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.

Stats on Singles from the U.S. Census Bureau: 2009 American Community Survey

It's that time of decade! The U.S. Census Bureau has released its 2009 results (which actually cover 2006-2008) from the American Community Survey. Since the media has not yet had a chance to digest the findings as they apply to singles, Singletude will just be reporting the preliminaries today, but they're significant in and of themselves.

Check this out! Since 2008, marrieds now account for just 50.2% of the population! Yep, they are just barely squeezing by us singles by the skin of their pre-wedding bleached teeth. (Taking bets now that they won't be able to hang on to the top spot next time.) And it keeps getting better, especially for the single ladies. Although single men are still a slight minority, accounting for 47.8% of the population, single women really do rule, comprising 51.8% of the population! How exciting is that?

To be fair, the stats tell a different story if you eliminate the youngest age category, "15 to 19 years." Less than 2% of this group is married, probably because, gee, I dunno, singles under 18 aren't even adults. I wish they would change this category to "18 to 24 years" to reflect the decisions of able-bodied adults, not kids who can't even legally vote. But they can legally marry, even if most aren't socially or financially free to do so outside of TV dramas on the CW.

However, although marriage increases markedly with age so that marrieds are in the majority by the time they hit 35, among adults ages 20-34, single living is by far the norm with 67.1% of the men and 60.1% of the women unmarried. This reflects the rising median age of first marriage, now 28 years for men and 26.2 years for women.

Once Americans start turning 35, the lives of men and women diverge markedly. Men ages 35-44 start to marry in earnest (63.4%), a figure which continues to climb to 72.2% of those aged 55-64 before tapering off slightly to 71.4% as the men enter their golden years. For women, marriage reaches a peak by the time they're 35-44 (63.8%) and decreases gradually thereafter, dropping sharply to 40.2% once they turn 65.

African-Americans are the ethnic group most likely to be single (69.6%), while Asian-Americans are least likely (40.4%).

Despite that married workers still earn more on the dollar than singles do and get more benefits at work, they're also just a slim majority. Currently, 43.4% of male employees and 49.9% of female employees are single.

Wanna know what your neighbors are up to behind closed doors? More than one in four (27.8%) are living alone. Even more amazingly, married-couple households now account for just 49.2% of all households! That means since the last American Community Survey, the percentage of single-headed households has risen from 50.3% to 50.8%! Meanwhile, Washington, DC may be claiming the prize for the highest percentage of singles, but Gainesville, FL actually wins the crown. It has more unmarried households relative to its size, equaling 69.5%.

There were some disturbing findings, too. Those living in "nonfamily households" (because only married couples and their kids are families, you know) were far more likely than marrieds to live in poverty. A whole 14.2% of nonfamily households had a total income of $10,000 or less as opposed to just 1.4% of married-couple households. Single, childless females were more likely than any other demographic--even single mothers--to be living under the poverty line. Frighteningly, 40.7% of the unmarried and childless earned less than $25,000, which, realistically, is the minimum most people need to survive. Of the married couples, only 8.6% were in these low-income brackets. On the other end of the scale, 14.4% of married couples raked in over $150,000 in 2008. How many singles do you suppose made that much? Answer: 3.2%. Talk about a two-income trap!

So maybe that's not a surprise, but how about this? Everyone assumes married couples are the backbone of the nation, the dependable worker bees who ensure the Dow Jones goes up, up, and away. Well, that's partly true--for the men. About 76.7% of married men participate in the labor force as opposed to about 56.7% of men who are never married, separated, or divorced. But just 61.6% of married women do the same versus 68.4% of always-single, separated, or divorced women. Looks like the single gals are far more productive than their homebody married sisters! So why is it again that so many single women live under the poverty line? Oh, that's right! Their employers don't think their hard work is worth a living wage. It would've been nice to compare what single and married workers were paid by occupation to ferret out bias, but I didn't see any tables with that kind of data.

Really, as much as the government loves to tout marriage, it doesn't pay much attention to it in these surveys. You would think they'd want to make it very clear that married people are better insured, own more valuable homes, and have more saved for retirement. If married people attain higher levels of education and more frequently undertake entrepreneurial ventures (which I suspect they do, though I have no proof of it), then I'd like to know this, too. I would like to know just how much work we have ahead of us to bridge the gap between singles and marrieds.

These are just some figures pulled directly from the Census Bureau's tables. Over the next weeks and months, statisticians will undoubtedly crunch the numbers, and we'll get more readable data in press releases and major papers. But this is an overview of where we stand as singles in the U.S. at this moment in history. Compare to data from the last survey, reported here in one of the very first Singletude posts, "The Hard Facts About Singles." Are we progressing, regressing, standing still? The number of singles continues to grow, but are we seeing acknowledgment of our shifting demographics in the national consciousness? Are legislators making changes that reflect the new face of the average American, who is not half of a married couple with children?


What do you think? Does the data on singles encourage you, scare you, anger you? Do the stats accurately depict your life as a single, or do they seem off base to you? What kinds of information about singles would you like to see the Census Bureau collect? Do you think cultural awareness and legislation are keeping pace with the realities about singles as revealed by the American Community Survey?


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.

Singles Sleep Better

It's National Singles Week! Happy holidays to all you Singletude readers and to the 96 million Americans who live without the help (or hindrance) of a spouse every day and are just as happy, healthy, and wise as their coupled counterparts! A special shout out to those who are not just unmarried but unattached, standing totally on their own, since we know that discrimination against singles is social as often as legal.

In honor of National Singles Week, Singletude is holding its first ever giveaway contest! The drawing is quickly approaching on 9/28, so make sure your entries are in by 9/27. The prize is a gift basket overflowing with more than $150 in prizes sponsored by SingleEdition.com, so hurry and submit your entry before time runs out. Now, on to today's topic...

If you've been single for awhile, the days of sharing your bed may be like a distant dream or, more accurately, a distant nightmare. Ah, yes, now it all comes back to you! Tossing and turning while your bedmate's snore drowns all but the sound of your teeth grinding in the dark. Quivering in the frigid night air as you cling to the four square inches of blanket that your beloved spared you. Rousing from your happy place again so you can make way for your honey to reach the lamp, the tissues, the water, or the slippers. Jerking awake as your sweetheart's alarm blasts the robins right out of the trees outside. Stumbling out of bed on jello limbs that lost their circulation beneath someone else's butt, your shoulder cradling your neck, which can't stand up straight after eight hours wedged over someone else's arm. You call it "The Quasimodo in the Morning Show."

A couple of weeks ago, a commenter called Autonomous on the blog Onely directed readers to a BBC News article entitled "Bed Sharing 'Bad for Your Health.'" The article reports on research by Dr. Neil Stanley of the U.K., who found that sleeping with someone (in the literal sense) increases sleep disturbances by 50%. This makes sense, he says, because our ancestors only recently traded their single straw mats for cushy queen-size mattresses. We weren't really meant to sleep together at all! So, presumably, the single state confers a great advantage in the bedroom that most couples miss out on. This advantage has far-reaching effects, too. As the article notes, sleep problems are associated with heart disease, stroke, depression, and, yes, even divorce, among other potentially fatal consequences. So...does this mean we can say that singles are healthier than marrieds?

If so, the media doesn't want us to know about it. While the major news outlets are all too happy to showcase studies claiming that married women sleep better than singles or that married couples have lower blood pressure during sleep, they're less eager to report findings that indicate singles might be better off. Besides the Huffington Post, no prominent American news site featured Stanley's research even though it's not unheard of for American news shows, papers, and web sites to run stories on medical breakthroughs in the international community. If Autonomous hadn't spotted it, I would've missed it altogether. My Google newsreader didn't pick it up, and, to my knowledge, it didn't make the rounds of hub sites where it might've caught the eyes of readers checking their email or the daily forecast. So why no love for this story from the American media? Is it possible that the powers that be in the U.S. want to suppress research that doesn't cast marriage or intensive coupling traditions in a flattering light? Research that indicates remaining single can be not only as healthy as but healthier than pairing off?

British sociologist Dr. Robert Meadows was also quoted in the article as saying, "People actually feel that they sleep better with a partner, but the evidence suggests otherwise." Years of drumming biased headlines into people's sleepy heads have obviously hypnotized them to believe that significant others glued to their sides are always better for their health, even when their own bodies scream otherwise in the morning. The article states that a mere 8% of forty- and fiftysomething couples sleep alone. (Statistics for other ages weren't recorded.) The other 92% apparently suffer through night after night of disrupted sleep. And for what? The perception that couples should sleep side by side because they must never be apart? Are we so entrapped by The Cult of the Couple that we would sacrifice our rest and ultimately our health because society dictates that those who have sex together must sleep together?

Undoubtedly, some people enjoy whispering in the dark, drifting off to sleep in another's arms, rolling over into a warm, inviting body on a cold night. But just as undoubtedly there are people who would always or at least sometimes prefer "to have a cuddle and then...toddle off down the landing," as Stanley puts it. If this study is accurate, most of them, like it or not, will share their beds anyway.

Luckily, we singles don't have to lose sleep over matrimaniacally approved sleeping habits! During National Singles Week, as on every night, we get to...

...decide when bedtime is.
...indulge in whatever bedtime rituals we prefer such as reading, watching TV, or having a hot drink.
...choose what goes into and what stays out of the bed including food, books, laptops, phones, pillows, blankets, real animals, and animals of the stuffed variety.
...adjust sleeping conditions like temperature, amount of light, and background noise as needed.
...sleep anywhere in the bed in any position, occupying as much space as desired.
...sleep through the whole night completely undisturbed by another human being.
...decide when to wake up and what to wake up to, whether an alarm, music, cell phone, TV, dog or cat, morning songbirds, or pure silence.

On that note, I think I'll turn in early!


Do you prefer to sleep by yourself or with someone else? Why? Have you ever had trouble sleeping with someone else? If so, why? What things do you like about sleeping alone? Did you know about the British sleep study before you read about it here? If so, where did you hear about it? Why do you think the media didn't publicize this study as much as some others that promote marriage and/or diminish singles?


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.

"Marry Well for Better Health" by Dr. Christopher Lillis: A Singletude Response

Those of you who perused last Sunday's edition of "Singles in the News" may remember the article "Marry Well for Better Health" by Dr. Christopher Lillis, which sent me into spasms of singlist-inspired horror. To quote from the Singletude summary:

Written by a doctor who is a self-described "very biased" newlywed (and takes pride in his prejudice, too), it trots out unidentified research studies to "confidently make this claim. Married men survive longer and live healthier lives than their single or divorced counterparts." Although the author admits those results were contingent on how happy the marriage was and cautions single men not to grab the nearest woman and drag her to the altar, he'd still rather advance his pet theory about the miracle drug of marriage than present hard evidence.

So, Dr. Lillis tosses out a few health measures on which married people score well while failing to mention the measures on which singles score better. (Oh, sorry. He mentions one such measure--obesity--but dismisses it since he's sure his new bride will nag him to lose weight. Let's catch up with him in 10 years and see how that's working out, shall we?)

He also neglects to inform his impressionable readers that, in many cases, the differences that do exist between marrieds and singles who have never married are marginal. If anything, he exaggerates the differences by lumping in people who have always been single with those who are divorced or widowed, two groups that sometimes do show a marked difference on health measures as compared to marrieds. (Singletude's information, by the way, comes from the CDC study "Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2000" by Charlotte A. Schoenborn and "Is There Something Unique About Marriage? The Relative Impact of Marital Status, Relationship Quality, and Network Social Support on Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Mental Health" by Julianne Holt-Lunstad, et al., discredited here by Dr. Bella DePaulo. Lillis doesn't say where his comes from.)

Even worse, Lillis takes some of these correlations and makes causal statements about them, asserting that married couples are "healthier" because they have a sense of responsibility to each other or because "getting married reduces depressive symptoms." The fact is we have no way to measure whether marriage causes any of these minor health differences or, if it does, how or why. If studies of singles and marrieds do show significant differences in, say, risk taking, perhaps that's because single people tend to be younger, and youth is associated with risky behavior. If singles do have slightly higher resting blood pressure than marrieds, maybe that's not because they're alone in their beds but because they worry more about things like health care or social security, which are more accessible to married couples.

No matter what, we can't talk about what marriage causes or doesn't cause because marriage is not a variable you can manipulate like an electric shock to get an experimental result (though some would say divorce gave them quite a jolt). See, marital status is similar to traits like age, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation in that the researcher can't change them. In order for a researcher to claim that something causes an effect, he or she has to be able to add or remove it at will to demonstrate that it was solely responsible for the outcome of the experiment.

To use a nonsense example, if a researcher wants to prove that everlasting gobstoppers turn kids blue, then she has to take two groups of kids that have never eaten everlasting gobstoppers and make sure that one group eats them and the other doesn't. In addition, she has to make sure that there are no other dietary, environmental, genetic, or medical differences between the two groups that might explain why some kids look like they fell in a blueberry bush. If, after determining that there are no differences between the groups except that one is getting gobstoppers, the researcher finds that the kids who eat gobstoppers turn blue, then she can tentatively state that gobstoppers may cause kids to turn blue. Why tentatively? Because, as careful as she was, maybe there was some other difference between the groups that she missed. That's why studies are repeated over and over again for confirmation and why most scientists are very, very careful when they talk about causation.

However, let's say the researcher is faced with two groups of kids, one that's already blue and one that's not. She wonders why some kids are blue, and she asks all the kids a bunch of questions and notices that the blue kids all used to eat gobstoppers. Well, that's interesting, and the researcher can say that she found a relationship or correlation between gobstoppers and blue kids, but she can't know with any certainty that the gobstoppers caused the kids to turn blue. Maybe the kids who turned blue were also eating snozberries, and maybe it was actually the snozberries that did the damage. Or maybe the kids who turned blue were suffering from a rare, unknown sugar deficiency that affects skin tone, so they craved lots of sweet gobstoppers.

Saying that marriage causes anything is like saying that kids who are already blue definitely got that way because they ate gobstoppers. We just don't know. And even if we could randomly assign some people to be married and some to be single and observe the results, it would still be hard to make causal attributions because, just like the researcher in the first example, we might've overlooked something.

For some reason, though, when marriage is the subject, researchers and clinicians fall all over themselves with eagerness to make causal statements. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's because marriage is popular and relatively easy to enter into, so it encourages people to hear that something they perceive as desirable and ubiquitous is good for their health. It's also possible that the reasons are more sinister and revolve around a research agenda that favors the status quo for economic or political reasons. Whatever it is, medical professionals like Lillis are highly irresponsible when they jump on the bandwagon and repeat these fallacies to patients and readers who don't know any better.

Towards the end of the article, Lillis plays devil's advocate for a minute, but even his counterargument, which posits that healthier, "more genetically appealing" people are more likely to get married, is insultingly singlist. No, Dr. Lillis, the problem is not that we singles are all Quasimodos compared to you strapping, married bombshells. It's that we singles are less likely to have health care. It's that we can't take time off work to heal from illness or injury because we have no second income. It's that we have more financial woes in general because we earn less and pay more than you marrieds do, and that's stressful. It's that we face a lot of social discrimination (the kind of discrimination you're guilty of right now), and that's stressful, too.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure Lillis can understand this logic because in the most presumptuous statement of his presumptuous article, he demonstrates an appalling lack of it. Check out this statement in all its singlist glory:

There is no real way to prove this [that marriage does not cause better health]; it is just a bitter, jealous theory of a loveless set of scientists who spend too much time in the lab to find true love.

Oh, dear, dear, dear. Doesn't Dr. Lillis realize that the burden of proof is on him? The scientific method always assumes no cause-effect relationship until one is proven. To return to our blueberry bunch, the researcher must assume that gobstoppers don't turn kids blue unless she can prove conclusively that they do. In direct contradiction to universally accepted research practice (and logic), Lillis says the exact opposite--that gobstoppers must turn kids blue unless we can prove that they don't. Good news for quack researchers everywhere! Now you can assume Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, and spontaneous human combustion exist until someone proves that they don't!

Lillis's lapse in logic might be forgiveable if it wasn't laced with all that singlist rhetoric. I'll tell ya what, Dr. Lillis, let's invert your statement so that it's both logically valid (instead of fallacious) and anti-marriage (instead of singlist) and see what we get:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just an ignorant, narrow-minded theory of a codependent set of scientists who spend too much time at home to get out and see what the real world is like.

Here's another good one:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just a desperate, envious theory of a bored-stiff set of scientists who spend too much time tied to the old ball and chain to have any fun.

Just gotta do one more! Here we go:

There is no real way to prove that marriage causes better health; it is just a sad, pathetic theory of a lonely set of scientists who've wasted too much time in loveless marriages to admit they'd be happier alone.

Now, do any of those statements sound appropriate to make to a married patient? Would you, Dr. Lillis, want someone to make such a statement to you? Then why, I wonder, do you believe it's appropriate to talk that way to your single patients and readers?

Even if Lillis's interpretation is right on the money and marriage is the fountain of youth (which I don't think it is), I'm not sure what would be the point of saying so. A marriage certificate is not a drug that you can dispense when a single person straggles in with the flu, and if it were, it would have a pretty poor track record. If you think of marriage like a drug (thanks, Bella DePaulo, for this analogy), it doesn't work for at least half the people who try it (those who divorce), not to mention the unknown percentage who stay married unhappily. What doctor recommends a drug that's effective for less than half the people who take it?

In conclusion, I want to state for the record that I am single and in good health. I don't smoke, drink heavily, or have other substance abuse problems. I'm not a risk taker. I am not depressed. My blood pressure is so low that it actually causes problems occasionally. Despite what Lillis says about singles who don't take care of themselves, I go to the doctor when I'm concerned that something's wrong.

Interestingly, my dad, who is married, does not. In fact, when I noticed a worrisome skin lesion on his back awhile ago, my mom, his wife, said that she'd been after him to get it looked at for months. You know who convinced him to go to the doctor?

Me. His daughter.


What do you think about Dr. Lillis's article? Do you think married people are really healthier than singles?


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!

Ms. Taken: The Fake Engagement Ring for Single Women

While combing stories for Singletude's last "Singles in the News" feature, I stumbled across an article called "Fake Engagement Rings Marketed to Single Women," which alerted me to a new bauble on the market that Reality Bling calls "a little bright lie." In case the headline I just linked to didn't tip you off, it's a fake engagement ring that's being marketed to single women. Cutely called Ms. Taken, the ring promises to help you pub 'n' club happily ever after unmolested by barflies. Just slip it on when you want to discourage a loser walking your way, then tuck it into its keychain fob when the coast is clear. It's the perfect on-again/off-again relationship.

Ms. Taken's home page is dominated by an embedded video commercial that should amuse those who like their fake wedding humor bawdy. You're also prominently invited to "Become a fan on Facebook" in case you care to advertise that your engagement is fake. That way if you really want to pull a fast one on a rejected suitor, you can flash him your faux diamond but whisper in his ear to look you up on Facebook, and then--gotcha! Suckerrrr! Neener, neener, neener! At the top of the page, a pic of the big sparkly is captioned, "On the dance floor or at the bar, nothing says 'I'm taken' like a fake engagement ring."

A click on "Product Details" reveals that Ms. Taken is a 2-carat Austrian crystal (congratulations--your pretend fiance is an investment banker!) set in a stainless steel band. It comes with the aforementioned keychain fob, a jewelry case, and, for some reason, 20 "Playaz" cards bearing images of classics like "Neal Anderthal" and "Jamaall That." If you order now, these timeless treasures will be yours to collect, trade, and preserve for generations to come. Or I guess you could pull them out if you and your friends get bored waiting for losers to leave you alone.

The ring and its accoutrement can be ordered for a grand total of $50.00. Frankly, you can buy a crystal or a cubic zirconia for half that in most department stores, though you'll have to drop it in your purse or your pocket instead of a custom-tailored keychain fob. And, of course, you'll have to do without the Playaz.

More interesting than the ring itself is the message it sends to singles. A quick scan of reviews of Ms. Taken shows that that message has been hotly debated. The article mentioned at the beginning of this post argues that Ms. Taken demeans single women, implying that they can't handle unwanted social interaction without relying on lame excuses or, worse, that they need the suggestion of a mate to prove they're worth more than lewd stares and cheesy pickup lines. Others, like "Ms. Taken = Puke in My Mouth," claim that Ms. Taken sends the wrong signal to men, communicating that it's a-okay to harass women who are unattached, that only a man's protection makes a woman worthy of respect.

Admittedly, I've donned a cubic zirconia with intent to deceive more than once, and I've never given a thought to it being singlist before. My motivation has usually been to avoid unwanted attention while out for a girl's night or when I want to run errands in peace, and now that I'm single by choice, an easy way to advertise my unavailability is even more attractive. It's not that I'm incapable of fending off punchless pickup lines with my rapier wit, but sometimes I'd rather not have to. Men in pursuit can be aggressive, especially in the metro area I call home, and some of them interpret a polite "no, thank you" as code for "you-have-three-minutes-to-convince-me-to-give-you-my-number-starting-now-GO." When I'm trying to have a good time with my friends or--God forbid--shop for groceries, drop a bill in the mail, or read in the park unmolested, the last thing I want to do is argue with Insert Random Guy about why I won't have a drink with him. A strategically placed rhinestone speaks for me (and hopefully says, "Game Over"). But, according to the bloggers above, the very fact that I expect a ring to exempt me from these exchanges proves to men that they can harass me with impunity if I'm not some other guy's property. Is this true?

I think not. I think it's unfair to men to assume they're all Neal Anderthals who view women as chattel, ripe for the plucking unless some other cowboy has left his stamp first. Today, an engagement ring is a visible sign of a woman's choice as much as a man's. In contemporary society's language, it says, "I have chosen to be in a monogamous relationship with someone. I am not interested in anyone else." Men who steer clear of an engaged woman are respecting her choice as much as the man she chose. If a single woman could wear a ring that was universally recognized to mean she wasn't open to dating, I suspect a lot of men would respect that, too. Of course, there would always be some who would see it as a challenge, but these would probably be the same cavemen who hit on women wearing engagement rings the size of the Hope Diamond. These male chauvinist oinkers don't respect anyone or anthing except the notches on their own belts and are just out to add a few more whenever they can.

Single men are susceptible to enculturation just like everybody else, and I won't claim that singlism never colors their interactions with single women. Undoubtedly, there's a man out there who won't take no for an answer because he believes that any woman should prefer his 5 AM Concerto in Snore Major to a lifetime of waking up to nothing but birds. But my guess is that most men have no such illusions when they present themselves to be chewed up and spit out on the nearest bar. Instead, they're just doing what successful hunters have always done--aiming for the most likely targets (women who are single) and shooting as many arrows as they can, hoping one will hit. If some of those arrows fall flat, miss the mark, or veer toward our chests instead of our brains or our funny bones, then the hunters have poor technique, not a special contempt for deer.

I'm not saying this to excuse inexcusable conduct. Like most people, I believe that women who are subjected to unwanted comments or contact should take steps to let offenders know their behavior is unacceptable, whether that means walking away gracefully or reporting them to management. But I don't think the majority of men set out to use Borat as a role model, and those who do don't care whether their sexytime partner is wearing a ring or not unless it's in her tongue. For the rest, a ring is simply shorthand for "no chance in hell." You could use a scowl, a slap, or puke in your mouth to get across the same message, but with a ring you can still be pretty. ;)

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe those bloggers weren't overanalyzing, and I'm unwittingly supporting singlism every time I resort to a fast, one-size-fits-all excuse rather than a nuanced rationale of why I prefer to be single while I scan the room for an exit.


What do you think? Do fake engagement rings promote singlism? Do they send a message to single women that they are "less than" or that they can't fend for themselves in social situations? Do they send a message to single men that women who aren't taken are free to be harassed? If you're a single woman, have you ever worn a make-believe engagement ring, and, if not, would you? Why or why not? If you're a single man, what do you think of women who, um, engage in this practice?


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!

Why I Am Single by Choice

I am single by choice. I'm still getting used to saying that after years of considering myself single by circumstance. In "Single by Choice or by Circumstance?" I promised that I would explain the change of heart, and I will. But first, I want to address your response to the last post, which spawned a revealing dialogue about how we define "single by choice," "single by circumstance," and the variant "single by chance" suggested by several readers.

When Singletude has used the term "single by choice," the intention has been to describe singles who prefer to be single rather than coupled. Conversely, the phrase "single by circumstance" has been used to denote singles who would prefer to be coupled given suitable partners. However, some of your comments rightly alerted me to shades of "choice" that aren't acknowledged by such black and white classifications. Some readers proudly claimed "single by chance" as a more accurate and empowering self-descriptor, associating it with a conscious refusal to settle or give in to matrimania while keeping an open mind toward future prospects. Others pointed out that some people don't think in terms of preference, just accepting and relishing whatever life brings, whether single, married, or something undefinable. Although Singletude will continue to reference "choice" and "circumstance" for the sake of simplicity, I greatly appreciate all the nuanced perspectives that everyone has contributed to our understanding of how singles perceive themselves.

Today I am unabashedly a single by choice in the sense that if the perfect boyfriend fell in my lap, I couldn't dump his bum on the floor fast enough. That is not to say that I will never be in a relationship again. I stand behind healthy relationships as sources of love, support, companionship, and inspiration in the lives of many and encourage anyone who wants a relationship to pursue it. However, I'm now realizing that just because a romantic relationship can be a positive force in one's life doesn't mean that everyone should have one. I'm one of those people who shouldn't, at least not right now and maybe not ever.

STOP.

Was your first reaction to that last sentence a sympathetic "awwww"? Did you instinctively think, "Oh, she'll change her mind"?

If not, congratulations! Singlism can't fool you, and matrimania has no hold over you! If, however, you were just caught in the act, don't feel too bad because your reaction just proved my next point--that lots of people, even those who think it's possible to be single and happy, can't fathom that anyone would be happier single than paired. But right now, that is exactly the case for me.

Like many singles, I didn't imagine this life for myself when I was growing up. At around 14 years old, a friend and I swore that we wouldn't marry and have kids before age 25 so that we'd have time to get educated, build our careers, and see the world. From the time I was a teenager, it wasn't a question of if, but when. Then 25 rolled around...and disappeared in my rear-view mirror...and I was no closer to marriage than I'd been at 14. Somewhere along the way, I noticed that I didn't mind the interludes of singleness between relationships, but I still assumed I'd rather be married if the right man showed up.

As the years passed without a ring on my finger, it occurred to me that I couldn't keep waiting for someone else to give me a fulfilling life. I was going to have to find fulfillment for myself. While questioning how to do that, I began to deconstruct my concept of a good relationship and what it could provide me that was worth continued pursuit. However, it wasn't until I was mentally sweeping up the fragments of my most recent relationship that the answer winked back at me, bold and undeniable: not a whole heck of a lot.

For some time, the three major draws of relationships--romance, companionship, and physical affection--have been losing their charm for me. As far as romance is concerned, it's not that I don't still thrill to a poem written for me or a candlelit picnic awaiting me at the lake. But now my heart merely flutters instead of thumping right out of my chest like a car stereo at full volume. By now, I know that sweet nothings in my ear mean just that--nothing--and I've heard most of them before. To me, this isn't some tragic loss of innocence but a mature awareness that flowery words and extravagant gestures straight out of an 18th-century court don't necessarily foretell long-term compatibility or genuine commitment. It's also a kind of experiential satiation, a feeling that Ive been there and done that, enjoyed it, and no longer have a craving to be serenaded by moonlight or waltzed around under the stars. Sure, romance is exciting, but if it never swept me off my feet again, I wouldn't feel like I had missed out or been deprived of something.

Companionship, too, is somewhat overrated for me. A dyed-in-the-wool introvert, I used to yearn for that one person who would understand me better than I understood myself, my best friend and soul mate with whom I could withdraw into a little cocoon world. What I've learned in the intervening years is that no one can be the whole world to someone else. Even someone who has an uncanny connection with you will, at times, misconstrue, disagree, differentiate. Despite the poetic tradition of becoming one in matrimony, you will continue to be two separate people, and where there are separate thoughts, beliefs, and desires, there will also sooner or later be conflict. That's why it's imperative that we don't invest our entire emotional well-being in one person. We need to have other family members and friends to open our hearts to, have fun with, learn from, rely on. When lengthy spells of singleness drove me to seek out and strengthen that web of relationships, I found that they gave me the emotional and mental sustenance I longed for. At the same time, I got accustomed to making coffee runs, strolling in the park, and poking around museums on my own. To my surprise, I didn't have to have someone alongside me to delight in these activities. A book, earbuds, or my own thoughts were companionship enough.

And then there's physical affection, the cornerstone, we're led to believe, of relationships. Such a double-edged sword for me, a source of both pleasure and pain. One of the most common complaints I hear from singles is that they miss the high of sex, the closeness of sleeping in another's arms, the relief of a foot rub or neck massage after a long day, the simple comfort of a hug to remind them that they're loved, appreciated, wanted. But for all the joys of physical intimacy, there are also annoyances, frustrations, dissatisfactions. Meditating on the dark side of sex, I think of all the times I have felt pressured to offer the use of my body to someone, not because I wanted to but because I didn't want him to reject me or feel rejected. I think of all the covers pulled off in the night, the muscle cramps from sleeping in positions contorted around someone else, the snoring slicing through my peaceful dreams. I think of the hours I'm obliged to spend on shaving and personal care, the sexy lingerie I'm supposed to keep my drawers well-stocked with, the risks of pregnancy and disease and the side effects of birth control. I think of these things and remember that physical love exacts a price of its own.

Of course there are other perks that relationships offer. Convenience, support, security, social standing, the chance for children. Some people marry for these reasons alone. But I believe that a man should be more than just a woman's handyman, paycheck, or sperm donor. A woman should be more than just a man's housekeeper, arm candy, or incubator. I believe that two people should be together primarily because they love to be in each other's presence. Those other bonuses like the guaranteed Saturday night date, the shared rent, or the extra pair of hands in the kitchen are not good enough reasons by themselves to dedicate one's life to someone else. To be with someone for just those reasons is tantamount to using that person.

So I can't, in good conscience, enter a relationship for the wrong reasons, nor do I really want one for the right reasons. The benefits of relationships simply don't outweigh the drawbacks for me. They are just not enough. And drawbacks there are in spades.

I know somewhere out there someone is reading this and thinking, "She just hasn't found the right person yet." I used to believe that, too, so that's probably why I only reached this conclusion, finally, after my last relationship ended. It was then I discovered that no matter how deep the connection or intense the passion, no matter how stimulating the conversation or enriching the shared experience, no matter how compatible the interests or complementary the personalities, relationships are still work. They demand compromise and sacrifice and adjustment and accountability. And all that work just isn't worth it to me. The pain of argument is not overcome by the satisfaction of making up. The loss of self-direction is not justified by the gain in synergy. The reduction in personal time is not compensated for by the increase in companionship. The irritation of quirks and foibles is not offset by the ease and comfort of familiarity. Even when a man is everything I could want, the sweetness of a relationship is not enough to counter the sour.

Before you roll your eyes and go back to sucking face with that hottie you met at the bar, please remember that I'm just explaining my own rationale. I don't expect it to apply to everyone or even to most people. I'm well aware that I'm a rather unusual person in somewhat irregular circumstances, which affects my attitude toward relationships. For instance, if I wasn't self-employed and trying to expand my own business, my personal time might not be so important to me. If I didn't live a fairly bohemian lifestyle, self-determination might not be such a sticking point. In fact, maybe one day my life will be different enough that I'll change my mind. After all, if it's changed once, I'd be foolish to think it couldn't change again.

Nevertheless, this is the way I feel right now, in my present situation, about this particular lifestyle decision, and this is why. Although I respect and blog about other lifestyles, this is the perspective that I write from. I am single by choice. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of it, neither thankful nor resentful, neither champion nor protester. It's just the right choice for me.


If you haven't already answered this question, do you consider yourself single by choice, single by circumstance, or single for other reasons? If you are single by choice, why? If you are not single by choice, why? Do you think it's better to be one way or the other? Why or why not?


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!

Single by Choice or by Circumstance?

Increasingly, the single population seems to be dividing into two camps--singles by choice and singles by circumstance. Maybe you've noticed it, too. Maybe you've eagerly aligned yourself with one side or the other, or maybe, like me, you've been hesitant to label yourself and even a little concerned about the repercussions of divisive language.

When I started Singletude, I intended to serve both audiences indiscriminately. The idea was not to push singlehood as preferable to marriage or coupledom but to celebrate its unique advantages, as you might celebrate any other stage of life--childhood, adolescence, parenthood, late life. Singletude was designed to meet singles where they were, regardless of how they got there, offering resources, support, and a positive attitude toward the unattached. I believe in making the most of the lives we're given and wanted to help people recognize that, whether or not they chose the single state, they could be happy living it. Furthermore, I hoped to expose discrimination against singles in its many insidious forms and mobilize others to speak out against it.

That said, I don't mind telling you that when I began blogging, I was single by circumstance. I didn't state this overtly because I didn't want to alienate those who were single by choice, although I'm sure some of my posts spoke for me. At the time, I'll admit I even thought that while it was the bees knees to be single, it was their whole honeypot to be married. I had bought into the shoddy popular science that claimed marriage was a panacea for depression, loneliness, ill health, poverty, and socks with open-toed sandals. Moreover, while I firmly believed it was better to be single than sorry, which is more than one can say for a lot of matrimaniacs, a relationship chock-full of chemistry, romance, and commitment was something I very much wanted. And, yes, dear readers, I hoped it would one day lead to marriage.

Go ahead. Lob your tomatoes at me. Just make sure they're fresh-picked organic, please.

I still don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to be married. In fact, I think monogamous commitment is the best context in which a relationship can grow. (Yeah, I'm familiar with the argument that we're biologically programmed to hook up with multiple partners, but we're biologically programmed to do lots of things we no longer do, such as spear those we don't get along with.) The desirability of marriage (to some people) does not make the single state undesirable, nor does it make unmarried people any less worthy of the perks and protections currently enjoyed by those who are legally wed. That's what this blog has always been about, not an attempt to glorify the solo lifestyle above all others or convince everyone who wants a mate to repress that longing.

In fact, I'm a little disturbed when I see what I'll call militant singles bashing those who are or hope to be partnered. True, there's a fine line between living with that hope and living for it, and I think that line trips up some well-meaning singles who worry that their peers will put their lives on hold until marriage. But they miss the fact that a single person can have a full, exciting life and yet also want to add a spouse to it, just as he or she might want to add a child or another friend. The difference, I suspect, is that the child and the friend don't provoke our resentment because people aren't rewarded in a way we perceive as unfair when they have children or make new friends. Nevertheless, our justified resentment of singlism should not justify berating singles who seek relationships, whether or not we're interested in the same thing.

I include myself in this reminder because in the past few months, I've crept over the line into the league of singles by choice. I can't tell you when exactly it happened. I didn't desert the ranks of singles by circumstance and make a mad dash for it. It was more the culmination of lessons learned in my third decade of life--not lessons that apply to everyone, but to me. Regretfully, more than once I've caught myself trying to generalize those lessons, to urge other singles off the path to joint filing and his-and-hers wash towels. But that's not right. In pressuring others to conform to my idea of happiness, I'm no different than the majority who insist that I can't be happy single. So, as I find myself changing my stance, I want to recommit myself to representing all singles at this blog, not just those who do or don't want to be.

Nevertheless, the cat is out of the bag now. I have become a single by choice. I hesitated to reveal this because I don't want to be divisive. I don't want singles by circumstance to feel that they aren't welcome here or promote a mindset that some singles are different and better than others. Neither do I want to sign up for a lifetime membership in the single-by-choice club so that I can never change my mind without feeling like I have betrayed someone. But chances are that although I will still cover all topics that I believe are relevant to singles, including dating, there may be times when my own beliefs will influence what I write, whether or not I'm aware of it.

By now you must be itching to find out why I've made a philosophical 180. If so, get some calamine; it must be poison ivy because nothing I have to say is that exciting. :) However, for the gossips, the rubberneckers, and the bored workers waiting for summer hours to kick in, Singletude will dedicate its next entry to the premature demise of my relationship-seeking days.


Have you observed a division in the singles community between those who are single by choice and those who are single by circumstance? If so, what do you think the cause might be, and how should it be addressed?


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!

Bad Marriages Break Men's Hearts, Too

As a postscript to "Bad Marriages Break (Women's) Hearts," I'd like to share an article that I found just a day or two after I last blogged. "Bad Marriages Harder on Women's Health" by Kathleen Doheny appeared in the online edition of U.S. News & World Report as a response to the aforementioned research linking stressful marriage to an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in women. However, this version of the report included some info that the others conveniently omitted.

Specifically, the U.S. News article includes commentary from Dr. Debra Umberson of the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Umberson, who is also an expert on the health effects of marital stress, reveals that her research paints a different picture--one with a much darker palette for men: "'Basically, we find that marital strain undermines the health of men and women,' she says, adding that perhaps the men in [Nancy] Henry's study had their health influenced in a different way." (ital added)

According to her CV, Umberson has been publishing her work on the interaction between gender and marital conflict for several years now, yet I can't recall major media players jumping all over it in the way they did the recent University of Utah study. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Some of you may remember news stories that I'm forgetting.) Could it be that the American media is not as interested in publicizing how unhappy relationships affect men's health? If not, why not?

My initial thought was that with so many men defecting from traditional marriage bonds, conservative-slanted publications might be squelching any research that would further dissuade them from tying the knot. But then it occurred to me that we also live in a society that clings to certain preconceptions about gender roles which make it less acceptable for men to be emotionally invested in their relationships or to exhibit depression and other outward signs of distress over relationship conflict. Women's magazines remind us that relationships aren't central to a man's identity, that instead of moping by the phone and overanalyzing with friends, a guy lets his troubles roll off his back along with big drops of sweat at the gym. In effect, American women are taught that relationship failure will leave them on the verge of collapse, while men are taught that their hearts should take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. So the suppression of research proving that men aren't as invulnerable as we'd like to think fits the dominant cultural message about gender roles.

Whatever the reason that Umberson's findings were overlooked, Singletude is setting the record straight for readers here: Marital problems depress both women and men and may increase the likelihood that both sexes will develop health issues. Henry's research is not and surely will not be the final word.

Whew! Just had to get that off my chest. Now back to your regularly scheduled blogging!


Do you think more public attention is paid to research that reinforces gender stereotypes as opposed to research that disproves them? Can you think of any other reasons that Henry's study was so well publicized while Umberson's contradictory results were not? What do you think might explain the discrepancy between their conclusions? Have you noticed news sources applying selective reporting to singles issues as well?


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!

Bad Marriages Break (Women's) Hearts

No, that title is not a juicy little morsel of schadenfreude. I'm not the kind of single who's always itching to sink my teeth into the misery of some poor unhappily married couple. Singletude wants single and married people alike to be happy. However, acquiring a marriage license doesn't guarantee happiness any more than singleness guarantees multiple cat ownership, which is why research warning of the pitfalls of the marriage made in hell is so desperately needed.

The research in question hails from the University of Utah. Ordinarily, I would pick one news report from a major media outlet and respond to it, but rather than reprinting a standard press release, most web sites chose to conduct their own interviews, so no single article captured the full picture, a fact I found interesting in itself. In summary, the study revealed a link between stressful marriages and metabolic syndrome in women.1-5 Metabolic syndrome is characterized by high blood pressure, blood sugar, and triglycerides; low HDL, the form of cholesterol considered "good"; and obesity in the abdominal region. All these symptoms put one at increased risk of heart attack1-5, stroke1,3,4, and diabetes1-5. The study also showed a correlation between marital strife and depression in both sexes1-5, and we know that depression can lead to health problems. However, oddly enough, unhappily married men were not more likely than their contented counterparts to develop metabolic syndrome.1-5

The study followed 276 couples.1-5 Sources couldn't seem to agree on whether couples had been married for 201,3 or 272,4,5 years on average or on the participants' age range, cited alternately as 40-701 or 32-762,5. The couples filled out questionnaires about marital conflict and depression levels and were then examined at the university's health clinic. Encouragingly for the married set, only 27% of women and 22% of men reported unhappy marriages.2,5 (I say "only" because I found this figure to be low, though I'm sure any bad marriage is one bad marriage too many for the people involved.)

The gender difference in incidence of metabolic syndrome was hypothesized to be due to the more central role that relationships play in women's heads--err, lives.2 One of the study's authors, Ph.D. candidate Nancy Henry, said, "Women seem to nurture relationships more than men do and attach significance to the emotions within relationships more than men do. ...Men...don't take as much stock in relationships with respect to their self-image, their self-concept, and those kinds of things."2 The symptoms of metabolic syndrome were probably caused by the flood of stress hormones that accompany relationship conflict.1,2,5 One commentator, Christine Northam, a couples therapist, also attributed the results to "the fact that women's hormonal profile[s are] more complex than men's." She then claimed that "women...tend to worry more about their health than men [do]," presumably increasing stress.4

Only one report, based on the university's press release, mentioned that previous divorce was also a risk factor and skimmed over this bit of trivia as quickly as possible.1,3 I emphasize it here because it was in line with previous research pointing to relationship loss as the major predictor of unhappiness, not singleness.

All the articles suggested modifications to diet and exercise routines to improve cardiovascular health1-5, and two promoted counseling2,5, but all of them were careful to clarify that they weren't recommending that women ditch their husbands en masse.1-5 Instead, Dr. Tim Smith of the U. of UT hoped that partners would focus on "the quality of [their] emotional and family lives." His goals for troubled couples included "getting along better and enjoying each other more, improving [their] mood."1

While Singletude is thankful for any study that shatters the myth of the marriage panacea, it would be even better if the researchers had included single men and women as a basis for comparison. At what rate do singles develop metabolic syndrome? What are the levels of depression among singles? How do never-married singles differ on these measures from divorced or widowed singles?

Furthermore, I'm a little troubled at the attitudes toward divorce that cropped up in these articles. On one hand, much of the media preferred to ignore the finding that divorce was a significant contributor to coronary disease. As noted earlier, the loss of a relationship can have deleterious effects on both physical and psychological health. On this matter, singles advocates and the pro-marriage crowd are aligned--we both want to publicize the profound impact of divorce. Curiously, the media didn't take advantage of that opportunity here.

They did, however, make it plain that the researchers discouraged divorce. Their prescription was "improving intimate relationships,"1 as well as committing to healthier eating and exercise habits. There was no discussion of how participants could magically "improve their relationships" after 20 years or more of presumably trying to do just that. Perhaps the researchers have been concocting an oxytocin nasal spray currently awaiting FDA approval. This study would make great promotional literature!

Far be it from me to portray divorce as a desirable solution to marital discord, but I also recognize that sometimes it's necessary. The divorced may be, on average, less happy and healthy than singles or the happily married, but how do they stack up against the unhappily married? Do these researchers expect us to believe that the unhappily married really have it better off? If you're married to a chronic cheater, an abuser (physical or emotional), a criminal, an addict, or even someone who just makes you miserable every day, day after day...sometimes the initial pain of separation may be worth the years of peace and stability that follow. And some singles-again do--gasp--get a second chance at love!

Again, I don't mean to push divorce as an acceptable escape hatch from problems that are better addressed by working on your own faults and foibles, but it bothers me that the researchers refuse to acknowledge that sometimes it is a sad but unavoidable outcome. I wish I'd seen a quote that sounded more like this: "The results of this study shouldn't be seen as justification to walk out on your spouse, and we hope that your first line of defense against these symptoms will be to get counseling and tackle interpersonal problems that might be defeating your relationship. But sometimes, unfortunately, a relationship may be so emotionally unhealthy and unsalvageable that it is in your best interest, physically and psychologically, to end it." What's wrong with that (other than that it doesn't fit into the agenda of a matrimaniacal society)?

Most of all, I'm concerned about what this study says about gender relations and the casual attitude with which Henry dismissed the health dangers to women as part and parcel of the natural female preoccupation with relationships. There are two disturbing assumptions here. The first is that women should derive so much of their psychological wellbeing from marriage, and the second is that men should not. Though the researchers gave lip service to reducing relational conflict, I get the sense that they are tolerant of normative expectations that a woman should invest more in a relationship than a man. I ask you, dear readers, to consider whether that very attitude may even be causing some of the marital problems that these couples face. I also find it interesting that there were no differences between husbands and wives on measures of depression. In opposition to Henry's conclusion, this implies to me that both sexes are equally stressed by interpersonal conflict and that women's bodies simply have a harder time recuperating from it. This would be a physiobiological difference, not a difference in relationship investment.

In general, though, I'm encouraged by this study. It honestly describes the health consequences of strained marital relations and doesn't try to obfuscate the data to further a conservative ideology that marriage cures all ills. That's a step in the right direction. Now if only these researchers can turn their baby step into a giant leap...


What do you think about this study? Why do you think women in troubled marriages had a higher incidence of metabolic syndrome than their male partners did? What do you think about the researchers' conclusions regarding why unhappily married women are at greater health risk than their husbands? Do you agree with the researchers about what should be done to minimize that risk? Do you believe that a bad marriage is better or worse than a divorce?


Sources

1. University of Utah
2. CNN.com
3. MSNBC
4. BBC News
5. Health.com


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?

Single and Independent

I hope you all had a sparkling, popping Fourth of July weekend and didn't let a little rain dampen your plans if you live anywhere near me!

Although Independence Day celebrates the liberation of the United States from British rule, this weekend it provoked some thought about personal independence. Many people consider the single lifestyle synonymous with independence. Since we live in a world designed for couples, we singles are certainly forced to be more self-reliant. Don't believe me? Let's look at the following scenarios:


1. The average cost of a house in the U.S. in 2007 was $308,275. According to this mortgage calculator, at an annual interest rate of 5.75%, a 30-year mortgage for an average house demands a household income of $77,100.40. Yet households earning more than $60,000 a year had a median of two income earners as of 2006, while households earning less had a median of just one. Clearly, home ownership is designed for couples.

2. A plumber, electrician, or other contractor needs to make a visit. Someone has to be home to let him in. This would require that someone be home at least part-time if not full-time, and, of course, most part-time workers are married women. In the worst case scenario, in which both members of a couple work full-time, one of them may have to take a day off and, if he or she works for hourly wages, forfeit that day's paycheck. However, a single person has no one else to stay home and no second paycheck to help make up the financial loss.

3. It's moving day. It takes two people to lift that dresser. And that couch. And that chest full of mothballs that Grandma gave you.

4. An important package needs to be weighed and sent by certified mail, stat. But the post office is only open till 6:00. Meanwhile, creditors are pressing for payment of a bill, which means that paycheck has to be deposited today, but the bank also closes at 6:00. For couples, this is a no brainer. One of them goes to the post office after work, the other to the bank. But for singles, being in two places at once is a lot trickier.

5. When traveling to an unfamiliar destination, it sure is helpful to have a designated map reader.


These are just a few examples of everyday challenges in which the assistance of a partner is assumed. To cope with these situations, we singles have to double our efforts and learn how to maximize our strengths to pick up the slack that a partner would otherwise tighten. We are, one might say, modern-day Emersons living his theory of self-reliance, pioneers bucking the mantle of traditional coupledom to brave the frontier of singlehood.

Furthermore, our self-sufficiency extends beyond the solo completion of menial tasks to encompass a mindset or spirit of independence. It's not that unusual for marrieds to flounder without each other, especially when they've been together a long time. When separated, their responses may vary from boredom and loneliness on the milder end of the spectrum to panic and complete immobilization. For example, we all know that guy who pokes around in the kitchen like a helpless hound without a scent trail when his wife isn't home to cook him dinner. Likewise, we can all think of a woman who hyperventilates when hubby isn't around to explain that smoke pouring out from under the hood of the car isn't just bad for the scent of her freshly shampooed hair, it's bad for the engine, too.

In contrast, we singles with singletude are comfortable entertaining ourselves. Quiet time doesn't scare us more than an encounter with Tom Cruise in a dark alley. We can work without oversight. We enjoy the freedom of planning our own schedules and setting our own budgets. What's more, we can probably nuke a meal with our eyes closed and know what's under the hood of the car...or have the number of a mechanic who does. We recognize that trials and tribulations are part of life and feel confident that we will overcome them whether or not we own a marriage certificate.

Yes, singles are definitely an independent bunch. Or at least we're independent-minded. Whether or not we intended to be single, our independence is a source of pride more often than not. But this weekend, in true devil's advocate form, I began to wonder if singles are really as independent as we think. Is it true that we're more independent than our married friends? What exactly is independence anyway and what is its value?

Singletude can't answer all these questions, but I can pose them and provide some statistics that might point in one direction or another. For example, singles who have never been married are more likely to live at home with their parents than are those who are or were previously married. Singles also receive more financial handouts from their parents than marrieds do. Plus, although I'm not aware of any research on the number of singles that have roommates, who presumably share the burden of rent and residential maintenance, we can estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 survey that if there are 89.9 million legal singles, 47.7 million of whom either live alone, with children, or with an unmarried romantic partner, then 42.1 million must live with roommates or other family members. That's a substantial portion of the single population! So, in some ways at least, perhaps singles are less independent than we give ourselves credit for.

This begs the question of how we define independence and whether some forms of independence have more value than others. Is a single woman who gets some parental help with her rent less independent than a wife who demands her husband stay home seven nights a week because she can't bear to be alone? How about a single man who lives with his parents but otherwise looks after himself versus a married man who can't do his own laundry? In American society, we tend to view married couples as more independent than singles in either of these situations (or even sometimes singles in general, which is a travesty), but we may be overlooking a reality that transcends marital status, the reality that humans are interdependent creatures.

That's right. We're social animals. And since Singletude is a humanistic blog, I feel compelled to point out that interdependence is a natural state for which we're evolutionarily designed. Now, I don't want to mix up interdependence with dependence or, as some relationship gurus like to call it, codependence, an inability to care for oneself as a separate individual. Obviously, the value of self-sufficiency is that adults today will spend over half their lives alone, and those who don't have a life raft of family or friends to fall back on need to swim for themselves to stay afloat. But a wholly independent life isn't historically the norm and may not be ideal for us, single or married. Humans have always lived in communities, and it's the rare individual who has learned to survive outside of them. The fact that isolation even within the community has become the new American standard doesn't mean it's what's best for us as human beings. So perhaps it's to be expected that adults who don't have mates would turn to other relations and friends for support.

Independence has long been an American ideal, but maybe it's time to reevaluate our conception of it. Maybe what we should really be promoting and teaching our kids (for those of us who will have them one day) is interdependence, the concept that people aren't made to go it entirely alone and that while those who do may be admired for their courage and dedication, it's not something that everyone can or should do. We're built for specialization and for socialization, which means that not everyone is equipped to do every task or to spend long periods totally alone. Instead of proudly insisting that we can do these things, no matter how unpleasant they are, maybe we should be looking for ways to integrate with other friends and family members to create a society in which everyone contributes and everyone benefits, rather than walling ourselves off to struggle alone as a matter of pride.


Do you think of yourself as an independent single? Do you think you're more independent than the coupled people you know? What does it mean to you to be "independent"? Do you value independence highly, or would you rather be more connected and interdependent?





Fun Link of the Day

"Am I Too Picky When Dating?" by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: A Singletude Response

Sorry, but I couldn't let this one slide without a comment.

The Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who has a syndicated Q&A column, recently published this response to a single woman who expresses a concern that she has "unreasonably high" expectations for her dates. Her first-date turnoffs include workaholism, poor familial relationships, and cell phone conversations in the midst of the date, and friends are accusing her of pickiness.

The rabbi agrees. The verdict: she's too selective. And not only that, she's a downright "commitment-phobe." He goes on to provide a list of dating qualifications which are more appropriate in his book and urges her to find someone who meets them, then mold his bad habits and undesirable traits to her liking.

Now, I'm often impressed with what Rabbi Shmuley has to say about relationships, but unfortunately, his position on singlehood seems to be that it's always less preferable to coupling, and that attitude is plain as day in this Q&A. Sure, his top ten list of criteria for a prospective partner is esteemable, including such characteristics as humility, generosity, and patience. But why is this woman deemed a "commitment-phobe" because she doesn't want to settle for someone who doesn't also demonstrate additional virtues that she considers important?

"Picky" calls it as she sees it and says her dates are waving "red flags." I tend to agree. If she wants someone who will be attentive to her and any future children, a man addicted to overtime isn't the best choice. What good is it if this man is generous with his money, as the rabbi advises he should be, but not generous with his time? If she wants a healthy relationship with her in-laws and a future husband whose attitude toward his family is based on the closeness of his own childhood home, then casting her lot with someone from a dysfunctional family is risky, as well. Turning to Rabbi Shmuley's checklist again, the man may have all the patience in the world, but how will that help him show love or exercise discipline with his kids if he didn't receive either? And while "Picky" might want to cut the guy some slack if he has to take a high-priority call, people who whip out the cell willy-nilly throughout a first date don't seem too interested or respectful. How does that fit in with the rabbi's admonition to choose someone who is courteous and focused on his date? Eliminating potential lovers on this basis doesn't seem commitment-phobic; it seems smart.

To compound the problem, Rabbi Shmuley then recommends that the letter writer "teach them" to be better men, proclaiming that "a woman inspires a man to be better." Oy ve! Could anything be less true? One of the hardest lessons we have to learn in life is that people don't change for each other. At least, not permanently. Someone may be temporarily inspired to change in order to win over a prize catch, but it's only a matter of time before the relapse. People change because they want to, and if a partner can support them in that goal, that's one of the crowning achievements of a relationship. But, again, change is conditional on desire. No amount of encouraging, prodding, whining, or nagging is going to make someone budge if he or she doesn't want to, not in the long run. In fact, the myth of the transformative power of a relationship, that someone can marry a frog and make him a prince (or a princess) is one of the most damaging lies we're fed every day and one that continuously undermines our single and marital happiness.

Is "Picky" too picky? I don't think so. I think she's discerning. She knows what makes a good partner, and she's willing to avoid the telltale signs of a bad apple instead of compromising her values for the sake of a relationship. My guess is she's relatively content as a single and believes that a significant other should add a blessing to her life, not demand a sacrifice. I hope this ill-conceived advice doesn't contribute to a divorce for her further down the line.


What do you think? Was this single too picky? What red flags do you look for on a first date? What's your checklist for the ideal partner?


Fun Link of the Day