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.

The Center for American Progress Takes Up the Cause for Singles

So, dear readers, did you lose sleep last night pondering the mystery links that failed to appear yesterday while my Internet service was behaving badly? No? Surely you jest!

Did you at least work up a mild curiosity then? I guess that will have to do! ;)

As you may know, Singletude has a policy of not linking to articles from biased sources for "Singles in the News." Obviously, many journalists write with an unstated bias, but, for Singletude's purposes, "biased sources" are defined as media outlets that have overt, acknowledged agendas. The goal of "Singles in the News" is to reflect how singles are portrayed in mainstream culture and to provide news that isn't colored from the outset by the need to advance a specific organization's worldview. A lot of biased sources are right-wing conservative groups, and they are responsible for some of the most atrocious representations of singles that you've had the pleasure not to see on Singletude. On the other hand, sometimes a liberal organization publishes fantastic coverage of singles issues, but I still can't link to it because it has an explicit agenda, and I don't discriminate.

Luckily, just because it would be hypocritical to publish those stories in "Singles in the News" doesn't mean they can't appear elsewhere on the blog. That's why I want to introduce you today to a a site that's turning out some top-notch reporting on singles even though its left-wing agenda excludes it from mention in the weekly news column. The site belongs to the Center for American Progress (CAP), an influential liberal think tank in Washington, DC. Recently, it has joined the vanguard of progressive, politically powerful institutions that are publicizing singles issues. The web site--and policy analyst Liz Weiss in particular--woke up and smelled the single cups of coffee steaming in 50.8% of American households and apparently decided to wake up everyone else, too. For the past couple of months, they've been running articles about the socioeconomic concerns of singles in general and single women in particular. Take a look at these:


"Protecting Unmarried Women from Unscrupulous Lenders"
"Unmarried and Uninsured"
"Unmarried Women Hit Hard by Poverty"


These articles are wonderfully inclusive, accounting for the tremendous variation in lifestyle among those who fall under the umbrella category of "unmarried." Their statistics are pulled from reputable sources and, more importantly, are cited so readers can look them up. Best of all, the CAP understands that the problems singles face are the product of social and political injustice that must be redressed by policy change, not by more marriages. Nowhere will you find even the hint of a suggestion that singles are the problem because they're not married or that they should make a run to the store and pick up spouses so that all the ills of the world will be solved. Instead, CAP examines aspects of current legislation that might help or further hinder the unmarried to increase awareness of what we're up against and what we should speak out for.

Since Weiss specializes in research on unmarried women, there should be more to come on this subject from CAP. Since it is a left-leaning organization, its call for an end to marital status discrimination is less shocking and perhaps less significant than it would be if it emerged from a moderate or bipartisan source. Nevertheless, up until very recently, singles haven't even been a blip on the radar of civil rights activists. They were invisible to Repubs and Dems alike. So the fact that a public policy research institute with a voice in Washington is speaking up for the unmarried is a big stride toward mainstream recognition.

I'll be returning to CAP's site periodically for both news and trustworthy data about singles. You may find it valuable as well.


Do you have thoughts on any of the stories above? (When commenting, please reference the title of the article.) Do you know of any other prominent political organizations, partisan or nonpartisan, that are promoting awareness of singles? Do you think singles issues are starting to be addressed in politics, or do you think singles are still largely invisible?


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": A Singletude Review

Yesterday I attended the last evening of Single Edition's "Live the Life You Love" discussion panel series for single women at Saks Fifth Avenue. Single Edition founder Sherri Langburt, interviewed by Singletude last January, says that she hopes to sponsor further events, so here's a recap of what you can expect for next time:

The night kicked off with refreshments, and most guests took advantage of the time to circulate and mingle. It was a friendly, upbeat crowd and a great opportunity to meet and greet other women with similar interests. One or two single men even stopped by in hopes of making a love connection! Gradually, everyone migrated toward the main event space to claim a pen and notepad and a chair, most of which were filled by the time the presentation started.

The four panel experts of the night were Beth Schoenfeldt, founder of Collective-E, a web site and social networking organization for entrepreneurs; human resources consultant and career coach Alyson D'Anna; Karine Bakhoum, president of KB Network News, a food and hospitality industry PR and consulting firm; and Brad Berkowitz, author of The 21st Century Guide to Bachelorhood: Lessons Learned Over the Past 20 Years. My primary interest was in the career and business domain, so I was particularly curious to hear what Schoenfeldt and D'Anna had to say.

Schoenfeldt was the first to speak and related her experience building a business as a single woman, contrasting it with a later venture that she undertook as a married mother. One of the main points of her presentation was that singleness can be a huge advantage to small business owners, who can devote their undivided time, attention, and financial resources to what may become an all-consuming professional project. Shattering the myth that married entrepreneurs always have partners to fall back on, she reminded singles that not all spouses are supportive and that the additional risk of investing in a business alone can boost motivation in a way that a partner's comfortable salary can not. Schoenfeldt also promoted networking, especially with proven start-ups who might serve as mentors.

Next up was Bakhoum, who talked about cooking for one, emphasizing the importance of pampering yourself with simple yet special meals. Bakhoum recalled that when she was single, she found herself going all out for guests but reaching for the takeout menu for her own dinner. Eventually, she realized that she was entitled to healthy, delicious food and didn't need to wait for other people to give herself permission to enjoy it. Bakhoum shared some of her favorite cooking tips, advocating for the transformative power of seasonings and sauces and the judicious use of leftovers.

Getting back to business, career coach D'Anna focused on how singles can market themselves, advising workers to integrate self-promotion into their daily lives rather than scramble at the last minute when a raise is on the table or a job is in danger. Her strategy was not for the timid--she recommended chatting up senior execs at company events and the person next to you at private parties. Like Schoenfeldt, she presented singleness as a career advantage, suggesting that solo employees can more easily work a room or go back to school without the distraction of spouse and kids. Finally, D'Anna addressed the sensitive issues of dating and singlism in the workplace. Regarding office romance, she advised strict adherence to company policy, disclosure to immediate supervisors when a relationship is serious, and a professional demeanor should the love match sour. As for combating singlism, D'Anna encouraged singles with outside interests not to stew in silence but to speak up for themselves and their right to enjoy life untethered to a desk.

The last speaker was Berkowitz, who began by asking the audience for a show of hands if they were doing absolutely everything they could to meet men. Of course, not all of us are interested in dating, so he lost me at hello, but chances are many of the other single ladies were on his wavelength as he talked about utilizing every avenue to meet potential partners (hint: go where the men are, such as gyms and sports bars), decoding male interest signals, and holding out for love (or at least serious interest) before giving sex. This advice was nothing new, but maybe that's because Berkowitz didn't make a name for himself advising single women; his book is for single men. In fact, as far as I know, it's the only dating guide for single men. I haven't read it yet, but maybe some of you single guys out there will pick up a copy and give us your feedback.

Each presentation was followed by a Q&A, and although the audience was shy at first, the questions were flying fast and furious by the end of the night. The discussion wrapped up after about an hour and a half, at which time everyone was given a 15% discount card and turned loose on Saks for an after-hours shopping spree. Cosmetics consultants were also on hand with free samples, and a lot of women stuck around just to chat. I wouldn't have minded if the guest speakers had been allotted more time to expand on their topics with more concrete, step-by-step examples, but of course the audience was antsy for the rare opportunity to have Saks all to themselves.

As a parting gift, attendees literally got everything and a bag of chips! Each gift bag included a GO SMiLE tooth whitening kit, samples of Estee Lauder Re-Nutriv Ultimate Youth Eye Creme and derma e Scar Gel, a bottle of Glaceau smartwater, a bag of popchips--for real!--and discount certificates for The Vitamin Shoppe and a local personal trainer.

But really the best aspect of the night--for me, at least--was that a bunch of single women with similar goals were gathered under the same roof. One of the lessons of the evening was that we need to keep in mind the importance of connections, and this was a perfect venue to get to know some like-minded people. I'm looking forward to another discussion series and would encourage you not to miss the next time around if you want to network with other singles, learn some tips and tricks for single living, and get some cool freebies.

Tomorrow, you may want to stop by Singletude again because in lieu of the usual big, meaty midweek post, we have two lighter "snacks," this one today and one tomorrow. Tomorrow's post will introduce you to some links that couldn't be included in "Singles in the News" last week but are nevertheless worthy of a special mention. Curious? See ya tomorrow!


If you were able to attend any of the "Live the Life You Love" events, what did you think of your experience? Do you know of any other singles-oriented discussion series that you would recommend? Do singles events like this appeal to you and, if not, what kinds of events for singles would you like to see (other than dating or matchmaking events)?


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.

Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza by Cherie Burbach: A Singletude Review

In case you've been living it up on your summer vacation in Cabo while I've been slaving away over a hot CPU to serve up post after post of relevant, singles-friendly info and not feeling at all bitter about it, you may have missed that Singletude is currently running its first ever giveaway contest! The prize is a gift basket worth over $150 from SingleEdition.com. It also includes a book donated by online dating guru Cherie Burbach, Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza (IDINLOAP).

Burbach, a professional freelancer who is also the Dating feature writer at Suite101.com, knows that of which she writes. After joining an online dating service, she went on a dizzying 60 dates in six months, a figure that defies credulity, memory, and eight hours of sleep a night. She also met her husband.

If you've been reading online dating advice for any length of time, chances are many of the tips and tricks presented here won't be new to you. In fact, Singletude dispensed much of the same advice over a year ago in"Tips for Online Dating Success, Part I," "Part II," "Part III," and "Part IV." However, if the book's strategy isn't totally original, it is solid. The reason you'll find various Internet dating experts parroting this same advice is because it works. What sets Burbach apart from the others is that she conveniently collects all this wisdom in one volume and makes it easy to apply.

How easy? Well, instead of nebulous suggestions to "be unique" or "show off your personality," she offers step-by-step instructions with lots and lots of examples so you can see what that really looks like in a dating profile. Rather than leave you to figure out for yourself what it means to send a reply that's "open" but not "too familiar" or "pushy," she demonstrates several appropriate ways to initiate and respond to messages. In essence, reading IDINLOAP is like shadowing an Internet dating coach as she works the dot-com scene. Whether you've just jumped into the online dating pool or have been swimming in it for awhile without success, you'll benefit from observing how an expert navigates the waters.

Set in big, friendly type with generous spacing, IDINLOAP adopts a conversational tone from the outset, as though the author had stopped by for a casual, one-on-one chat (which is, by the way, the same tone she recommends for dating profiles). Burbach's formula for online dating success can be summed up as the right profile plus the right attitude, and she immediately sets out to show singles how to achieve both. She doesn't skimp; every stage of online dating is covered, from photo selection to first date follow-up.

Drawing on her experience as a professional writer, Burbach reveals the secrets to creating a magnetic profile, which aren't nearly as complicated as you might think. In fact, one of her simplest trade secrets is to write as though you're "describ[ing] yourself to...an alien," someone "who speaks your language but doesn't know anything about your world." Naturally, instead of just rattling off things you like to do and places you like to go, you would describe what those things and places are like, how they make you feel, and why they're important to you. The book's main tenet is that a successful profile isn't one that makes you sound better than you are but one that sounds exactly like you are so it will attract the kind of people who would be interested in you. Burbach's guided questions and examples teach you how to reveal yourself in your headline, profile essay, and multiple choice questions.

Another key part of her strategy is to help your potential date envision him- or herself with you, something you probably thought you had no control over. Don't worry. IDINLOAP will show you how to do that, too.

Soon, you may notice that Burbach's pointers for seemingly disparate pieces of your profile are transforming it into a thematic whole, a story of you that sparkles as more than the sum of its compelementary parts. This "big picture" approach is, to my knowledge, a completely fresh idea in the world of online dating advice and should add an impressive luster to any profile.

Thankfully, IDINLOAP doesn't push the online dating newbie out of the nest once the profile is complete. Burbach walks you through the search process, illustrates how to initiate and reply to messages appropriately, and will even hold your hand through the first date and its follow-up. Along the way, she provides a crash course in netiquette and steers readers away from the pitfalls that online daters unwittingly stumble into.

On that note, if IDINLOAP has a downfall, it's that its many "don'ts" may not be flexible enough for some readers. Burbach has very firm ideas about things like what you should and shouldn't show in pictures, the search criteria you should use, and how long your first date should be (exactly 60 minutes and not a second longer). Some online daters may find these rules too confining or not applicable. For instance, IDINLOAP is squarely aimed at singles looking for serious commitments, so those who want to date casually will have to adjust the guidelines to their own purposes.

Furthermore, the book's overriding philosophy is that online dating is a numbers game, so dating site members should make their searches as broad as possible and write to as many other members as they can. In Burbach's eyes, you can't figure out much about people until you meet them in person, so you should try to meet as many as will say yes to a coffee date. In contrast, the Singletude approach is to start searches narrow and work outward so you have the best chance of finding the ideal match for you. But, then, I'm writing from the perspective of someone who knows exactly what she wants, can detect it easily in profiles, and lives in a region with a lot of online daters. Also, I would find it overwhelming to juggle as many online contacts as Burbach recommends. In short, the Singletude strategy is based on what works for me; the IDINLOAP strategy is based on what works for Burbach. Either one may work for you.

If you aren't comfortable with the book's one-size-fits-all method, you can easily adapt it to your needs. However, most of the advice in this volume is not only sound but repeated again and again by Internet dating vets, so you will want to follow much of it to a tee. In addition, part of IDINLOAP's formula for success is a positive attitude that doesn't get much attention in most online dating how-tos. Everyone knows it's bad form to whine about your ex in your profile, but IDINLOAP's definition of a positive attitude is holistic, extending beyond smiling pictures and an upbeat headline to incorporate your expectations for the dating process on- and offline. Throughout the book, Burbach serves this slice of advice straight up to singles who are letting negativity interfere with their dating prospects and helps site members reframe the sometimes brutal online dating process as a light-hearted, experimental adventure.

If you're new to online dating, IDINLOAP is indispensable and could save you from costly errors and discouragement. On the other hand, if you've been around the cyberblock and are frustrated with Internet dating sites, this book may help you identify what you're doing wrong so you can finally meet your perfect match. Even successful online daters may find themselves refining old strategies with Burbach's advice. To win a free copy of Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza, enter the Singletude giveaway contest today!




Have you had success with online dating? If so, what are some online dating strategies that you would recommend? What are some online dating pitfalls that singles should beware of? If you've read Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering a Pizza, 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!


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"!

"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!

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!

Singletude Profiled at Onely

Newsflash! Singletude was profiled today at Onely: Single and Happy as part of their series "Some Like It Single," which features blogs with a pro-singles focus. (There must be an award for stuffing the word "single" into a sentence as many times as I just did, heh heh.) Longtime friends Lisa and Christina, who share blogging duties at Onely, are writerly academics, and it shows in their articulate posts, which will introduce you to such concepts as "heteronormativity" and "singlism." Their blog takes a provocative look at cultural assumptions about singleness, both in their private lives and in the wider spheres of advertising, entertainment, politics, and other American institutions. It will challenge, educate, and enlighten you without ever sacrificing its charming readability.

Please stop in and check out Onely's Singletude review, then stick around for an in-depth exploration of what it means to be single in our coupled world!


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!

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!

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!

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!