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!

A Tribute to Single Dads on Father's Day

In 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 16% of single parents with kids at home were single dads. That adds up to 1.8 million American men shepherding their kids through the morning routine, ferrying them around after school, and serving as cook, maid, and homework helper at night. Day in and day out. Rinse, squeeze, repeat. A full 25% of these men were never married at all, and a frightening 57% of them struggle to provide for themselves and their children on earnings of less than $50,000 a year.

Single moms factor prominently in our collective consciousness since women in the single-parent demographic hold a comfortable majority. Undoubtedly, our cherished stereotype of the nurturing maternal figure contributes to this, as well. Mothers who go it alone are the recipients of our goodwill, not to mention charitable donations and community-funded programs. Men, on the other hand, are often assumed to be more interested in baseball stats and quarterly reports than developmental milestones. Not only do single fathers have to make do with fewer resources, but they also have to contend with disbelief and derision at their desire to parent. So let's dispel some of the myths that hound America's real heroes!

Despite the bias against single dads, research shows that they too are effective caregivers and that they balance work and home responsibilities with about the same competence as single moms. Kids of single dads are no less well-adjusted than kids of single moms, and they tend to have better relationships with both parents. Some studies indicate that children, especially boys, fare even better when they live with single fathers, scoring higher on measures of self-esteem, maturity, independence, resilience, and risk tolerance than those with only mothers at home. In addition, since men earn more than women, they may be able to provide greater financial stability for little ones. And, believe it or not, that extra testosterone doesn't translate into more misplaced aggression toward vulnerable sons and daughters; single mothers are five times more likely than single fathers to fatally injure their children. It's not a big leap from those findings to the realization that adult offspring of single fathers are just as happy, well-educated, and prosperous as those who grew up with their mothers. In short, a loving parent is a loving parent, and while the differences between Mars and Venus may forever intrigue, mystify, and infuriate us, they don't have much bearing on our child-rearing skills.

This Father's Day, Singletude celebrates the unsung single dads out there. Thank you for the tireless and often thankless work you do to raise the next generation. Because of you, 3 million children will sleep tonight knowing that they are loved, supported, and safe. Because of you, those children will grow up understanding responsibility, hard work, and sacrifice. Because of you, they will become adults who can truly say that you were their heroes.


Resources for Single Fathers

About.com
AskMen.com
fathers.com
Fathering Magazine
greatDad.com
Just4Dads.org
Single Dad
Single Dads Town
The Single Fathers' Lighthouse
singlefather.org


Are you or were you raised by a single dad? If so, what were some of the challenges and rewards you experience(d) as a single father or the child of a single father? Do you think children can thrive with single fathers as well as they can with single mothers?


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!

Anti-Love Drug May Be Ticket to Bliss by John Tierney: A Singletude Response

On January 12, Dr. Larry J. Young of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center caught up with New York Times reporter John Tierney to discuss a world without love.

Well, all right, not a world devoid of any form of affection. As singles everywhere know, romantic love is not the holy grail of human emotions. There are plenty of other opportunities to give and receive love in familial and filial bonds. Nevertheless, the prospect of manipulating romantic attachment has captured our collective imagination since we were drawing on cave walls, inspiring everything from Wiccan love potions to self-help books. Now, Young believes we may be on the verge of some scientifically verifiable spell casting.

In Anti-Love Drug May Be Ticket to Bliss, Young reports that oxytocin, a hormone that contributes to bonding during sex, has been used in a nasal spray to increase feelings of trust and empathy and theorizes that it may have future applications in troubled romantic relationships: "If you’re in a marriage and want to maintain that relationship, you might take a little booster shot yourself every now and then," he says.

Now try explaining that collection of syringes to your spouse: "I'm sorry, honey, I'm addicted to love."

However, Tierney is more eager to see the new technology used to inhibit the twitterpated and points to research by Dr. Helen Fisher and Dr. J. Anderson Thomson, Jr., which suggests that antidepressants can suppress the neurochemical response to the body's attempts to pair us off. In addition, reduced levels of oxytocin (in prairie voles, at least) and vasopressin (in prairie voles and human males!) have been shown to weaken the urge toward monogamy.

Hmmm. So, in other words, ladies, if he doesn't call, maybe he's just not that into vasopressin?

Tierney pushes it a step further, proposing a "love vaccine" that would restore the likes of Britney Spears and Larry King to their right minds. (Although, in the case of the former, there would, of course, have to be a mind to restore first.) As Tierney puts it, "Spouses going through midlife crises would not be so quick to elope with their personal trainers; elderly widowers might consult their lawyers before marrying someone resembling Anna Nicole Smith." The days of report cards complaining that Little Johnny kisses the girls at recess would recede into mythology as love vaccines were administered with every infant's dose of Measles-Mumps-Rubella.

While the findings covered by the NY Times are interesting, how plausible would a love vaccine really be? Moreover, would we want one? Tierney notes that a love stimulant could provoke feelings of lust for inappropriate objects of affection but fails to acknowledge that a love vaccine could have a parallel effect, making it difficult to form emotionally healthy bonds with the people we do care about, not to mention the potential for these kinds of drugs to become the next generation of roofies!

On a more philosophical note, although singles may sometimes love to hate love, I'd be curious to find out how many would actually want to eradicate romance. In an era in which more adults than ever before are single, are we as a society ready for romantic love to go the way of bustles and elbow-length gloves? Are the majority of singles reaching the conclusion that life is better without it? Or, on the other hand, if we had the option to help love along a bit, perhaps some of those very singles who seem the happiest in their solitude would be the first lining up for samples. One way or the other, it would be fascinating to see what the possibility of engineered love, if you will, would reveal to us about ourselves.


Do you like the idea of a love potion or a love vaccine? Would you use either? If so, in what circumstances? Do you have any ethical concerns about using such drugs? Do you think singles today are getting tired of romantic love, or do you think it's something most singles still want?


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!

"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!

Forbes Best Cities for Singles, 2008

I'm late to the game on this one, folks, but on September 4, 2008, Forbes announced its annual rankings of the most singles-friendly American cities. This year, Atlanta tops the list, bumping last year's champ, San Francisco, to second best, while Dallas takes home the bronze.

The cities were rated on six factors--number of singles, culture, nightlife, job growth, cost of living, and online dating activity. Atlanta's solid scores on job growth and nightlife propelled it to first place. Although San Francisco scored poorly on job growth and cost of living, it held onto second because it houses more singles than any other U.S. city (a whopping 30% of its residents are unmarried) and has a thriving cultural scene. Last year's runner-up, New York, dropped to eighth in view of its inflated cost of living, stalled job growth, and stagnant online dating scene. Dallas, on the other hand, saw a meteoric rise from ninth to third due to its affordability, job growth, and hot nightlife, even as former third-place finisher, Los Angeles, plummeted to sixteenth, following New York's downward trajectory for the same reasons. Rounding out the top 10 were Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Boston, New York, Orlando, and Phoenix. The worst city for singles was Jacksonville, sitting dead last in fortieth place.

Cities boasting a claim to number one in any category included the aforementioned San Fran for most singles, L.A. for richest culture, NYC for hippest nightlife, Austin for fastest job growth, San Antonio for most affordable cost of living, and Charlotte for most happening online dating scene. Their counterparts languishing at the bottom of the ladder were Tampa-St. Petersburg, Jacksonville, Charlotte (a city of extremes, apparently), Milwaukee, New York (another city of extremes), and Memphis. To see a complete list of cities and how they fared among singles, click here.

A cursory glance at these results suggests that Texas is muy caliente, which should come as no surprise to those who are used to its blistering summers. The Southeast, however, is a mixed bag, and the Rust Belt and Midwest aren't exactly singles meccas.

Of course, not everyone will agree with some of the measures used to draw these conclusions. For instance, the nightlife rating was determined by calculating the total restaurants, bars, and nightclubs per person. However, a report on the quantity of eateries in a metro area says nothing of their quality or attractiveness to the single population. As another example, only data from Match.com was used to assess each city's online dating culture, a measurement which excludes many other online dating heavyweights. For a more detailed explanation of the scoring system, read this.

Still, the Forbes study, fast becoming the definitive ranking system for singles searching for a change of pace via a change of place, provides valuable data that not only reveals which cities are home to the most singles but how each city serves its singles. So if you like to hit the bars on the weekend, you may want to pack your bags for New York, whereas if you intend to circulate online, Charlotte might be more your speed. Wherever you hang your hat, though, take your positive singletude with you!


Do you live in or near any of the cities on the Forbes Best Cities for Singles list? If so, how do you think your city stacks up? Do you think the measures used for this study can provide valid conclusions about which cities are best for singles? If not, what measures would you use?


Fun Link of the Day


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

Singles and Adoption: The Intentionally Single Parent

First off, my apologies for my extended absence from Singletude! I think this is the longest I've gone without posting an entry, and I feel terrible about it. Life circumstances have conspired to keep me away, but one of my most time-consuming focuses of late, the wedding of a close friend, will be over at the beginning of October, and I'll have that much more time to spend here. :) I've also been "nesting"--not with a baby but with a newly hatched screenplay, and the "little one" is very demanding!

The other day I was wasting time at a favorite message board that is my gossip magazine, sitcom, and newsroom rolled into one when I stumbled onto a debate about single-parent adoption. I can't remember what sparked it, perhaps Meg Ryan, Sheryl Crow, or some other single celebrity mom who found it in her heart to share her love and considerable resources with a deserving child. Whatever or whoever it was, the board was abuzz with adulation and condemnation for single adopters.

I can hear you now: "Condemnation, you say? What's to be condemned in the extraordinary sacrifice it takes to raise a child someone else brought into the world? Especially for a single adult, whose resources of time and money may already be finite, it seems like a remarkably selfless choice!"

But there are those who believe that a child can only be healthy when raised in a two-parent home and that singles who adopt deprive kids of the chance to have "real families." Regrettably, I used to be one of them.

Go ahead. Fling stones at my glass house. It's true. There was a time when I thought that single adopters were as selfish as a triple decker stroller is long and destined to raise a gaggle of little Christina Crawfords. Needless to say, I've since changed my mind. Not because I've been seized by the irrepressible urge to adopt and now have to justify my decision (I haven't) but because arguments have come to light that have convinced me I was just plain wrong. Here's why:


1. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children & Families, as of 2006, there were 117,380 children in foster care who were eligible for adoption. Of those children, 50,379 (less that half) found adoptive parents. I guarantee you those 67,001 kids still shuffling through the foster care system or fending for themselves in state-run institutions would rather live with a loving single parent.

2. Just because someone adopts as a single parent doesn't mean he or she will always be single, just as married couples who adopt may not remain married. Never has marital status been as fluid as it is today, but the role of mom or dad is forever. So it seems foolish to base the decision to adopt solely on whether the adoptee will enter a one- or two-parent home.

3. A single adopter doesn't necessarily parent alone, while married adopters don't necessarily parent together. Research from around the world demonstrates that singles, including single parents, have social networks at least as deep and rich as those of married couples, sometimes more so. When a single individual adopts, she or he may have an army of "co-parents" ready and willing to be role models, caregivers, mentors, and activity partners as well as to step in at a moment's notice in times of crisis. These can include the adoptive grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins in addition to friends, coworkers, and neighbors. In married households, on the other hand, children don't automatically get a double dose of parental devotion. As a matter of fact, mothers still spend almost twice as much time with their kids as fathers do, so it might be more accurate to say that these youngsters have one and a half parents, not two! Okay, okay, it's not all about quantity, I realize. But if time spent together is indicative of parental involvement and influence, then it's hard to see how children in two-parent homes are so much better off than children with one parent and, say, special adult friends or relatives they visit once or twice a week.

4. Children can bridge the gap between singles and the surrounding community, which can benefit both adoptees and their single parents. Although the data cited above proves that singles aren't lonely or isolated in general, there will always be some people who have trouble connecting with others. Far from reinforcing social withdrawal, parenting opens doors to interaction. Whether through PTA fundraisers, Little League games, or Girl Scout meetings, single parents can meet and build relationships with each other and their families. Some single parents have even moved in together to share the responsibility of childrearing!

5. Children adopted by singles aren't suffering for lack of a backup parent. In fact, they're thriving on the single-minded dedication of unmarried adopters. Studies comparing adoptees in single- and two-parent homes reveal that outcomes are similar or even better for kids adopted by singles. Surprised? Here's some more evidence. These counterintuitive results may arise from the fact that singles are more likely than marrieds to establish relationships with children prior to adoption, or it may be that single adopters don't bring marital stressors to the equation. Furthermore, many adoptees have special physical or emotional needs that are better addressed by someone who can focus completely on the child rather than dividing his or her time between a spouse and other kids in the home. Whatever else you may argue, the proof is in the pudding of thousands of well-adjusted young people who are learning, playing, growing, and discovering what it is to be part of a loving family in the homes of single adoptive parents.


If you've ever thought of adopting a child as a single parent but hesitated to do so out of concern for the child's well-being, I hope I've cleared up the misconceptions about single adopters that dissuade so many big-hearted individuals from opening their arms to needy kids. In today's transitioning society, perhaps we can finally peel away the mask of the traditional family, look into the eyes of love behind it, and allow that love to shine forth in any form it wants to take--through families large or small, nuclear or extended, blood-related or adopted, married or single.

What do you think about single parents who adopt? Have you adopted a child as a single parent, or do you know someone who has? If so, can you share your/their experience? If not, would you ever consider adopting while single?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Write in, and you just might see your question posted in a Singletude Q&A!

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!

Singles Are Healthier Than Unhappily Marrieds

Breaking news, singles! This study on the correlation between marital status and blood pressure has been making the rounds of the online news hubs, so if you haven't read it, point your browser there.

We've been force-fed a lot of propaganda about how marriage guarantees a longer, healthier life even as many of us singles have stood on the sidelines of marital feuds and wondered how the heck those couples could sleep at night, let alone outlive us. Well, the scoop is that a marriage certificate doesn't mean squat if the relationship isn't fulfilling. In fact--surprise, surprise--it's better to be single!

The researchers measured blood pressure in 204 married partners and 99 singles and collected measures of marital satisfaction and adjustment from the couples. As expected, higher levels of marital satisfaction and adjustment were associated with lower blood pressure. But the big news is that couples who scored poorly on marital satisfaction and adjustment had blood pressure levels that rose through the roof, surpassing those of happier couples and singles. In fact, the dissatisfied couples had blood pressure readings that hit the danger zone!

The bottom line: It's much better for your health to be single than to be unhappily married.

For singles, this isn't news. It's something we've known all along. Not that we're running around pumping our BP monitors like some people check their BlackBerries, but we've likely seen our coupled friends stressed over everything from infidelity to who's going to cook tonight, and in the meantime, we've been retiring each evening to a comfy couch, a free remote, and a bed that no one has to make in the morning. Since most of us have been in relationships, we can also contrast our currently unruffled emotions with the bumpy ride we took through the final stages with the ex. What a fun house.

You can't argue with the facts about a good marriage. There is a lot of evidence that happy partnerships boost disease-free longevity. Yet, for some reason, whether self-righteousness, denial, envy, bitterness, or fear of those who are different, society has insisted for some time that all marriages have this protective effect, while we singles, floating along without the pressures of spouse and kids, are doomed to ill health. That's counterintuitive, and now we also know it's blatantly false.

For me personally, one of the unsung advantages of singlehood is the even keel of a predictable, stable emotional rhythm. Even in the best relationships, it seems the heart is always somersaulting over the ups and downs of coupled life--the spats, the misunderstandings, the doubt and rejection. When I'm single, I may miss out on the highs of romance, but I certainly don't miss the lows of heartbreak, and while an absence of the former won't kill you, the latter can by depressing your immune system, elevating your blood pressure, and increasing your risk of heart attack.

Instinctively, I think we've always known that it's better to be single and happy than married and miserable. But it's nice to have it validated anyway.


Do you think it's healthier to be alone than to be trapped in a bad marriage? Have you been healthier as a single than you've been in unhappy relationships?


Fun Link of the Day

"She Says vs. He Says: Do Girls Really Like Dating Jerks?": A Singletude Response

The above debate between Christine Hassler and Jason Ryan Dorsey was featured on Yahoo! Personals and made waves across the Web. In truth, this question stirs up trouble wherever it goes but seldom incites a response more definitive than venomous diatribes from the ladies who've been screwed over by jerks and the nice guys who wish they'd done the screwing.

Okay, ouch. That hit a sore spot. Free band-aids for all.

Joking aside, the reason I'm rehashing this tired debate is because I think Hassler hits it right on the nose, finally:

Here's how the jerk spell works: we meet the jerk and in some twisted way are seduced by his confidence, charm, and passion. We don't see these as the disguises they are: confidence is really arrogance, charm comes from him being a player, and his passion is being the center of his own universe.

The jerk sniffs out our insecurities and uses them to reel us in with compliments that eventually turn into criticisms.

Unfortunately, her argument peters out in the same dried-up pool of murky excuses about women who like "a challenge" or "a little danger." Dorsey continues riffing on this theme without adding much beyond a welcome admonition to decent, humane men to forgo the jerk act for ethical reasons.

As someone who’s cried with numerous women (and men) who’ve been victims of a jerk (the female version is often called a more derogatory name, which I’m not a fan of, so I’ll just use the generic “jerk”), I can tell you that, with the exception of a small group of drama addicts, most people don't want a relationship that plays out like a Neil LaBute movie. They get caught in this kind of relationship for many reasons, but masochism is not one of them.

Let's return for a minute to the quote above from Hassler. To paraphrase, what women like about jerks are their positive traits--"confidence," "charm," "passion"--not their repugnant characteristics, which usually only appear after the woman's heart is hooked on his eloquent lines. In other words, what women like in a man is dominance. They want a guy who is in control of himself and his environment, who is, in essence, master of his domain. From an evolutionary standpoint, that guy has the goods to lead the pack and protect the home.

But women also want a man who is prosocial, which means that he cares about the home community and acts in its best interest. In contemporary relationship speak, he's sensitive.

Hang on, I know what you're thinking: Elsie, Elsie, Elsie. {hopeless shake of the head} What planet do you live on? Not the same one that brought us Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler and Steve Carell, right? In this here galaxy, the nice guy don't get the purdy lady, see?

Two words (well, names actually): Clark Kent and Superman.

As he goes about his business rescuing kittens and brats who need to get in Niagara Falls to get a better look at it, Superman is a prosocial guy. So is Clark Kent.

The Man of Steel is also a dominant guy. Clark Kent isn't.

Superman sets Lois Lane's heart aflutter every time he whooshes by. Clark Kent? Not so much.

The difference between Superman and Clark Kent is dominance, but they're both "good guys." The plethora of myths, legends, and DC comics with a virile hero at their center should be ample evidence that damsels in distress really do prefer the hero, right?

No? Well, then let's look at some research, brought to you by the leading academics in the country:

Graziano, W.G., Jensen-Campbell, L.A., Todd, M., & Finch, J.F. (1997). Interpersonal
attraction from an evolutionary psychology perspective: Women’s reactions to
dominant and prosocial men. In J.A. Simpson & D.T. Kenrick (Eds.),
Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 141-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jensen-Campbell, L.A., Graziano, W.G., & West, S.G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial
orientation, and preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427-440.

Rainville, R.E. & Gallagher, J.G. (1990). Vulnerability and heterosexual attraction. Sex
Roles, 23, 25-31.

Sadalla, E.K., Kenrick, D.T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual
attraction. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 22-26.

Touhey, J.C. (1974). Effects of dominance and competence on heterosexual attraction.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 22-26.

The above studies examine female attraction to dominant males, differentiating the prosocial variety from the aggressive variety, better known as jerks. Studies of this type usually present stories or reenactments with characters who exemplify the prosocial dominant and aggressive dominant male. The female participants are then asked to rate the men on a number of factors, including whether they would be attractive dates, sexual partners, marital partners, fathers, etc. Overwhelmingly, the research demonstrates that women prefer a prosocial dominant male to an aggressive dominant one.

But here's the twist: women also prefer dominant men to nondominant men, period. So if they can't find Superman, Lex Luthor will probably win out over Clark Kent. That is, if there's no prosocial dominant guy available, a girl will pick an aggressive dominant male before a nondominant one. However, this doesn't mean that she's attracted to his aggression (i.e. his "jerky-ness"); she's attracted to his dominance. I'd even venture to say that most women who choose a jerk aren't aware that he's a dominant male of the aggressive variety. After all, when was the last time you saw a woman swoon for a guy who cursed out the bouncer or forced his hand down her shirt? They just perceive his dominance signals--confidence, poise, status, charm, command--and make their selection based on that. In the early stages of dating, when a male suitor struts around with his best foot forward, there probably aren't any other criteria available to dissuade the female from her choice. Once the aggressive male's repulsive characteristics emerge, the girl's heart is already entangled in his lines, and she's left twisting and writhing in distress.

The same phenomenon can be observed among men who fall for a female jerk. Although her magnetic power might not be recognized or described as dominant, that's what it is. She dominates her female competition through her own irresistible blend of beauty, sensuality, charisma, flattery, charm. But as with men, women who are the cream of the crop can also be prosocial (kind, compassionate, generous, forgiving, understanding, etc.), or they can be aggressive (cold, hateful, selfish, envious, demanding...), and men are as prone to be deluded as women are.

So, no, women don't like jerks any more than guys like...well, you know. While everyone likes a little mystery in the beginning of a relationship, no one wants to wonder indefinitely whether they're loved or not. The fact that both sexes get mired in the game of jerks who play dirty is a testament to how very much we long for the exemplary qualities that jerks mimic.

(By the way, my Fun Link of the Day has no problem using that word I don't like, so check out the link if in doubt! :))


Have you ever dated a male or female jerk? Do you think women and/or men like jerks better than "nice guys/girls"? Why or why not?


Fun Link of the Day