​Recently, an appeals court in California rejected a lawsuit that sought to eliminate the right of auto insurers to charge single people more because of their higher chances of getting into crashes.  Insurers have been engaging in this type of price structure for a long time.  This is known as singlism, discrimination against people who are single or otherwise non-partnered.
 
I’m happy to learn the plaintiffs, eleven non-married drivers (I prefer this term to “unmarried,” as the prefix “un” implies lack), plan to appeal.  I’ll assume both judges who ruled in favor of Ricardo Lara are married, which could inform their bias.  And I have my doubts about whether the next judge will rule in favor of the plaintiffs.  However, I believe this lawsuit is a prophecy of things to come.
 
When I conducted research for my book, How to be a Happy Bachelor, I called up GEICO and I grilled the poor customer service representative about why singles are charged more for insurance. He was sympathetic, but his response was the analytics showed that married people got in less accidents than singles.  I won’t argue with numbers, but I’ll posit that singles may get in higher wrecks due to their age; statistically, they tend to be younger, before the prefrontal cortex is developed.  I can only speak for myself, but I’ve gotten more meticulous behind the wheel as I’ve gotten older (save for the occasional speeding ticket and an accident several years ago that has me wanting to take public transit more often).
 
As a Board Member of Singles Equality (SE), I assisted in the creation of the Singles Bill of Rights (SBR), a manifesto designed to awareness of discrimination against singles.  Our mission is to continue to do just that.  I suspect the plaintiffs in this lawsuit may have that goal. Marital rates are declining, and are projected to continue to do so.  Whether one thinks that a good thing, bad thing, or somewhere in between, it is the reality.  While most people still want a romantic partner, less people have that desire than in years past.

The result will be a sizable group of people advocating for their single lives and to be treated with equity and dignity.  This will lead to more lawsuits and advocacy measures, not necessarily related to car insurance rates.  But there are the couples discounts, various tax breaks for married folks, and let’s not forget the daily microaggressions like “When are you getting married?”  The latter can take a toll on one’s well-being, which could lead to factors like road rage.  If our society acted equitably and fairly toward singles, this may not be an issue.
 
Let’s keep the fight going!

I have a soft spot for I Love You, Man, starring Paul Rudd and Jason Segel.  Buddy movies have existed for a long time, but this film is a concept: it takes the romcom formula, and it applies it to platonic male friendship.  While Rudd’s character does get married at the end, the movie is about the two dudes.  And, of course, they say, “I Love You, Man” to each other.

I don’t typically share about this on my blog, but I’ve seen Phish forty-eight times.  I don’t mention it because like singles, Phish fans (or phans) face their share of stigma.  I don’t do any of the things that contribute to those stereotypes (though college was a blur). 

At any rate, I had an experience at a show the other night that got me thinking about how we look at platonic love vs. romantic love.  At Madison Square Garden the other night, they played “Waste,” one of my favorite songs.  Hearing it typically gives me goosebumps, and on this occasion, I was also moved to tears.  As I was on the brink of said tears, I saw two dudes hugging.  I immediately mouthed under my breath, “That’s beautiful.”

It’s just not something you hear.  Phish is a jamband, one that can bring out anybody’s inner “peace and love” persona.  So, as a result, at any show, you’ll see a lot of canoodling couples (or potential one-night stands resulting from the drugs and alcohol).  To me, those folks are a dime a dozen, and after a while, they become a bit nauseating.  But seeing two dudes create a PDA around their friendship: that’s just priceless.  I saw a similar display the following night as I walked through the 86th Street platform after the Rush concert.  It’s like I Love You, Man’s had an impact on our society.
Actually, it may be quixotic to believe that a light comedy like that has that far-reaching a hold.  But I can hope.  And I’m a person who’s always valued friendship over romance, even when I was in romantic relationship (that could be a reason they didn’t last, but I disagree).  I have a large number of woman friends, and a fair number of men in my life.  There are some I can be more “affectionate” with than others.  I am a hugger; there are some who embrace the hugs, and others who are a bit awkward with them, so I have to act accordingly.

I wish I didn’t have to, though.  I’d like to see society normalize the kind of hugs I saw at the show and on the subway platform.  This is a singles-adjacent issue in that this loneliness epidemic appears to be hitting men a lot more than women, because men aren’t encouraged to form lasting friendships.  For many, their social network consists of their spouse.  And, in a hetero marriage, if their spouse divorces them (usually initiated by the woman) or dies (the man usually passes on first), the man is often adrift.  And if it's a single man who hasn't make friends, it's just as bad.

I don’t believe Phish is for all tastes, but if we could take even 1% of the energy that we saw from that jam-induced hug, I think everyone, man, woman, partnered, non-partnered, would be a lot happier.

Reading Bella DePaulo’s Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After was a visceral experience for me.  She cited one source, an article that advised coupled people to ditch their single friends.  This could also apply to people who wanted to be coupled.  After all, the traditional wisdom says, “surround yourself with the people you want to be like.”

​I have a few coupled friends.  They may not be single, but they’re supportive allies in my fight.  I’m thankful to have them in my life.  But I spend the bulk of my time with my single friends, most of whom are Single at Heart.  It’s natural and healthy for a person to gravitate to people who share your values.  Coupled people need coupled friends.  Romantic relationships are hard, and if you’re partnered, you need to be able to vent about the challenges to someone who “gets it,” not someone like me who might be inclined to say, “Leave them” (I’m only half-joking about this one).  And after a while, they need to get their social needs fulfilled by someone other than their spouse.  And if their partners can become friends, all the better, right?  (That doesn’t always happen, which can lead to a lot of uncomfortable silence or forced socializing).

An advantage of being a single person is that your friends are yours; you’re not being roped into socializing with your partner’s friend’s partner.  And when you socialize with a coupled person, you can be genuinely happy for them if they’re happy with their partner, but, after a while, you’d like to talk about other things than their relationship.  Of course, you can steer the conversation in a different direction, and if your friend is respectful, they’ll share the space.

There’s also the idea of amatonormativity, defined as the societal mandate that the pursuit and maintenance of a romantic relationship should be the central focus of one’s connections (thankfully, people in the non-monogamy world push back on this).  However, most of us have had the experience of “losing” a friend to a romantic partner, or at least being downgraded from Saturday night to Wednesday. 

“Single” can be a fluid status.  I’ve had friends who were happily single by choice until they met “the one.”  And others were all about romance until they weren’t anymore (I’m in that category).  But life is unpredictable.  So I’ll channel Peter McGraw’s advice to “have a team.”  I have people with whom I see live music, people who go hiking with me, movie buddies, and some deeper connections where we exchange life advice – and cat pictures (you’re the most likely to be reading this).

I also realize I’m in Washington, DC, where it’s been relatively easy to cultivate those networks.  But if you’re in a suburban or rural locale, you likely have challenges.  And I empathize.  So I have a few suggestions:

1. If you’re near a city, be willing to travel a bit.  If you can’t drive, take public transit.  If you don’t have public transit, save some money for a taxi or rideshare.
2. Build online connections.  The Community of Single People (CoSP) Facebook is a chosen family of mine, through which I’ve met a large number of my singles-in-arms.
3. Don’t be afraid to end friendships with people who don’t respect your lifestyle or who try to push theirs on you.  I did it with someone who remarked it was “wild” that I was childfree by choice, and I’m not looking back. 
4. Get comfortable doing things by yourself.  Nobody’s judging you.  They’re too into their own issues.  And if they are, chances are, they’re envious of you.  I refer back to those two assignments I gave in my “How to be Single and Happy” course: going to a meal by yourself and doing the cinema solo.

Whether we’re single by choice, circumstance, or somewhere in between, the large majority of us have some need for validation.  Get with those people who’ll give it to you – and who you can give it to!

In the UK, lessons in sex education have been updated to combat the growing influence of “incel” culture and the “manosphere,” namely the choking of a partner.  And, to be sure, the manosphere is contributing to a lot of toxic behavior among men with respect to transactional views on dating and romantic relationships.  And participants in those kinds of relationships should learn how to be an equitable partner.   This should be part of curricula on sex and relationship education.

​However, such programs overlook a crucial element of relationships: the relationship with oneself.  And this is where singlehood comes into play.  Like it or not, marital rates are declining and expected to do so in the years to come.  And even if someone does get into a relationship, get married, and live “happily ever after,” chances are, that person will become single again, whether through divorce or death.  And while most single people want to become “unsingle,” nothing’s guaranteed in life, so they’re just going to have to adjust.  So, relationship education shouldn't only teach people how to treat a partner. It should also teach people how to live well without one.

Studies have repeatedly shown that women do way better as singletons than men do, and why wouldn’t they?  They’re encouraged to form friendship networks, which requires a degree of vulnerability.  Men aren’t pushed into this; after all, it’s not “masculine.”  So their social network consists of their partner or spouse, if they have one.  And if they become divorced or widowed, they lose their social connection and become lost.  For many men who remain single, they don’t develop any social connections and stay lost (I’m an anomaly in this area). 

In a talk with a friend, I mentioned that education in romantic relationships is good for those who partner, but education in singlehood is essential for everyone, because everyone will be single at some point in their life.  I taught such a course at Hampton University, a one-credit seminar on “How to be Single and Happy.”  The syllabus had a disclaimer: this course will not teach you how to date or get a partner.  I read and emphasized that statement during the first session, expecting at least two or three folks to withdraw.  Everyone stayed until the end, and most earned As, having learned the benefits of life without a romantic partner.

The course introduced students to the concepts of singlism, matrimania, and amatonormativity and how they play out in our lives.  Singlism is the stereotyping of singles, matrimania is the societal obsession with marriage and weddings, and amatonormativity is the assumption that one’s life must revolve around the pursuit and maintenance of a romantic relationship.  Assignments included going to a meal solo, as well as going to the cinema sans company.

Such education in singlehood might include these elements, but they could also include life skills, like cooking for one, doing one’s laundry, balancing bills, and developing and maintaining non-romantic relationships.  And there’s also learning how to enjoy one’s solo time, which can include going out by yourself or developing hobbies.  These aren't simply relationship skills. They're independent living skills. They make someone a better partner if they couple and a happier person if they don't.  I’m living proof of that.

Of course, the goal doesn’t have to be partnership.  Many of us do thrive on our own more than we ever could partnered (Bella DePaulo refers to us as “Single at Hearts”).  But for those who want a lasting romantic relationship, they need to bring something to the table rather than just being served; sadly, in a lot of hetero relationships, men are the ones expecting to be served.  Women tend to do the bulk of the domestic and emotional labor, such as cooking, cleaning, budgeting, and, if there are kids involved, childcare.

For men who do want to be partnered, these are skills to master.  It may even make them more attractive to women.  And by then, they’ll be so confident they won’t be so preoccupied.  This may make them even more attractive.  Relationship education should prepare students for partnership. But education in singlehood should will prepare them for life. Since every adult will spend some portion of life uncoupled, whether by circumstance, choice, or somewhere in between, we should teach others not merely how to find and sustain romance, but how to flourish without it.

I don’t usually prefer to talk about my finances on a public forum, but it is nice to be part of a faculty union.  The abridged version: we negotiated a raise, and as a result, I got a year’s worth of some back pay, which motivated me to want to attend the International Singles Studies Association (ISSA) Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland.  I’d never been to Scotland before, and I’m always looking to expand some sort of repertoire.  With this back pay, I could do it.
​
After a day of solo travel around Edinburgh and a day-long bus tour through the Highlands and Loch Ness, I was psyched up for ISSA.  I knew there’d be a nice litany of presentations, and I’d get to deliver a snippet of my book project.

It was a 25-minute walk from my room to the conference venue.  Solo travelers, note: if you ever go to Scotland, the University of Edinburgh offers out some of their dorm rooms to summer travelers.  They’re small with a double bed, dressers, and shared bathrooms (bring your shower shoes or flip-flops!).  Perfect for a solo traveler (or if you’re in a couple, group, or family and just want to get away from your person/people for the night).

I got there just before 9 a.m. and got to talk to Kate Gilchrist, the ISSA Board Co-President I’d only met online.  I then talked to Elyakim, the ISSA Board Co-President I’d seen mostly online but got together with a few times.  You may know him as the author of Happy Singlehood: The Rising Acceptance and Celebration of Solo Living, one of my sacred texts.  Other people I met for the first time included Margot Bracke, Laura Robberechet, Elise ‘t Hoen, Dries Van Gasse, Keren Eisen, Talya Menashe, Alexandra Fisher, Ari Engelberg, Zhe Zhang, Elke Claessens, Sofiya Kazlovich, Markia Rullo, and a journalist from Italy named Gabrielle Grasso.

Some interesting presentations as well.  First, I learned married folks are often less satisfied with welfare benefits than singles.  It makes sense; a family requires more resources.  Women and men also have different reasons for wanting to be single, although I thought some of the research in that area had a bit of a couples-biased lens.  During the Q&A around my talk on amatonormativity in Disney films, I did subtly bring in the idea of the “unaware single at heart,” meaning someone who functions best single but has still internalized the pro-coupling message.  That message informs their dating choices, yet their single-at-heart proclivities keep them sabotaging dating prospects.  I did it myself before I came to that spiritual awakening.

But I digress.  A couple of very interesting talks came from some Israeli scholars including Ari Eisenberg, who presented singlism among Jewish religious leaders; Talya (pictured), who discussed how singles perceive other singles; and Shay, who talked about how gay men are more apt to view community as being crucial to social needs (straight men could really learn from this demographic).

And Talya and I posed with my “No Spouse Happy House” bumper stickers. That got some “likes.”
I got to connect with Gabrielle at Union Social after the conference before I left to “introvert” over some proper fish and chips at Bertie’s.  She’s written a book about the portrayal of single women in film and is about to start a podcast based in Italy.

Overall, I was happy to see such a diverse range of perspectives in this developing academic field.  For the record, I don’t agree with (nor do I like) everything I’ve heard, but that’s how academic freedom works.  Everybody has the right to present their perspectives, including myself.  And there’s a chance someone in that conference might have been set off by something I said; I may have ruined somebody’s memories of 101 Dalmatians (just wait until they hear what I say about the works of John Hughes and Judd Apatow!).

I also decided to make a vacation out of this trip since I’m paying out of pocket (working at a cash-strapped, teaching-focused school doesn’t allow one a great deal of funding for an international trip).  The next day, I went up to Glasgow to meet up with Michele David, a friend from CoSP.  Before our lunch, I stopped by the International Association for Relationship Research, which sounds very couples-focused (and is, according to one of my insiders).  I decided to engage in my trademark brand of low-key mischief by walking through the conference with my “I Love Childless Cat Ladies” T-shirt.  It got no reaction from anyone, but I was amused. 

And why shouldn’t I have been?  We live in a couplecentric world.  My work can push back against him, but sometimes, a little humor can keep one centered.  

More than once, I’ve been accused of being angry in my writing.  And, to be fair, I get a little nasty sometimes.  I took Bella’s wisdom about how rude it would be to ask someone “when they’re getting divorced” to heart by responding “Don’t worry, your turn to divorce will come.” 
​
I don’t actually hope anyone gets divorced.  But if you’re going to push at me with one narrative, I’m going to come back at you with another.  And with social media, there are a lot more of these kinds of fights happening.  Childfree vs. parent.  Single vs. partnered.  On the Higher Ed Learning Collective, some brutal exchanges on teaching styles occur between those who are strict and those who are lenient.

Social media has made us more isolated, but it’s also revealed some uncomfortable truths we’re not quite comfortable expressing in real life.  I don’t know too many childfree folks who would use terms like “breeder,” “semen demon,” and “crotch dropping” in a conversation.  But online, it’s fair game.

I don’t use those kinds of terms; I try to be respectful of all lifestyles.  But I went through that phase when I first discovered I was childfree.  I’m not proud of some of the things I’ve said, but I was in a place of anger.  There was the colleague in graduate school who said, “You don’t have a kid!  You don’t know what tired is!”  There’s the time that someone said, “Not yet, right?” when I told them I wasn’t having kids.  I responded with, “No, there’s no yet.  I’m not having kids period.”  An awkward silence ensued.  These days, I say “I’m childfree by choice.”  An awkward silence sometimes ensues.  If I say, “No,” said person might be inclined to spout a well-meaning but ultimately patronizing comment like, “Ohhh, there’s still time.”  My statement communicates agency.

Same thing with the “are you married” question.  “I’m happily solo” sometimes get a knowing laugh from a coupled person, who knows how hard is to maintain a relationship. One person paused, processed, and said, “Ohh, cool.”

This is real life, though.  Social media is a different thing. And it is a cesspool no matter where you go.  I’m in a group called “Jewish Delis” and I saw two grown men go at it about the quality of a corned beef sandwich at a particular spot.  My thinking goes something like that, who cares!?  It’s corned beef!

I’m not as easygoing when it comes to the childfree and single content, though.  I don’t get as fired up as I used to.  But I understand when people use those derogatory terms.

The pronatalist content is jammed down our throats by the media and society at large.  And it’s gotten even worse with Project 2025.  Russia will also fine you for producing any content that promotes the childfree style.  I listened to a Thrive Solo episode with a German activist who’s received death threats for her message (guess I’m pretty spoiled in the United States).  Then there’s this bingo card.

It’s just human nature that when you propose one way of living as the right way, others are going to push back against it.  Atheists and evangelicals go after each other.  Meat-eaters love to take vocal vegans down a few pegs.  And there was a section in a book about asexuality that answered the question, “Why are Some Aces So Hostile?”

Essentially, this group feels marginalized, and when we’re behind a keyboard, we feel empowered to let out our darkest impulses.  On Facebook or Reddit pages devoted to such a group, members can let out their anger in a safe space.  So it can appear angry to those who are not part of the space or who may have a more moderate take on the situation.

I do think we could all benefit from a little more empathy.  I try to be respectful of people’s choices.  However, since I am admittedly a little biased, I’ll say it from the “angry” side.  Why are we so hostile?

It doesn’t feel good to be marginalized.  The anger from those comments can build.  Hell, it’s the very reason I became involved in advocacy.  When I first discovered the single/childfree choice and became empowered, I regrettably used those derogatory terms.  It was like discovering smoking for the first time (which I also, thankfully, no longer partake in).  In the past few years, I’ve found it no longer beneficial on a spiritual level.  It also gives our community a bad look.

But…I understand.  When members of our community judge others for making those comments, I think, some people just need to go through that phase.  Not everybody’s a natural empath.  For me, it’s been a study.

And I’m not anti-love or anti-marriage.  I don’t think too many of my fellow singletons are, at least not for others.  People need to do what makes them happy, even if it’s different from what I would do.  But when I’m told I need to do a particular thing, I’ll speak back, and I won’t pull any punches.  And I’ll speak up for others where applicable. 

So, the next time you think, that person is so angry, try to recognize where that person may be coming from.

Happy Independence Day!  For us singletons, every day is Independence Day.

Taylor Swift has already achieved virtually every marker of cultural success imaginable: billionaire status, historic touring records, fourteen Grammys, and one of the most devoted fanbases in modern music. Yet the media narrative around her engagement suggests that her life only truly culminates now: through her upcoming marriage to Travis Kelce.
​
I’m happy for Taylor that she’s found a supportive partner, and I hope they enjoy a great life together.  But the hype around it is too much, albeit typical when someone gets married and thus, “finds success.”  We should stop conflating those terms.

Swift’s net worth is around $2 billion.  She has fourteen Grammys, including four albums of the year.  And very few musical acts have devoted fanbases with names like “Swifties” or “Deadheads.”  Develping such a following is quite an accomplishment.  So why is it suddenly world news that “she’s finally getting married?”  Her Eras tour was the highest-grossing concert tour in history, and that didn’t make nearly the amount of headlines.

The fascination surrounding Swift’s relationship isn’t really about Swift herself or even the people who are gushing over it. It reflects a broader cultural phenomenon.  “Matrimania,” a term coined by social scientist Bella DePaulo, is the societal obsession with marriage.  When I introduce this concept during presentations on Singles Studies, I provide images of 90 Day Fiancé and elements of The Bachelor franchise, which have incredible viewership.  Entertainment franchises like these are built around finding a spouse, while accomplishments like artistic mastery, athletic endurance, or community leadership rarely receive equivalent cultural celebration.

Matrimonial bias isn’t merely annoying or superficial; it can affect how institutions value human lives. I recount the story of my friend and colleague, Joan DelFattore, who was recommended a less aggressive course of treatment by an oncologist because, according to the doctor who treated her, she had less to live for without a spouse or children.  Fortunately, she found a doctor who was more open-minded, and, as of this writing, she’s in remission.

The laws appear to carry the same stance as DelFattore’s original oncologist.  For example, I could leave Social Security benefits to a woman I meet today and marry tomorrow.  But I can’t do that for the sibling I’ve known for nearly forty-four years.  And despite a clean driving record, I pay more for car insurance because a married person is supposedly a better driver.  Research has found that married men often receive workplace advantages in hiring and promotion. Workplaces are also quicker to promote a married person, at least if they’re male.  Researchers tend to ignore these practices when they conclude married people are wealthier and healthier than singles.

Some studies do show, however, that single women are happier and healthier than married women.  Given that marriage between two hetero individuals benefits the man more, it makes sense.  Studies consistently show women in heterosexual marriages still perform a disproportionate share of domestic labor.

These are the reasons why Taylor Swift has been a role model for women.  Her accomplishments represent autonomy, independence, and reinvention.  Yet, when she got together with Travis Kelce, the public narrative shifted to “She’s complete now!  She found her person!”  When they announced their engagement, it amplified: “They’re finally tying the knot!”

Marriage is a great thing for a lot of people.  But we lionize it to the detriment of accomplishments that are just as valid, maybe more so.  If even a woman as accomplished as Taylor Swift is still culturally framed as incomplete until marriage, then our definition of success remains far narrower, and far more patriarchal, than we like to admit.

If you haven’t yet departed from social media, you don’t have to look very deeply to see memes and reels about “why aren’t men dating” or “declining fertility rates” or similar types of fearmongering. 
There are many reasons why less people want to follow the traditional route of marrying, having kids, white picket fence, etc.  Some of them, to be sure, are concerning.  We do spend more time on social media and our phones than we used to, which can compromise our ability to be social in real life (IRL, as the kids say).  In this writer’s opinion, the decline itself isn’t a bad thing.  Traditional marriages have stifled women, who spend much of their time doing the domestic labor, even if they work outside the home.  So they have two jobs. 

So why shouldn’t women celebrate singlehood?  Now, they only have one job.

But, as less women are getting married or coupling, men are following, and the fearmongering around that is ubiquitous.  “They’re incels!”  “They’re spending all day playing video games!”  “Why are less men approaching women?”  And so on.  And there’s also the doomsdaying around declining fertility/birth rates.

At the same time, there’s a host of content (news articles, social media) about single women living their best lives, not having to deal with a man’s stunted emotions or messy habits.  Some of these pieces offer the disclaimer, “These women haven’t given up on love.  They’re just not going to accept whatever’s handed on it.”  I’m not critical of that disclaimer per se, but that does show how much we lionize romance.  I don’t know what percentage of singles are truly single at heart, but I’d love to hear the disclaimer, “…and if you don’t want it, that’s fine too.”

But I digress.  To be sure, male singlehood has been glamorized more than that of women: the cool bachelor.  And many married/coupled men envy and romanticize the bachelor lifestyle; I’ve been referred to as a “playboy” and been asked if I’ve slept with any of my woman friends (the answer is “no”). 

I enjoy the company of women, but mostly in a platonic sense.  My woman friends add meaning to my life in ways that a romantic partnership never could.  And I also do my best to eschew the “bachelor stereotype.”  I don’t spend hours playing video games.  I don’t drink, do drugs, or gamble.  I generally try to eat right (although I do have a weakness for pizza and anything with chocolate in it).  I exercise.  I have hobbies, this blog being one of them.  Actually, it’s not so much a hobby as it is a passion.

I love Chelsea Handler’s videos about her adventures as a childfree singleton (as of this writing).  And, on a less adrenalized level, those videos of a woman coming home to peace are nice as well.  But I’d like to see some men posting similar stuff, particularly if they buck the “playboy” stereotype.  I’m a little too shy to start posting videos to the public, but here’s how I started the day.
My cat/son Chester woke me up at around 7 a.m. with his demands for treats.  I went for a jog, made breakfast, and wrote.  There was nobody to disturb me. 
​
Now it’s your turn.  Men: how are you living your best bachelor life?

NOTE: This is a piece of microfiction that could become part of an edited collection on Singles Empowerment.  Enjoy!

          So, you know how sometimes you respond, “Better single than married to a pathetic
 
drunk” when your ex-best friend says “that’s why you’re still single,” and she throws a drink
 
in your face and tells you to go fuck yourself? 
 
         Well, I do.  I know that very well.  True story.

During the summer, I do a lot of things I don’t do during the academic year.  I work, but I do a lot of writing and research (for me, a lot of said research involves watching movies).  I also catch up on the sleep I lost during the months of August through May.

This past week, I felt compelled to watch the NBA championships.  I don’t follow basketball, but the Knicks were in the finals and could possibly win for the first time since 1973.  When I visited my Mom the week prior, we watched Game 1, during which the Knicks played chaotically, but emerged with the “W.”

At that point, I’d caught the basketball fever.  I don’t have cable, so I went to a sports bar called the Dog Haus.  My plan was to order a chicken sandwich and a Diet Coke and cheer for the Knicks.
I was met by a blond, bespectacled woman named Katie, who was waiting on a friend celebrating her birthday.  She mentioned this to a bartender, who also proudly proclaimed himself a Gemini.  I jumped in, “Me too!” 

“When’s your birthday?” Katie asked.

“This Saturday!”

She offered to buy me a shot along with the bartender, but I mentioned that I no longer imbibe. She did invite me to sit at her table when her friend arrived; I said, “Yeah, that sounds cool.”
When her friend Stacey arrived, they started chatting in relatively low voices.  At one point, I offered to buy her a drink for her birthday, which she politely declined.  I read the situation as “These two women are out for a ladies’ night, no need for me to disrupt.”  When Katie came over to the bar, we started chatting naturally, and Stacey joined us.  But she also had to fly out of town early the next morning, so she took off.

My thought, Should I get her number?  This is what I’m supposed to do, right?

But it just didn’t feel necessary.  The conversation wasn’t that deep.  We talked about what we did for work, but that was about it.  I did invite them to join my Childfree Singles of the DMV Meetup group (I could just tell they were one of our tribe).  As I went home, I thought, yeah, I did the right thing.

And that leads me to some thoughts regarding how men are socialized into the behavior of being “the pursuer.”  When I was in my 20s, I spent a lot of time in bars and clubs trying to “get the digits”.  When I did that at the age of thirty-one, it led to a relationship that I just didn’t belong in.  Seventeen years later, I’m a happy singleton.  I’m not necessarily closed off to the idea of “something” that falls outside the realm of the relationship escalator, but I don’t seek it out.  I believe a hetero man should be aware of himself and can just talk to women without it having to go somewhere.  That said, it takes work to mentally get to that place.

I have a lot of platonic women friends who add a great deal to my life, many of whom I met on CoSP.  There’s no sex involved.  There’s no romance.  And it works for me.  And whether a man partners up or not, he should learn how to have a friendship with a woman.  And he should be able to talk to a woman and “read the room” as to whether he actually should try to go beyond the conversation.

​There’s a lot of hype on social media about “Why aren’t men approaching women anymore?”  That conversation is way too complex and nuanced for this post and will likely inform another post in the future.  But when I posted about this on CoSP, many women applauded and said, “Thank you!” 
I’m aware some men reading this might say, “What the hell!  You just lost your man card!”  Those are the kinds of guys I used to associate with in my 20s, but they’re not part of my world now.