning changed since you were younger? What are some aspects of the single life that you would like to see the media address?


Fun Link of the Day






Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Footloose Femails: A Yahoo! Group for Single Women

Singletude would like to announce the debut of the hottest, hippest email list ever to grace Yahoo! Groups. Okay, maybe I'm a little biased, but I'm allowed to be because this is a group for single women, so it automatically gets the Singletude seal of approval. (Sorry, guys, this one is just for us girls, but if I hear of a comparable group with more testosterone, you'll read it here first!)

Called Footloose Femails, the group was started in April by moderator Iolanda of Sydney, Australia, to give single women an online retreat for socialization, support, and general exploration of the joys and challenges of solo living. Right now, the group is still small, numbering 14, so new members are welcome. There have already been some intriguing discussions about everything from male-female friendships to self-commitment ceremonies, and the larger the group gets, the livelier the conversation will be.

For those who are unfamiliar with Yahoo! Groups, you will need a free Yahoo! account to join. As with all Yahoo! groups, you can choose to receive and respond to messages by email or log in to the Footloose Femails forum online. I hope to see you all there!

Also, apologies to anyone who couldn't access Singletude over the weekend. The robotic powers that be mistook my love of informative links for spam and put the blog on lockdown. Thankfully, we've straightened out that little misunderstanding, and hopefully it won't happen again. (This is where I'm supposed to haul some intimidating threats out of my arsenal, but everyone knows you do not threaten a multibillion Web 2.0 monopoly and live to blog about it.)


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

"Anderson Woman Married 23 Times" by Konrad Marshall: A Singletude Response

We now interrupt your regularly scheduled blog posting to announce that Singletude has identified the first ever anti-singletude poster child, Linda Lou Wolfe of Anderson, IN, as reported by Konrad Marshall in an Indystar.com article, "Anderson Woman Married 23 Times."

Wolfe, who was born Linda Lou Taylor and is now 68, holds the Guinness world record for the most marriages of any female in a single lifetime. Her former husbands, apparently chosen for their aptitude to quickly and effectively end marriages, include a convict, a homeless man, and two who weren't even straight.

Perhaps desperate to wipe her slate clean in the eyes of God, Taylor Scott Street Smith Moyer Massie McMillan Berisford Chandler Essex, etc. married a Baptist minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, the male record holder for most marriages, becoming wife number 29. It seems the man of the cloth married so often to avoid the sin of premarital sex. His final marriage to Taylor, etc., a publicity stunt that never paid off, ended when he passed away shortly before their first anniversary.

Good thing he wasn't Muslim. He already got his share of virgins.

Wolfe advises singles to "just get married the once and stay married. I have not had a bed of roses, believe me." That is very true. Instead, she got cheated on, choked, beaten, and padlocked in a refrigerator by her dear hubbies. Nevertheless, she says, "I would get married again because, you know, it gets lonely."

I understand. I too get lonely when a man hasn't padlocked me in a refrigerator in awhile.

Seriously, if there was ever a person totally and utterly lacking in singletude, this must be it. One wonders what would happen to her if she let herself be single for a day. Would she explode like a piece of wedding cake smashed in a young bride's face? Would she melt like a groom's perspiring brow? Wolfe must've feared so. Why else would she have rushed 23 men to the altar--that's an average of one man almost every two years since she started her wedding spree at 16--even marrying one guy three times? (You know, after two times, you gotta figure something isn't working.)

Singletude readers, I don't think I even have to tell you to do as Wolfe says, not as she does. Marriage can be a celebration of a loving union between two people, or it can be a prop for someone who can't stand on his or her own two legs. It's a commitment that two individuals should enter into because they want to live their lives side by side, not because either of them won't have a life without the other. And those vows should be made thoughtfully and carefully, with the intention of fulfilling them, not with divorceonline.com already in your bookmarks.

To people like Wolfe, I say if you can't marry for the right reasons, then don't marry at all. And mere "loneliness" is not a good enough reason! There are plenty of social organizations you can join to combat that, and none of them require a lawyer when you part ways with them. This woman needs a bumper sticker that says, "Reckless Marriages Destroy Lives."

Whew! Okay, I've said my piece. Or peace. Speak now, dear readers, or forever hold it. What do you think about Wolfe's 23 marriages? Do you think loneliness in itself is a good enough reason to marry? What do you think are good reasons to marry? How do you know when someone is the right one?

He's Just Not That Into You: A Singletude Review

I'm putting today's planned post about single homeowning on hold because the cinematic version of Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo's bestseller, He's Just Not That Into You, debuted this past weekend. Since the book's title became a rallying cry for countless singles, I know some of you will be lining up to pay homage to its truisms about boys behaving badly and the women who love them. So before you open your wallet and part with the equivalent of three Starbucks runs for the privilege of crushing someone else's cold popcorn kernels into the seat of your pants as the teenage boy behind you generously massages your back with swift, sure, repetitive kicks, I thought I'd put myself in the hot seat and possibly spare you the trouble.

As you may have inferred from previous statements such as "I hate Greg Behrendt," I really don't like Greg Behrendt. I didn't like the simplistic, one-size-fits-all philosophy he espoused in his book, so I didn't think I'd like the movie either. Well, the movie may not have been this year's Love, Actually, but as your standard rainy day romantic comedy, it wasn't half bad, and, to my surprise, I didn't have to give it an automatic thumbs down for towing the Behrendt line. If anything, the movie disputes his theory or at least leaves room for the messier elements of life that complicate relationships.

He's Just Not That Into You employs a star-studded ensemble as a selling point, and the acting is expectedly solid, but the Dickensian web of relationships is more convoluted than clever. I found myself wishing that the writers had condensed the book's talking points into just two or three arcs instead of creating a new character to illustrate each one. As a result, the characters fail to take on lives of their own and have about as much color and dimension as black-and-white sketches accompanying Behrendt's anecdotes. There's Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin), the neurotic, pink phone clutching embarrassment to single women everywhere who manages to make every mistake in the dating book but can't imagine why guys don't call her back; Connor (Kevin Connolly), the object of her obsession, who just isn't that into her; Greg Behr--err, Alex (Justin Long), who just isn't that into anyone and makes it his mission to educate Gigi in the secret code of men; sexpot Anna (Scarlett Johansson), who throws herself at a married man, as all voluptuous blondes do; the philandering married man (Bradley Cooper), who of course won't leave his predictably uptight wife (Jennifer Connelly); and several other characters cobbled together from folk wisdom about the evils of cohabitation and the Internet.

The exception in this tribute to rules is Beth, a breath of circulating, if not fresh, air played with real poignancy by Jennifer Aniston, who must know a thing or two about the role of the long-suffering girlfriend coming to terms with her boyfriend's (Ben Affleck) contempt for the institution of marriage. Hers is the only story that pushes the boundaries of the cliche, though it ultimately does a 180 and ends up reinforcing them.

Interspersed with the vignettes are mockumentary-style interviews with sad examples of the female sex, who bolster the book's unstated but unavoidable blame-the-victim thesis. There are some genuinely funny lines here as well as throughout the rest of the movie, which is entertaining enough to rent the DVD and throw a pajama party. But there are also agonizing moments of heartbreak and humiliation that will hit close to home for singles who have been "on the market" for awhile without offering any insight or solution worth a $10 ticket.

And aren't insight and solutions what fans are expecting of the movie based on their favorite self-help book? For them, He's Just Not That Into You will surely disappoint and confuse for the same reasons that it surprised and pleased me: it doesn't actually support the book's prescription for dating success.

See, Behrendt would like single women to believe that men are all-or-nothing roboclones programmed to respond to the opposite sex in one of two ways--either flick them off like dung flies or fly them to the moon on a diamond-encrusted jet. No in between. And, according to Behrendt, this should be the case whether a couple has just met or been together for 30 years. Any man who hesitates to ask a woman out, call her back, commit to a relationship, or marry her just isn't into her and never will be. His philosophy of love leaves no room for baggage, shyness, insecurity, immaturity, or differences in romantic style, much less for the feelings that can blossom out of friendship over time. Plus, by absolving both parties of any blame, he does a disservice to both men and women. The message is that, whether you're a man who rejects women repeatedly and ruthlessly or a woman who's been repeatedly and ruthlessly rejected, you couldn't possibly have any problems except that you haven't found the right one.

Without throwing out any spoilers, let's just say that the movie contradicts this premise, and that, in my opinion, is its saving grace. It shows us relationships, in all their glorious sloppiness, breaking the rules. Friendships grow slowly into something deeper, men rethink their feelings and learn to commit over time, women make the first move and sometimes do get the guy. Interwoven with these anti-lessons are examples that support the book, too, but they succeed because they apply to superficial relationships, and that's where Behrendt's rules are of value. Your mother could've told you--and probably did--that most married men won't leave their wives for a fling. And, given the multiple avenues of communication available in our global society, if a guy doesn't contact you after the first date, he doesn't want a second helping of your wit and charm. Behrendt's problem is that he tries to force those broad-based guidelines to work in specific situations in which complex interactions of personal history, psychological needs, personality dynamics, and value systems determine the course of a relationship. The movie trumps the book because it acknowledges that a catchphrase like "he's just not that into you" isn't sufficient to explain those interactions.

But what I like best about this movie isn't just that it contradicts its source material; it affirms the single life in a way the book never did. In the end, no less than three characters choose to be alone for awhile, and that choice is presented not with pity but with acceptance and encouragement. As the camera pans through a final montage, the concluding voiceover reminds us that sometimes the happy ending is you on your own, making a new life for yourself. I'm into that!

He's Just Not That Into You won't win any awards, but it's cute, true to life, and surprisingly singles-friendly. If you're in the mood to waste some money this weekend, watch with my blessing.


Fun Link of the Day


(Read it and cringe.)



Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

"Alone Together" by Jennifer Senior: A Singletude Response

On November 23, "Alone Together" was the cover story of New York Magazine. Since I love it when the mainstream media addresses singles issues, I dashed over here to tell you about it. Unlike those brief pop newsflashes with their useless trivia ("4 of 5 Single Women Say they Want to Get Married,"anyone?), this article has heft and meat, even if I got the sense that a few of the marital stats used to dress up this hearty fare had passed their expiration date. Overall, though, the article takes an in-depth look at living single in the country's most populated metro center and, in the end, reaffirms it as a natural and healthy condition.

The fact that singles now live alone in one of every two New York City apartments prompted writer Jennifer Senior to question the stereotype of the lonely, isolated cat lady. In the process, although she trots out the same overblown Waite and Gallagher statistics about how much happier and healthier married people are (see my review of Dr. Bella DePaulo's Singled Out to better understand how this data is manipulated to support an agenda), she ultimately uncovers the truth that has quietly shaped half the American population--that social health is about depth and variety of connection, not marriage. And due to that finding, it should come as no surprise that, despite their tough veneer, cities are often the most fertile grounds for establishing and maintaining all-important social networks. Here are some of the article's highlights:

*Even though people are more likely to live alone in urban environments as opposed to less populated areas, city dwellers are less likely to feel lonely.
*Singles feel more connected when surrounded by other singles and are therefore less likely to be lonely in the city than out in the 'burbs.
*The unhappily married feel lonely as often as or more often than singles.
*A large network of close friends and acquaintances increases happiness and health as much as a good marriage. Urbanites tend to have more friends.
*Singles tend to have more friends and leave home to socialize more frequently than couples.
*Intimate friendships aren't the only benchmark of emotional health. Casual acquaintances (i.e., friends of friends) and colleagues increase our sense of well-being, too.
*The Internet communication that so many in the young single generation favor, long vilified for its propensity to isolate, is, in fact, a valuable means of socialization.
*Living alone in itself may provide personal satisfaction due to its association with maturity, independence, and achievement.

Senior fleshes out these claims with research evidence, expert interviews, and some editorializing that seems mostly on the mark and singles-friendly. She also raises a point that resonated with me and might with you, too. Specifically, if you are among the millions of professional singles who never step off the workaday treadmill, you may be particularly vulnerable to loneliness because your--pardon the pun--single-minded attention to work may preclude developing social contacts. I have to admit right about now I'm hearing strains of "People who need people/Are the luckiest people in the world..."

Now I know there are some critics who will be offended by the article's unabashed crushing on NYC and cities in general. In its defense, when I lived in a semi-rural area, I did feel more lonely than I do now, although I suspect that was due more to a difference of perception than actual hours spent socializing. Still, the potential for connection, as desired, that teems right outside my door in a big city is itself a comfort that I didn't have in a small town, and perhaps that sense of connectedness is almost as important as time spent in the presence of others. Nevertheless, while cities may be hotbeds for happening singles, the most important factor in your social success is how dedicated you are to cultivating connections. Even in a city as enormous as New York, like Senior, I am easily isolated by my work if I don't consciously make time for family, friends, dating, and outside activities.

In any event, I am pleased to see a high-profile magazine put a mostly positive spin on singlehood, confronting the myth of loneliness head-on and discrediting it. I observe so many writers purporting to do the same, who instead end up infusing their articles with nagging doubts about whether all those seemingly happy singles are really just donning a brave facade, intentionally hoodwinking traditionalists, or disconnecting from their true emotions. Senior takes the opposite approach, addressing prejudices right away and dispelling them. Whether you're a denizen of Greenwich Village or the plains of Wyoming, I encourage you to read this portrait of the coming era for singles.


What do you think about Senior's assertions in "Alone Together"? If you live alone, do you feel lonely? Do you think any loneliness that you feel is either ameliorated or exacerbated by the size of the town or city in which you live? Do you think you spend more time socializing and have more acquaintances than your coupled friends do? Do you find your social network as emotionally satisfying as a romantic relationship?


Fun Link of the Day


(This is your reference point for the dubious marital stats.)




Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Singelringen's SinglePower Celebrity Contest

So, do you all remember the Singelringen? That pricey turquoise ring that announces your eligibility to those in the know and your lack of fashion sense to everyone else? (Okay, that's probably a bit harsh. It's attractive for a piece of blue acrylic.)

Well, their PR rep, Linda Sherman, recently informed me that Singelringen is sponsoring the SinglePower Celebrity Contest for the world's coolest celebrity singles, who will be crowned Mr. and Miss SinglePower. Out of 10 nominees of each sex, American actress Drew Barrymore is currently leading the pack for the women, while Germany's hip hop maven Crosijan heads up the field for the men.

Ho hum, right? I agree. But here's the interesting twist: You can vote for any non-celebrity single, including yourself, as a "wild card." According to Sherman, your nominee should be "attractive, proud, strong in a way that makes other people feel appreciated and also a good role model for other singles." The two wild cards who accumulate the most votes will be added to the final running along with the celebrity nominees.

When you vote, you will be entered to win a trip to Sweden, where you will stay in the famed ICEHOTEL, a seasonal world wonder constructed entirely of ice. Singelringen must know that you don't need a significant other to light your fire; cold hands will just as easily stoke a warm heart!

News of the SinglePower competition jump-started my own musings about what makes a single person "cool." In my mind, a cool single is someone who is comfortable with him- or herself and enjoys life to the fullest, whether or not he or she has a romantic partner. He or she isn't afraid to venture out alone and doesn't postpone his or her dreams until marriage. Cool singles are those who may live by themselves but are never really alone, maintaining close networks of family and friends. They know who they are, and when they do couple up, they don't disappear into the relationship or sacrifice their unique spirits for the sake of unity. Most of all, they realize that being single isn't some kind of disease but a normal, often transitional state in which they may find themselves many times throughout the course of life.


What makes a single person cool in your book? Who would you nominate for Mr. or Miss SinglePower? (This is your chance to give the singles in your life some recognition!)


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Singles and PDA: Dealing with Public Displays of Affection

As a blogger, I try to keep my writing in the public eye and my personal life out of it. But this time I have to blur the boundaries because--let's face it--there aren't any boundaries when a guy standing close enough to kiss you is slipping the tongue to the girl next to him along with whatever fingers he can get inside her shirt.

As the October air gets nippy, couples huddling for warmth have become a frequent sight on street corners, park benches, and trains. Out in the open, we're under a big enough sky that we don't need to test physics by occupying the same space at the same time. When a touchy-feely couple gets cozy on a picnic blanket, anyone who doesn't want to see the show can appropriate a different patch of grass.

But it's more difficult to avoid the lovebirds when they insist on performing their mating ritual in an enclosed space such as a movie theater, shopping aisle, bus, or train. For instance, at least once or twice a week on the train, I have an uncomfortably close encounter of the following kind: There I am, staking my claim to a mere inch or two of poll, maintaining a zenlike focus on avoiding eye contact with fellow passengers and staying upright despite the bucking B line's best attempts to throw me. While innocently awaiting my stop, barricaded in my mental fortress of solitude, a couple, usually but not always under the age after which adults are supposedly not to be trusted, enter the car and take up residence at my poll.

In case you've never been on a subway, when passengers join you at your poll, you are forced to part with your personal space, and you won't see it again until they disembark. Since most people don't like to part with their personal space, there is an unwritten rule that you dignify this loss by keeping your body parts to yourself and making a good faith effort to be as invisible as a muggle can. So when you have nowhere to look but at the couple in front of you and their giggling and eye flirting gives way to spit swapping, they're not only flaunting their PDA but breaking the subway code big time.

Now, one kiss--okay, fine, whatever. I'll avert my eyes and pretend I didn't see. But when you punctuate every sentence by locking lips over and over in an enclosed space where I have no choice but to be an onlooker, you might as well jab me in the shoulder with a pointy nail every 10 seconds. It's visual torture. And these aren't just teenagers with untamable hormones and no manners. These are adults, some of them dressed for work, where, in 20 minutes or so, they will have no problem exercising the self-control that somehow eludes them on the train.

When singles complain about PDA, inevitably there are accusations of envy and bitterness. But I'm going to lay those to rest right here: I may not be in a committed relationship, but I am regularly on the receiving end of kisses, so I have nothing to be envious about. Even if I weren't, though, that wouldn't change the fact that I don't want to watch a couple's intimate romantic moments played out in front of me any more than I want to watch them scream and curse at each other, get sick and vomit, or give birth. Some things are private, and just because we can see most of them on cable TV doesn't mean they shouldn't be. When someone force-feeds the public a slice of his or her sexuality, it can be embarrassing, distasteful, and even somewhat violating to unwitting bystanders.

For some singles, of course, PDA does also trigger envy, insecurity, and depression as an in-your-face reminder of what they want but don't have. In fact, sometimes, I wonder if, for at least quite a few couples, this is the unconscious objective of PDA--to show off their relationship, something widely perceived as an asset, in the same way one might roll up a sleeve to show off a Rolex or take the new Lexus on a grocery run. After all, it's hard to believe that these couples go home and sit through dinner, dishwashing, dog feeding, their favorite weekly drama, and the news while staring into each other's eyes and recreating living Rodin sculptures. At least a good part of their public canoodling must be exhibitionism rather than sheer overflow of love.

Whether PDA makes you blush, brings out your green-eyed monster, or sends you running for comfort food, there are ways to restore privacy to your personal space:


1. Lock down the liplockers.
Though some with a laissez-faire philosophy may protest that getting frisky outside the bedroom is harmless, there's a reason every state has laws prohibiting public nudity and sexual activity. Public spaces are for the public, and it's only fair that we all cooperate so everyone can enjoy them. You don't have to be exposed to someone else's indecent exposure. If a couple is being so inappropriate that you feel uncomfortable sharing the same steamy air, you have the right to report them to the authorities. Yes, it's harsh and not to be done willy-nilly, but sometimes people don't consider how their actions (or, um, attempts to get some action) affect others until they're face to face with the consequences.

2. Bounce them to a bedroom.
Most PDAs skirt a finer line between in flagrante and innocent. Such instances may not be a case for the police, but if you're in an establishment like a restaurant or movie theater, the management will want to hear about it if the patrons are unhappy. If the cooing and cuddling is making you too queasy to eat dinner or if you have to crane your neck around the neckers to see the movie screen, complain to a manager. He or she may discreetly ask the couple to dial it down a notch, or you may be given a discount or refund.

3. If they really want a show, give them an audience.
When reinforcements aren't available, such as in a bus, train, or store aisle, you may have to take matters into your own hands. Sometimes couples deep into a display of PDA may be ignorant of the attention they're drawing to themselves. Give them a funny wake-up call with hoots, whistles, cheers, or jeers to remind them that they're not in the privacy of their own home. This may embarrass them into an early curtain on their performance. Other options: Pretend to snap some pictures with your camera phone, start directing them as though they're shooting a love scene, or, if all else fails, use the tried and true exhortation to get a room. (Note: If you don't know the sappy sweethearts, use caution. Even if your intentions are to make light of the situation while getting your point across, there are always those unhinged sorts who will react violently to teasing and many more who will be anything but embarrassed and flip you the bird before progressing to second base. And, of course, you risk being as obnoxious as the offending parties.)


Now, when the tables have turned and you're out on a date, make sure you don't hand out an unwanted helping of PDA to those around you! Wandering fingers are bad enough; pointing the finger at others only to slobber on your significant other is even worse. Contribute to a PDA-free society by saving your bedroom eyes for the bedroom.


How do you feel as a single when you're unwittingly treated to a display of PDA? If it bothers you, why do you think that is and how do you respond to it? Have you ever done anything to discourage an overly amorous couple, and, if so, did it work?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Singles Clothing and Accessories: Be Single in Style

Next time you go out, instead of advertising your favorite sports team or fashion house, why not advertise yourself?

Move over, Craigslist Missed Connections! Singles no longer have to rely on subtle glances and preening gestures to make our intentions known. Now we have t-shirts, hats, rings, even buttons to do the job for us! Apparel and accessories for singles range from the subtle and sophisticated to the in-your-face and proud of it to the cute and flirtatious, but these products all have one objective, to broadcast our single status. The rationale is part badge of honor, part icebreaker in a world in which we're increasingly connected to devices and disconnected from each other.

A few months ago, Quirkyalone blogged about tees for singles, and that started me wondering just how many choices there are for trendy unattached types who want to make a fashion statement. Turns out there are quite a lot. I've compiled a list of those I tracked down, complete with ratings, here:



Clothing

--SingleTease
Probably the best publicized retailer of singles merchandise, SingleTease offers two basic women's t-shirt styles in eight earthen tones and a selection of slogans from the frank "say hello." to the coy "support your local library (check me out)." There's a significant jump in price from the affordable baby tees, which are $20, to the full-length tees, which are $28. Adorable, but the limited number of designs (six) and colors (each tee is only available in one or two) are disappointing. And why no shirts for men?
***

--SinglesT
These unisex tees have snappy slogans, although their meaning might be too obscure to those who aren't already clued in to their purpose. For example, "Long Term Lease Available Inquire Within" and "You Never Know Until You Ask" are cute, but outside the context of a singles bar, passersby might think you've printed a t-shirt to advertise your room for rent. Also, the slogan's placement on the back of the shirt may hinder the opportunity for a stranger to make eye contact across a crowded room. The selection is even smaller here--just four designs to choose from, and they only come in one color scheme--but at $14.99, the price can't be beat.
**

--Other Retailers with Singles Lines
My search turned up lots of designers and distributors who don't specialize in singles apparel but have one or two t-shirts that celebrate singlehood. Many of them operate through CafePress, Zazzle, or other print-on-demand sites. Here are some of the isolated designs that popped up in Google:
Ask Me If I'm Single
Date me I'm single
Happy Single Awareness Day!
Hi, I'm single.
I think, therefore I'm single.
If You're Hot, I'm Single
If You're Rich...I'm single!
I'm Rich and Single
I'm Single Let's Mingle
It's Summer. I'm Single.
Kiss Me I'm Single
National Singles Awareness Day
Single Awareness Day
Yes I'm single...And I like it that Way!
You Make Me Happy I'm Single.


Jewelry

--Just Looking Singles
The most popular singles-themed adornment appears to be the bracelet. Made of black rubber, this one is more utilitarian than decorative and costs $14.99. Your single status is supposed to be advertised by a silvertone-plated hieroglyphic eye, and for $4.99 each, you can add hieroglyphic silvertone charm plates to symbolize your interests, religion, astrological sign, etc. Unfortunately, the overall effect is less likely to initiate conversation than it is to initiate you into the Golden Dawn.
*

--Singelringen
Arguably the most widely publicized singles accessory, the Singelringen, which hails from Sweden, is marketed in 28 countries and has been spotted on the fingers of celebrities such as Paula Abdul, Mario Lopez, Wilmer Valderamma, Naomi Campbell, Juliette Lewis, and Maria Menounos. But unless they're celebrity watchers, will singles on the street recognize this sterling silver ring with a turquoise acrylic outer band? I suspect not. And it could be just my American sensibilities, but although this is advertised to both women and men, my guess is that many guys will find the sleek style and delicate color too feminine for their tastes. Besides, as attractive as the ring is, $69 seems like a rather hefty price tag for sterling silver and acrylic.
**

--Singles Bracelets
At the other end of the spectrum, the Singles Bracelet eliminates the guesswork entirely. These no-fuss reversible bangles, which come in color combos of pink/black, blue/black, red/black, or yellow/black, announce to the world that you are "SINGLE" or "TAKEN," depending on your relationship status, your mood, or your interest in the drunken bar patron in front of you. You can order them here at $4.99 a piece. They're far from couture, but they know their purpose and live up to it, and the price is right.
**

--Singles Jewelry
Now here's a site I like. They offer sterling silver rings and pendants, both engraved with the tag line "Single-Unique-Individual" encircling an embossed "S." Though they resemble class rings more than anything found behind the counter of Tiffany's, they look solid and polished and, most importantly, they get the message across in a tasteful way. They're also customized for men and women. At $24.95 for a pendant with chain and $49.95-59.95 for a ring, these are priced to sell to singles who want quality at a reasonable rate.
***

--Wrist Twist
These wristbands, debossed with the product's logo, are available in six different marbleized colors, which signify the age group that interests you, for $6.95 each. Similar to the Singles Bracelet in quality, they once again rely on a gimmick that's the equivalent of a secret handshake.
*

As with clothing, singles jewelry lines are also carried by some merchants that serve broader customer bases:

--Generous Gems
This online jeweler sells 14k white and yellow gold charms featuring singles-friendly phrases. They're elegant and affordably priced in the $21-42 range. Plus, they're noticeable but don't spell desperation in the way that some other singles accessories do.
***

--Dian Malouf
Her "Unhitched" ring is on display at 101Wedding-Idea.com, although you'll have a tough time finding it on her site despite the link. I couldn't find it, but the site provides enough contact info that you should be able to request it if interested. Designed with the male of the species in mind, this heavy band is sterling silver with an optional 14k gold face and is one of the few singles items aimed squarely at the high-end consumer. The review lists the price range as $350-2,300, presumably dependent on the upgrade to 14k gold. This seems excessive to me for a ring that is mostly silver and not all that classy to boot, but it gets its point across. It's a shame there's no ladies' version.
**


Other Accessories or Miscellaneous

SHI Symbol
It's an interlocking male-female symbol that Prince would love, and you'd better know what it stands for because unless you choose an item that spells it out, no one may ever guess that it means "Single-Happy-Interested." It does, however, appear on an impressive array of merchandise, including t-shirts, chains, pendants, earrings, pins, belt clips, key rings, and even cufflinks! Many products have his and hers versions, and there are variations for singles of different sexual orientations. Be prepared to pay a pretty penny for the privilege of wearing The Symbol, though; t-shirts are $35, and many of the 9- and 18k gold pieces cost hundreds.
***

Again, some sites don't just cater to singles but incorporate some terrific singles products nevertheless:

Giftgasms
This giant web outlet carries items for every occasion and persuasion. Among its offerings for singles are tops, hats, buttons, tote bags, mousepads, mugs, bumper stickers, and more, all sporting catchy phrases like "I'm just not that into you," "single serving productions," and "Wanted: Single, straight, solvent male. Apply within." Both sexes are represented, and prices are on par with most discount and department stores. Best of all, they're funny without screaming "loser."
****


*=poor **=fair ***=good ****=excellent

Ratings are based on design, selection, relevance, and pricing of the product. Singletude has no direct experience with any of the above products or retailers and cannot comment on actual quality of the product, customer service, or shipping and handling.



Now you may notice that my ratings were conservative. That's because I think a lot of these web shops could do a lot better in terms of quality, selection, and sometimes cost. There's a fine line between products that are humorous and products that make singles the brunt of the humor as well as between products that tactfully communicate single status, those that blare it out like a fog horn, and those that try so hard to be subtle that the message is lost. Most retailers haven't figured out the difference yet. When they do, the singles fashion market could really take off. Until then, there aren't a lot of truly wearable options.

For the record, I probably wouldn't buy any of these items since I don't like to attract attention to myself in public places. However, for singles who are serious about meeting as many people as possible, some of these products seem like fun, flirtatious conversation starters.


What's your opinion on singles-oriented clothing and accessories? Would you buy or have you bought any products for singles? If you have, what kind of reaction did you get?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a product for singles that you would like Singletude to review? Contact Elsie!

Singlism: Examples in the Media

Last time, Singletude ran a review of Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After by Bella DePaulo. In the book, DePaulo coins the term singlism to refer to discrimination against singles. Sometimes singlism is blatant and has visible consequences that are keenly felt by those who are unmarried, as with the singles tax penalty, singles travel supplements, or the lower wages paid to singles even when other differences are factored in. Other times, singlism is an attitude, an expectation, white noise in a culture of couples. Just the other day, I saw two examples of the latter form of singlism in the media.

The first was part of this quiz, called "Are You Aging Yourself?" by Gabrielle Linzer at AOL Health. The test informally assesses how your lifestyle might contribute to early aging, honing in on sleep patterns, eating habits, exercise routines, and the like. But then there's this gem of a question:

At the end of the day, you are greeted by:

A. Your loving (occasionally annoying) family
B. You're not home too much
C. A silent, empty house

Guess which choice is right, students. If you circled A., give yourself a gold star. AOL gives you a green check mark next to the "right" answer and red x's next to the "wrong" ones. In explanation, "the benefits of keeping connected" are touted, and a psychologist is quoted warning of the health risks of isolation and loneliness. In summary, "if you aren't graced with a family or someone special," AOL reminds you to hang out with your friends and keep busy with social activities.

Well, okay, but if your life's a social whirlwind, wouldn't it be safe to say that you're probably not home too much? Seems like that was the so-called incorrect answer B. Moreover, just because you live alone (and notice that the only options given are living alone or living with family since no one lives with friends or roommates apparently) doesn't mean you're automatically lonely or isolated. Plenty of singles like living alone and the peace and quiet that come with it. And living alone hardly means they don't have voicemail in their inboxes and options of who to see on a Saturday night. To top it all off, AOL points you in the direction of friends and social organizations only if you aren't "graced" with the real blessings in life--a significant other and kids. Guess I'm one of the unlucky unloved!

And how about this article by MarketWatch reporter Ruth Mantell, which made the Internet rounds last Thursday? The first sentence says it all:

Women have become increasingly vulnerable to job losses during downturns, putting families at greater financial risk during these troubled times, according to a Tuesday report from the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee.

The article goes on to bemoan how difficult it is for families when the second income earner loses her job, leaving no padding for her primary wage earner husband. Excuse me, but shouldn't these families be thankful they have a primary wage earner? The fact is that half of households in this country are headed by singles, which means that half the population doesn't have a fallback to begin with. If a single woman loses her job, she doesn't have any cushion other than her butt when it hits the street. Obviously, the same goes for single men.

Oh, but that's right. I forgot. Singles don't count. Their lives aren't important to the media or the government. Your needs are of no concern unless you're part of a family, which means a husband and a wife, preferably with children.

You see how insidious this stuff is, folks? One article here or there, maybe it doesn't mean a lot. But when you start to compound them, with all their digs, dismissals, and diminishments, they take their toll on how singles are perceived...by others and by themselves. After awhile, you almost don't notice it anymore. Of course couples with kids are healthier than singles, right? Of course families with children are worthy of more economic protection. It becomes taboo to even question the validity of these premises. If you do, you must be selfish or a child hater.

So where is the "positive" in this blog post? It's in who we are. It's in the quality of our lives and our value as productive members of society even when it's not acknowledged by the media. It's in our ability to be shrewd consumers of news who know bias when we see it and don't buy into the popular image of the singleton. The first step to combating singlism is awareness, and that's a positive thing.

You know what? I'm going to challenge everyone who reads this post to write a letter to the editor denouncing singlism the next time you see an example of it in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication. Then come back here and tell me about it, and I'll run an announcement about your letter as soon as it's published. I, too, will accept the challenge and write my own letter to the editor.

It's easy for a single voice to get lost in a crowd of families, but if we raise our voices together, they'll be 89 million strong. Think about it.


Fun Link of the Day

Singled Out by Bella DePaulo: A Singletude Review

Today I want to introduce you to an eye-opening book that confirms what many of us have suspected about singlehood but lacked the research to prove--yes, we singles are treated like second-class citizens, but we're still some of the happiest, healthiest citizens in the world. Welcome to Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever Afterby Bella DePaulo, Ph.D.

In bookstores across America, self-help manuals instructing supposedly desperate singles to settle a little more and love themselves a little less overflow the shelves. This is not one of them. Singled Out shatters the stereotypes of the forlorn spinster surrounded by cats and the messy bachelor in the midst of dirty laundry and pizza boxes and replaces them with the research-based reality of 87.5 million singles leading richly fulfilling, resilient lives in which marriage is an afterthought if it's a thought at all.

In an effort to raise awareness for the last unrecognized minority in this country, DePaulo coins the term singlism, discrimination based on relationship status, and shows how insidiously pervasive it is. When you're taxed at a higher rate because you're single, when you're denied access to a relative's Social Security or health insurance because yours is the bond of blood, not a marriage certificate, when you bankroll couples' hotel accommodations, car rentals, and gym memberships by paying the full fee as a single person, that's singlism. It pops up in subtler, more personal ways, too--at those parties you're not invited to because your friends "didn't think you'd want to sit around with a bunch of couples," in those alumni newsletters that advertise weddings and births but not professional accomplishments, in those tsks and tuts from family members when you don't bring a sweetheart home for the holidays again this year.

Anticipating the argument that marriage really is our natural state, DePaulo traces the history of the institution as a practical foundation for reproduction and its eventual convergence with the concept of romantic passion in the 18th century. While denying that she is anti-marriage, DePaulo asserts that the marital relationship has only recently been elevated to the pinnacle on which it now reigns, above all other ties of family, friendship, and community. This is an unnatural state, she declares, albeit one that our society has become invested in supporting for reasons detailed in the book. She then lays out ten popular myths about singles, scrutinizes the falsified claims undergirding each one, and systematically demolishes their flimsy pedestals, which can't stand against solid research.

You may be surprised and dismayed at how many of these myths you've unknowingly bought into, even if you're happily single. For instance, most of us singles know that we have a rainbow of interests beyond just dating (Myth #2), can be as hard-working and generous as marrieds (Myth #4), and are far from "alone" (Myth #9), maintaining strong connections with our friends and family.

But did you also know that, despite facing rampant prejudice, which has been proven to contribute to depression, singles and marrieds barely differ in self-reported happiness? On a scale of one to ten, the difference in happiness between singles and marrieds is less than a point. It's even smaller, half a point, when only never-married singles are considered. Furthermore, married individuals were happier from the outset, long before they were married, so we can't conclude that marriage made them happier. On the other hand, we can conclude that financial and health status both predict happiness better than marital status.

Speaking of health, did you know that, regardless of media propaganda to the contrary, marriage actually doesn't convey any longterm health benefits? Men who marry experience a boost in good health around the time of the marriage, and widows and widowers see a dip in health when their spouses die, but within a few years, all of these people are no more or less healthy than they ever were. For never-married singles and married women, there's no change in health status, while those who divorce are healthier than ever once their marriages end.

What about sex? We all know that married people have the most sex, right? Well, no. Cohabiting people do. Okay, but married couples have the most emotionally satisfying sex lives, right? Err, um, not quite. Never-married cohabiting women are more likely to be "extremely emotionally satisfied" with their sex lives than are married women. As for men, although more marrieds than singles report high levels of emotional satisfaction, the most emotionally satisfied men are--wait for it--cohabiting divorces. And--oh, dear--guess who complains of the most sexual dysfunction? That would be married men. Moreover, there's no data to compare how sexually active or satisfied any of these individuals were before and after marriage, so, once again, we can't say it was a white dress and a minister that made the difference.

One by one, Singled Out picks apart some of the most lauded, influential studies on marriage and shines a light on their bias toward couples, explaining the tactics they use to obscure confounds in data collection and interpretation. This could be dry, confusing, or intimidating, but DePaulo uses everyday language, real-life anecdotes, and a light, humorous tone to demystify the charts and stats. In fact, even if you have no interest in singles issues, this book is worth the read simply as a layperson's crash course in experimental analysis, after which you may forever view pop science headlines with a more critical eye.

A brief summary of the myths DePaulo addresses and refutes wouldn't do justice to Singled Out, which teems with truths about the single life that will by turns amaze, appall, and encourage you. However, suffice it to say that by the time you've read it, any stereotypes you've clung to about such maligned figures as chronic bachelors, career women, and single parents will be turned inside out. However, the main thrust of the book, once you perceive the patterns evident in the research, may startle you even more, and no, it's not that the single life is better than marriage. It's that marriage doesn't matter all that much. At the end of the day, whether you take a husband or a wife or a solo trek around the world, your life will probably be about the same. Your experiences will be different, but you'll still be as healthy, happy, and wise as you would've been had you taken the opposite path, maybe even more so.

You see, while finding a spouse doesn't appear to be a transformative event, losing a spouse is. Eventually, recovery is possible, but on numerous measures, those who've always been single fare better, making marriage, at least as it's practiced in the Western world today, a risky proposition. DePaulo suggests that glorification of the nuclear family at the expense of the larger social network guarantees that many couples will wrap themselves in the insular bubble of The Relationship, only to be devastated when the bubble bursts, leaving one or both of them flailing in a sea of strangers. The final chapter presents a vision for the future in which this trauma would be ameliorated by true legal equality, renewed emphasis on extended families and community, and respect for singlehood as a legitimate lifestyle.

If Singled Out has any flaw, it's that it may underestimate the deep-seated desire to couple that many singles have. In one vignette, when someone asks DePaulo why she's never married, she replies, "I love being single...I just love my life…the way it is." Much of the book seems to operate on the assumption that most singles would agree, but the evidence isn't entirely convincing. For instance, the oft-quoted Pew Internet & American Life Project survey does show that 55% of single adults are "not looking for a partner," but that includes the elderly, divorced, and widowed, who may not be eager for a second or third time around. But among adults in the prime marrying years, 18-29, only 38% are "not looking." This is not to say that marriage is preferable to singlehood or that the wish to marry isn't partially fueled by enculturation, but it is a wish shared by a substantial portion of the population, both men and women, and shouldn't be dismissed.

That said, if there is a tendency to minimize the urge to couple, it's a minor complaint in this remarkably clear-eyed, meticulously documented depiction of the single life with all its--pardon the pun--singular challenges and satisfactions. DePaulo is the champion that we singles have awaited to validate the worth of the individual in a "matrimaniacal" culture and advocate for our fair treatment, and Singled Out could be the vehicle for a sea change, a reconstitution of what it means to be single. Read it, enjoy it, learn from it, pass it on to other singles to inspire them and to couples to clue them in. Even with the cards stacked against us, we singles are doing okay. In fact, we're doing better than okay--we're growing, thriving, and living our lives to the fullest. We know it, and now it's time everyone else knew it, too.




Were you surprised to learn about some of the myths discussed above? Have you experienced singlism in your life? If you've read Singled Out, do you have comments on the book?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a book or web site for or about singles that you would like Singletude to review? Contact Elsie!