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.  

A lot of academic fields devote to marginalized groups possess tensions between those scholars who want to do straight up scholarship and those whose scholarship is informed by advocacy.  Women’s Studies, Fat Studies, and this developing field, Singles Studies. 
​
Anyone who reads my blog knows where my position stands.  And I don’t always love reading work that posits that married/coupled people are better off while they dismiss that singlism, the stereotyping and discrimination that persists against singles, is a real thing. 

Paul Bloom's article, “Why Aren't Professors Braver?” got me thinking about my own role as a “troublemaker” in higher education.  At my university, I follow the rules.  Submit your midterm and final grades on time.  Send your syllabus to the chair.   I serve on university, school, division, and program committees, and I recently became a committee chair for my university’s faculty union.  I publish.  I practice good pedagogy.  I aim to balance compassion with rigor.  These two sentences have contributed to stellar evaluations from students every semester, and I routinely score high on my school’s performance eval metric. 

But there’s a rebel in there.  Most faculty were excellent students in high school and college who followed the rules. 

I did not fall into that category.  In high school, I was smart but disengaged with most of the course material; I saw it as a series of check boxes to fill out before I went into the real world.  And I occasionally cut class, smoked cigarettes on the track during gym class, and I wouldn’t budge as a bus driver told me to leave the bus because I wasn’t on his route; I was only trying to go to a friend’s house.

In college, I discovered my academic strength and love of learning.  But I also cut class occasionally, sipped beer from cafeteria cups during economics class (and earned a B+), and participated in the party scene.

Today, I show up for work, I don’t drink, and I own a home.  By most accounts, I’m a productive member of society.  But I’m not married, and I don’t have a kids.  So, through some lenses, I’m a degenerate – or at least, missing out.

I’m what Bella DePaulo would refer to as a “single at heart,” one who lives their best lives while single.  I’ve dated, been coupled, been domestically partnered, and yet, it could never work out because I was never willing to go the full mile.  I didn’t want to commit.  It was more important for me to travel solo to places like Ireland, Malaysia, and New Orleans.  I also never wanted to place a romantic relationship on a higher tier than that of my friendships.  And after a day of teaching classes, conferencing with students, and meeting with colleagues, the only sounds I want to hear are that of my cat/son Chester purring.

And what’s so wrong with that?  “Everything!” society says.  From the movies that paint singlehood as something to be fixed to the laws that won’t let me leave my Social Security benefits to my brother, but say “Okay” to a woman I meet and marry tomorrow to the advertisements that seem to only show couples enjoying events, as if we singles just like to hide in our rooms with our cats (for the record, I do this occasionally, but concertgoing is a huge part of my self-care regimen).
When I got dumped and was sad about being single, Bella DePaulo’s work saved me.  I devoured her books and articles.  I wrote blogs, which turned into articles, which turned into a book, which turned into tenure at my job. I connected with people on the Facebook group, Community of Single People (CoSP), some of whom are my closest friends today.   

And this all came from a place of anger.  Most advocacy comes from that same place.  And there are times where I’ve written pieces and bumped heads with scholars and other pundits.  Here’s a sample:

1. My piece about marginalization of the childless/childfree being referred to as “straight up bulls__t” on Facebook by a Director of Diversity.
2. This comment on my Writer’s Digest piece.
3. This email from a pundit on a little letter to the editor I wrote to the New York Times.  See below:

 
Dear Dr. Wynne:
 
The state of being "happy" can mean merely being comfortable.  Neurotics maintain a state of comfort by avoiding what they truly need and gravitating toward poor substitutes.
 
I recommend depth psychotherapy for you.  Work on your childhood, especially your relationship with your parents in early life.
 
Good luck.

We’re so conditioned to the lionization of marriage/coupling/parenthood/family values that a lot of scholars and non-scholars will become defensive when presented with an idea that pushes back against this current.  In order to advocate for any idea, one must be prepared to accept that not everybody will like it.  And since singlism is one of the last acceptable prejudices (ageism is another), we have an uphill battle.

But that uphill walk is good for the quads, so I’ll keep at it.   

Every few months, a new explanation emerges for why Americans are having fewer children. Smartphones. Inflation. Climate change.  Student debt. Social media. Political instability.  This past month, a report was released by the CDC on how birth rates have declined.  On LinkedIn, I’ve seen several posts with that graph from the Financial Times correlating the rise in smartphone usage with declining birth rates, and it’s all the rage.  We must remember a basic principle of data analysis: correlation does not imply causation. 
​
That said, I can concede that as we grow addicted to our phones, social interaction declines.  I see it firsthand with my students, as they barely look up from their phones to say “Hi” back when I greet them upon walking through the classroom doors.  But attributing declining birth rates solely to technology oversimplifies the issue, just as it does to blame any single economic or cultural factor.  Most people who write about these issues neglect to mention one simple reason: people just don't want to have kids.  And it's a valid life choice.

Despite the progress we've made, it's still socially acceptable to shame people who haven't had children, whether it's by choice or by circumstance.  Such shaming includes the assumption that childfree adults are “selfish” and workplace expectations that people without kids should stay late or work undesirable shifts to accommodate parents.  I referred to this concept as procreamania in my book, How to be a Happy Bachelor.  It’s the assumption that parenthood is the default, morally superior, or socially mandatory path through adulthood.

Many people prefer life without children and can give more of themselves to their friends, partners, chosen families, and communities – and of course, pets.  I’m a Dad to an adorable little cat named Chester.   So if I must leave a work meeting early in order to give him a pill or take him to the veterinarian, I’ll speak up unapologetically.

Parenting is one valuable form of contribution to society, but it is not the only one. A healthy society needs caregivers of many kinds. While some data has shown that parents are more likely to volunteer than non-parents, the researchers did not control for the kind of volunteering in which the different groups are engaging.  For example, a person may be more likely to volunteer as a Little League coach if their child is on the team; the same principle applies to serving on a school board or Parent Teacher Association (PTA).  However, you may be more likely to find a childfree person volunteering at an animal shelter or food kitchen.  Many people in my childfree tribe spend a great deal of time with these organizations.

Of course, if we want to sustain our society, reproduction needs to occur.  And the work of parenting is difficult yet meaningful; I’m grateful to both of my parents for the sacrifices they made raising me and my brother.  But respecting parenthood should not require diminishing people who make different choices, and when we immediately link increased smartphone usage to declining birth rates, we (unintentionally) do just that.

The problem is not declining birth rates. The problem is a culture that still treats one life path as morally superior to all others. A society confident in its values should be able to respect parents without demanding parenthood from everyone.

People build meaningful lives in different ways: through raising children, mentoring students, caring for relatives, building communities, creating art, volunteering, teaching, or simply being present for others. The measure of adulthood should not be whether someone reproduced. It should be whether they contributed to the world around them.

For what it’s worth, this is much easier to do when one isn’t constantly glued to one’s smartphone.

This is a satirical ad campaign below. I claim all copyrights to it in perpetuity throughout the universe.

Are you sick of having to tell your spouse where you’re going and when you’re coming back? Do you dread having to spend time with those meddling in-laws? Do you long to travel without having to compromise doing the things you REALLY want to do? Don’t you just want to not have to “perform” for your family every holiday? Are you sick of your single friends asking you, “When are you getting divorced?” Do you just LONG for freedom but don’t have the confidence or the funds to end it?

Well, we can help! At Match-Breakers, we quietly instigate incidents that will GUARANTEE your spouse will leave you – instantly. Because why should you be tied down just because society says you’re supposed to?
​
Call us at 1-800-GO-SOLOS for a free, confidential consultation, and you’ll be well on your journey back to happy singlehood!

I’m a happy 47-year-old single man, and I believe there is a loneliness epidemic. But its roots have less to do with fewer people getting married and having children.  The real culprit is a widespread cultural assumption: friendship is secondary to romance.
​
This problem goes by the name of amatonormativity.  Coined by Dr. Elizabeth Brake of Rice University, it refers to the belief that romance belongs on a higher tier than platonic friendship.  One example of how it looks in practice is ditching your best friend because you’ve met your soul mate, whom you plan to be with for the rest of your life, for better or for worse.

Studies show people may be harming themselves by doing this.  Bella DePaulo found that lifelong singles often report stronger well-being than people who are divorced or widowed, in part because married couples can become socially insular over time.  They focus on their partner, and, if applicable, children.  Similarly, Elyakim Kislev of Hebrew University found singles: 1) have larger networks of friendships; and 2) are more involved with their communities.  Many people in long-term partnerships disconnect from their social network; if they become divorced or widowed, they often struggle to find the social support they need. 

Researchers and writers are prescribing friendship-building as an antidote to loneliness.  Journalist and author Rhaina Cohen also argues for the importance of friendships.  While she’s currently married, she’s indicated that having a romantic partner is not necessarily a deterrent to loneliness.  She has platonic friendships she treats as equal to her marriage.  Dr. Marisa Franco of the University of Maryland, a close friend of Cohen’s, would agree; her work has connected attachment theory to how to establish, maintain, and develop friendships.

I have a variety of platonic relationships with men and women that add a great deal to my life.  As DePaulo says, “Married people have the one; single people have the ones.”  My friend Pete and I meet up at concerts on a semi-regular basis.  I exchange movie quotes with another friend, Drew, who now lives 200 miles away from me.  Josh and I, friends from college and lifelong New York Mets fans, make a point to see them play at Nationals Park at least once a year.  I often call Christina for life advice, and she does the same with me.  And there are many others too numerous to list here.

In a talk Dr. Franco gave on friendship, a participant expressed concern about what happens when their friends partner up and slowly (or quickly) drift away, the essence of amatonormativity.  It hurts when that happens, but sadly, that’s part of our structure.  So my suggestion: don’t put all your eggs in one basket.  Keep a couple of close friends, for sure, but I’ve benefited from having a network of people.  If one friend doesn’t want to go to the concert, I’ll call another.  And if I can’t find anyone to go with, I’ll go solo.  I met Pete doing that.

Of course, romance can be one of life’s great joys for some people. But it shouldn’t occupy a higher tier than friendship. If marriage is often called the cornerstone of society, friendship is the scaffolding that keeps the rest of life standing. Romantic relationships  eventually end through divorce, distance, illness, or death. The people who sustain us afterward are often the friends we neglected while building our romances. 

Let’s put friendship at the center of our lives.