I appreciate Dr. Tanglen’s willingness to be vulnerable in her experience in regarding singlehood in her piece “All the Single Leaders” (published January 13, 2026); no doubt she speaks to single academics at all levels who have felt dismissed by a culture that privileges the nuclear family.  Dr. Tanglen inadvertently touches on a few issues that need to be discussed more in higher education circles, especially among faculty leadership.

​Singlism is a term coined by psychologist Dr. Bella DePaulo; this is defined as the discrimination and stereotyping of those who are non-married (I prefer this to the term “unmarried”).  I’m not a psychologist, but a lot of the assumptions Dr. Tanglen’s colleagues made about her “freedom” are an example of singlism.  Much of the loneliness the writer felt may have been a result of internalized singlism, which emanates from societal messages from our public discourse (media, business practices, even laws) that marginalize the single and the childless/childfree, especially women.[1]

Example: when I began my assistant professorship in a small town, a colleague exclaimed “You’re not married!?” when I responded “no” to the “are you married” question that many people love to ask when they meet you for the first time.  Fortunately, I’m a tenured Associate Professor in an urban university where singlehood is much more common, and thus, less stigmatized, at least on a surface level.  I’ve also built a brand out of writing about and advocating for equity for singles.

As a Board Member of Singles Equality, an organization that seeks to level the playing field for singles, I seek to advocate for a level playing field for those who haven’t followed the traditional path of getting married and having children, whether it’s by choice or by circumstance.  We seek to address policies that inadvertently discriminate against singles, such as the fact that I could leave my Social Security benefits to a woman I just met if we signed our nuptials today, but not to my brother, whom I’ve known for the past forty-three years.

While Dr. Tanglen’s advice for academic leaders is solid, it shouldn’t need to be stated.  Higher education can do a lot of things to be more welcoming to singles.  Since the space of this letter is limited, one practice would be to encourage its faculty to share personal accomplishments that fall outside of the marriage/pregnancy/childbirth triad.  Have faculty bought a home?  Adopted a pet?  Hiked all forty-six peaks of the Adirondack Mountains?  As the co-chair of International Singles Studies Association’s Newsletter Committee, I’m encouraging all members to share such accomplishments.  For example, I became a solo homeowner a year and a half ago, shortly after earning tenure.  Not all singles are happy to be, but after a day of teaching, department and committee meetings, hallway conversations, and the increased emotional labor that comes with helping students these days, I’m happy to come home and greeted by the meows of my cat, Chester.  This concept is known as being “single at heart,” another term coined by Dr. DePaulo.
While many singles don’t fall into this category, those that are should be encouraged to display their orientation.  Fostering cultures that enable this practice might just help unhappy singles feel less stigmatized, and, thus, less lonely.

[1] “Childless” refers to those who want children and don’t have them; “childfree” describes people who do not want children.

With the holidays coming up, a lot of my fellow singletons will be subjected to questions like, “When are you settling down?”  “Are you seeing anyone?”  These questions seem innocuous, but they carry the meaning that they’re not meeting someone else’s timeline.  If the person who has no interest in partnering (many of them are referred to as “single at hearts” by psychologist Bella DePaulo), they may be able to brush off such comments.  For the person who’s feeling bad about being single, such questions can elicit feelings of inadequacy. 
​
These questions also reflect the societal fear that fewer people are following the traditional, tried, and true path of getting married and having children.  A recent article from The Economist, “The Great Relationship Recession,” is an example of the hand-wringing on people making choices that differ from what’s seen as “normal.”  But we need to recognize that this fear is overblown.  We’re not in a crisis; we’re just making a change.

There are myriad options outside the “relationship escalator,” coined by Amy Gahran.  This refers to the model that a romance must follow the pattern of meet, date, become exclusive, move in together, marry, have kids, white picket fence, grandkids, etc.  Some folks enjoy various forms of consensual non-monogamy.  Situationships aren’t the evil the general public makes them out to be, so long as both parties are honest about their intentions.  And of course, there’s pure, unbridled singlehood. 

The escalator model is valid, and it works for many people, some of my friends and family included.  But a lot of people enjoy the other arrangements.  Living apart together works for a lot of couples.  Many of my coupled friends are childfree by choice.  And I have a cousin who’s had a husband and a boyfriend at the same time.  They seem happy.

I’m a happy singleton, as are most of my friends these days, but I (begrudgingly) understand we’re in the minority.  One of the reasons I am happy with my relationship status is that I have a wide network of friends; data shows that singles tend to have more social connections than their coupled counterparts.  As a male, I’m an anomaly in this area, as, for most men, their social network consists of their partner. 

Women are encouraged to form relationships outside romantic partnerships, which is why they’re typically better off after a divorce or breakup than men are.   In fact, data shows that single women tend to be happier and healthier than married women.  To be fair, Paul Dolan, the researcher who popularized this finding, admitted a flaw in that he had mentioned they were happier than their spouses weren’t present.  This turned out to be a misinterpretation, but it doesn’t negate the data.  An observation of the single and married women I’ve talked to confirms this finding.

Over the past decade, I’ve built a brand as The Happy Bachelor.  All of my extended family members and friends know this, so they know better than to ask me those annoying questions.  But they’re likely to show up for others, especially as we’re saturated with those films where the independent, career-oriented woman abandons her high-flying, glamorous urban life to move to a small town to settle down into “family life” with that flannel-wearing hunk she’s known for a grand total of five days, that classic Hallmark plot structure that sells movie tickets and streaming subscriptions by the thousands. 

So here’s my advice: when you see your single family members and friends, instead of asking “are you seeing anyone?” ask about their professional accomplishments, their hobbies, their friends, their travel plans, or, if applicable, their pets.  Not only does it make them feel seen, but it’ll likely remind you that a fulfilling life comes in many shapes and sizes.  And that’s worth celebrating.  We need to challenge the narrative that it’s not.

At present, millions of Americans are being impacted by the cuts to SNAP benefits, which will make celebrating Thanksgiving much more difficult for recipients.  And I feel nothing but sympathy for them; I’ve donated plenty of food items to pantries over the years.  So, at the risk of sounding like Ebenezer Scrooge, I ask, why do news outlets keep mentioning “families” as being in need of help?  What about individuals that aren’t part of families?
​
One doesn’t have to look very deeply to see that despite the declining marriage rates, we still live in a world built for families.  This is evident in how our politicians refer to helping American families and advertisements that encourage us to donate money to food to low-income families.  While this is certainly well-meaning on the surface, such language makes millions of other people invisible, people who may not be part of a traditional nuclear family unit.

To be sure, family is a broad term.  My cat/son Chester and I are a family.  Communities of singles often come together to share housing.  But our society doesn’t see it that way.  The pricing of homes usually assumes multi-income households, and even studios are overpriced.  Health insurance and leave policies often prioritize the married, i.e., the Family Leave and Medical Act, which only allows one to take leave to care for a spouse, child, or parent.  Siblings, cousins, and other extended family members don’t qualify.

The media is complicit too.  Advertisements overwhelmingly show couples and families enjoy their holiday meals.  And let’s not forget that annual stream of holiday movies that portray the urban career woman visiting her rural hometown, falling in love with the flannel-wearing, blue-collar guy, and uprooting her life to upbeat music just before the end credits roll.

In 2023, 32% of SNAP recipients reported living alone and 63% reported having no children.  To be sure, benefits are skewed toward households of one; the limit to net monthly income is $1,305 for a one-person household while for a two-person household, it’s $1,763.  This would mean the limit is $881.50 per person.  Hypothetically, a married person would need to earn less money than a singleton to be eligible.  However, a single parent would (in theory) get enough extra funds to support a child.  So it’s equitable in that sense. 

However, not every program considers the needs of those who fall outside the traditional family unit.  For example, this inequity carries over to how doctors treat patients.  Joan DelFattore, a colleague and close friend of mine, was diagnosed with cancer.  An oncologist suggested a much less effective form of treatment due to the fact that she wasn’t part of a traditional family structure (i.e., didn’t have a spouse or children).  Fortunately, her chosen family, a group of friends, provided support.  They helped her find a doctor who “got it,” and, as of this writing, she’s in remission.

Journalists and politicians are aware of how language shapes perception.  They likely use the term “families” because it’s safe and meant to inspire empathy.  After all, who doesn’t want to support a family?  Unfortunately, it helps reinforce harmful stereotypes around singles, namely that they’re struggling due to personal shortcomings rather than structural inequities. Such stereotypes fellow under the category of singlism.

This holiday, my wish is for policymakers, politicians, journalists, scholars, religious institutions, and the general public to use more inclusive words like “residents,” “neighbors,” “friends,” “households,” “community members,” or “people,” rather than “families.”  This kind of language isn’t just cosmetic, but it can subtly influence who gets prioritized in any initiative.  While the holiday season celebrates abundance, it loses its meaning if the language inadvertently states that only one type of person is deserving of it.  

We lionize weddings and baby showers.  I’m not against celebrating them, but why can’t a promotion receive such props?  Getting tenure?  Buying a new home?  I made a point of making a registry for my tenure/housewarming party.  And I encourage everyone to celebrate their accomplishments.  So I was ecstatic when my friend Alicia invited me to her housewarming to celebrate her saying “yes” to the address (if bridal gowns can generate such fawning, so should buying one’s first home). 

I got a lot of steps in by walking from the MARC station to Alicia’s lovely townhouse.  I stopped at Red Emmas, an indie bookstore/coffeehouse (DC needs more of those), for a coffee and a writing session, before entering Alicia’s.
​
As an introvert who likes small groups, I typically like to go to parties early and leave before the crowds get there.  And, true to form, I was the first one to arrive, so I got a personalized tour of her home, which has some cool artwork and funny sayings.

I like going to other people’s homes; I always get a nice sense of who they are.  And meeting the people in their lives always gives me a glimpse of their multidimensionality.  I met Dwayne, one of Alicia’s former coworkers (thank you, nurses, and other medical workers); Eve, a dance teacher of Alicia’s (how do people maneuver around those poles?); Dan and Hilary, Eve’s parents; and Mary, a friend of Alicia’s from the neighborhood.  I had a nice 1-1 conversation with Dan, a retired social studies teacher and assistant principal, about theater and AI’s impact on writing and education as a whole.

I’m good at parties for about two hours before I need to retreat.  I had been at it all day and wanted to head home before dark, so I politely excused myself.  But I enjoyed the place and the company during my time there.  A highlight: this “mandip” Alicia made, which consists of a nice mixture of ground sausage and cream cheese. 
​
I’ll be making this at my next event: my Singles Empowerment Day gathering (2/15/26).

Data is all around us.  Baseball teams use batting averages and on-base percentages to determine the value of their players (my New York Mets seem to fall short in this department).  Scientists test medications and compile lab results to determine the effectiveness and safety of said medications.  Such data is important to essential things like how an organization operates and whether lives are saved.

However, there are times when data can’t fully measure the human experience.  My university (along with most other universities) is constantly collecting data to measure student satisfaction.  These are done through surveys, with questions like “The instructor was typically punctual in meeting this course.”  And the usual numerical response.  5: Strongly agree. 4: Agree.  1: Strongly disagree.  And there’s a blank text box in which students can give information not typically answered in the questions.  In my experience, most students don’t fill this information out, which is why give them my own survey with open-ended questions like, “What do you like about this course?” and “What could be improved about the course?”

Numbers can’t always capture the full experience, which is why I’m often skeptical of empirical studies.  Surveys can’t capture whether one of my students couldn’t complete an assignment because they were up all night caring for a sick mother or baby.  Questionnaires don’t reveal that a player may be slumping because they’re going through a nasty divorce.  And, to be fair, sports fans don’t care about the latter.  They just want their players to perform and their teams to win.

As a Singles Studies scholar/activist, I sometimes cite data.  My favorite piece is those studies that show that single women are happier than married women, while the opposite applies to men.  This was once cited by a scholar named Paul Dolan in his 2019 book, Happy Ever After.  It’s been referred to by those of us in the singlehood community.  I’m not trained in data collection and analysis, so I tend to take the experts’ word.  I did this in the piece I recently published in Ms. Magazine.

I posted this to the Singlehood Studies listserv.  Exactly thirty-five minutes after I posted, a colleague emailed with a congratulations and just to point out that the Dolan study had been debunked.  They were even kind enough to include a link to the Reddit page.

So here’s my issue.  It’s not that this person pointed out the debunking, even though that’s not totally correct. Another colleague informed me that it was just the saying that women indicated they were happier when their spouse wasn’t in the room, which I thought was more of a cheeky remark from Dolan rather than a finding.  And to me, it sounded more like poor word choice than inaccurate data representation.  And it doesn’t negate the finding.

The issue is: was this celebration really the correct space to point out a tiny inaccuracy in data?  As academics, we have a tendency to prize knowledge above all else.  And if you’re a scientist, that knowledge had better be data-driven.  But there are times when this type of analysis isn’t called for.  I’m not a data scientist, but even I know that one can cherry pick data to unconsciously (or, sadly, consciously) confirm their biases.  This last sentence was paraphrased straight from a friend of mine who works with data.  A similar study, cited in a 1991 book called Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, found that sixty percent of women surveyed indicated they were happier than their married friends.  That year again, 1991.

I don’t know if that data is accurate.  I wasn’t there when the researchers collected their data or analyzed it, and I’m not fluent in those numerical modes of expression.  In fact, when I teach my second-year writing students to read those academic articles, I tell them to skip those methodology sections and go straight to the Discussion and Conclusion sections.  This is common advice among composition pedagogues.  But I digress.

Numerical data doesn’t always capture the full experience.  And even if Dolan’s finding was inaccurate, pieces like mine help give singles a voice.  They encourage us singletons to advocate for ourselves and others.  In the five days since this piece was published, I’ve been thanked by quite a few people for it.  A notable exception:

From Mconservative Mayer, a self-proclaimed anti-feminist on Facebook: Perhaps Craig Wynne should read "Men and Marriage" by George Gilder. It's about just what the title suggests - "men and marriage" - and what happens to men AND to society, when they don't.
​
Yeah.  A far-right source from 1986.  Really on the money there.  I’ll continue to use the data in a way that serves the public, not the ego of someone who misread a social cue just to pontificate a data point, and certainly not some ghost from the last time my Mets won the World Series.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination is all over the news.  Many of his mourners have grieved the untimely death of a “father and husband.”  Opinions of his rhetoric aside, the unintended implication is that he would be less worthy of being mourned if he were single and childless.

As a 47-year-old male who’s never been married and has little to no interest in dating, you’d better believe I’ve been asked questions like “When are you gonna settle down?” and “why are you still single?”  But this isn’t about me venting.  It’s about what’s behind these questions; the core assumption that not having a partner is lacking.

Despite this assumption, the Pew Research Center has predicted that by 2030, one in four Americans will have never married by the age of 50.  At present, 50% of the US population over the age of eighteen is single.  These statistics are frightening to the Heritage Foundation, who recently published a position paper entitled “We Must Save the American Family,” the goal of which is to encourage more people to follow the traditional path of getting married and having children.  Such thinking, while well-meaning on the surface, is quite damaging for humanity.

If one’s going to talk fairly and accurately about singlehood, they must understand two major terms, both coined by Dr. Bella DePaulo: singlism, the stereotyping and discrimination against people who are single; and matrimania, the over-the-top societal obsession with marriage as the ultimate mark of happiness.  These two ideas are pervasive around the world.

There is conflicting data on whether married people are happier and healthier than single people.  Some studies show that very finding.  However, there is also research that proves marginalized groups suffer greater happiness and health deficits, which contributes to this finding.  It stems from a variety of sources, such as: 1) popular media.  For example, the protagonist, at the beginning of the film, is “broken” in some way, and by the end, they’re coupled, and the romance has magically fixed them; 2) our laws.  Example, when I die, I could leave my Social Security benefits to a spouse or child, but not to the brother I’ve known for the past forty-three years; 3) the types of microaggressions mentioned in the opening paragraph, which have the potential to affect how a single person views themselves, thus causing them to enter a relationship and stay in it past its expiration date. 

It carries over to how doctors treat their patients.  My friend and colleague, Joan DelFattore, was diagnosed with cancer.  An oncologist suggested a less aggressive course of treatment due to the fact that she doesn’t have a spouse or children.  Fortunately, she had a group of friends to provide support; they helped her find a doctor who was more understanding, and she’s currently in remission.

This example coincides with findings that singles have larger networks of friends than married people do; they’re also more connected with their communities and families of origin.  Women do especially well in this area because they’re encouraged to form networks; for this reason, single women have been shown to be happier than married women.  The opposite holds true for men because my gender falls victim to the toxically masculine myth that to be vulnerable is to be weak.  I’m an anomaly in this area; I refer to myself as a “childless cat lady” with male parts (my cat’s name is Chester).

Involuntary, unhappy singles are prey for scammers on dating apps.  There have been many cases where a person’s given copious amounts of money to people they believed was a romantic partner, even though they hadn’t met said partner.  As a result, they lose a lot of money and endure years of mental health struggles.  Many suffer from internalized singlism, which often results from societal thinking that “single is bad.”

I can’t measure whether they want to partner innately or if they’re being socialized into it.  But the conditioning we receive doesn’t help.  That said, I’m not anti-marriage.  I do believe some people are meant to follow that path, but it’s overprescribed and overprivileged.  And it’s certainly not for everyone.  The Book of Paul even states this: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry.”   
​
If we can modify our thinking, singles as a population will be happier, and those who marry will be happier because they’re entering a union they’re meant to be in, not one society forces upon them.  

It’s no secret that less people are getting married.   The Pew Research Center has predicted that by 2030, one in four Americans will have never married by the age of 50.  At present, 50% of the US population over the age of eighteen is single.  Half of those folks aren’t even interested in dating.  And young people want more friendship and less romance in their media.  This is alarming to the Heritage Foundation, who recently published a position paper entitled “We Must Save the American Family,” the goal of which is to encourage more people to follow the traditional path of getting married and having children.

If one’s going to talk fairly and accurately about singlehood, they must understand two major terms, both coined by Dr. Bella DePaulo: singlism, the stereotyping and discrimination against people who are single; and matrimania, the over-the-top societal obsession with marriage as the ultimate mark of happiness.  These ideas are extremely damaging; I propose a world in which singlehood is considered equal to marriage and other forms of couplehood.

Any person who’s been single for any length of time can relate to being asked, “Are you seeing anyone?” or “When are you going to settle down, get married, having a kid, etc.?”  While such statements may be well-meaning, they can come off as patronizing, and they can cause people to enter relationships and marriages that are unfulfilling, toxic, or even dangerous.  I stayed in quite a few unhappy relationships because of this fear of being alone. 

The socialization that “single is bad” is one of the many reasons victims of domestic violence are afraid to leave their relationships.  In less extreme cases, they stay in toxic or unhappy marriages out of fear of being alone or the astronomical costs of divorce, among other reasons.  While I have never been married, I have stayed in unfulfilling relationships because I didn’t want to be single. Similarly, I had a friend who constantly complained about how unhappy she was in her relationship, yet they’ve been together for over six years for the benefits.  One shouldn’t have to live that way.

The “single is bad” message is also rampant in our media.  Movies and TV series often end with protagonists coupling up, and advertisements overwhelmingly show couples and families enjoying their products.  I conducted a study a few years ago that found that pharmaceutical advertisements were guilty of this same inequity.  Fortunately, J Walter Thompson put together a report that showed the buying power of single people, which showed us to be a huge part of the market.  But this was in 2019, the year before I conducted this study.  Through loose observations over the past few years, I can safely conclude advertising still favors images of couples and families.

Our legal and financial structures also favor the married.  For example, when I die, I can leave my Social Security benefits to a partner or child, but not to my brother, who I’ve known for the past forty-three years.  I could place a spouse on my health insurance player, but not a domestic partner.  Now, the Heritage Foundation wants to create special savings account for married people only, as if the privileges I mentioned aren’t enough.

I envision a world in which singles receive the same treatment as married people.  I’m not anti-marriage; in a time where the current administration is considering abolishing gay marriage, I strongly believe anybody who wants to marry should be able to, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.  But why should they have to get married to receive benefits?  Two of the many changes I’d like to see are:

• an abolition of the Marital Communications Privilege, which removes spouses from having to testify against each other; ending this privilege would hold more criminals accountable for their actions and would prevent them from being acquitted due to the lack of testimony from a spouse
• an end to couples’ discounts; why should a singleton pay more for their telephone plan, especially when married men are shown to make more money?

Singlism and matrimania do not rise to the level of racism and homophobia, but  singlehood is an undervalued state, and we need to look at singlehood as equal to marriage, as well as other forms of couplehood.  Society does benefit from single people; for example, data shows that singles volunteer more than married people.  They also support their friends and biological family more than those who’ve tied the knot.  And as more people realize the benefits of being single, our institutions need to catch up.
 

Peter McGraw of Solo fame categorizes four types of singles: 1) the “Someday.”  These folks are the classic “Someday my prince/princess will come”; 2) the “Just May.”  They want to “find their person,” but if it doesn’t happen, they’ll still continue to live their lives; 3) the “No Way.”  They have no interest in dating or partnership of any kind, either for now or forever; and 4) the “New Way,” who like dating and romance, but they don’t want to do what Amy Gahran refers to as “riding the relationship escalator.”  This concept refers to that prescribed series of steps a romance must take: dating, exclusivity, cohabitation, marriage, kids, white picket fence, etc.

I’ve always joked that I’m about 80% No Way and 20% New Way. Over the past year, I’ve wanted to give the “new way” style of dating a try.  I was in a lot of relationships and situationships and had a lot of flings throughout my 20s and 30s.  They never seemed to really take off.  As I’ve done a lot of reflecting, I’ve realized my heart was never really into making them “take off.”  I’ve had a couple of very meaningful short-term “situationships” and some longer-term ones that I felt obligated to guide toward the escalator.  My Soloesque thinking: instead of forcing myself to date according to the societal prescription, why not just date the way I have, but be more conscious and intentional about it?

I like to meet people organically, and I’m open to anything from FWBs (with emphasis on the “F”) to the type of relationship where we see each other once or twice a month.  And I’ve been on a few dates in the past year; I’m capable of being aesthetically attracted to another person, but oftentimes, when I converse with them, I lose that attraction, but I want to develop a friendship with that person.  I’d never been on an app before, and I always swore I’d never do them.  I’d been on websites like Match.com several years earlier.  I’d met some cool people and got into some relationships and situationships from there, but I found it to be a time suck.

But I figured it might be good to try an app just to get it out of my system.  The more mainstream apps like Tinder and Hinge seem to cater to people looking for the escalator, but I’d heard Feeld attracts those drawn to non-conventional options.  So I gave it a try.

I listened to the Solo episode on “Dating App Help (Hell)” where Peter and Jessalyn Dean advise on how to create a dating profile. I followed all of their suggestions: post pictures in different settings that reflect me (I had one of me in my workout gear, jogging; another was of me in a suit; another had me on a train, since I LOVE to travel by train); be upbeat and authentic (I did mention my identity as a cat Dad and my proclivity for laughing at my own jokes for extended periods of time).  I also mentioned I wasn’t looking to ride the escalator and that my primary partner was my work (both things are true).  And I informed all swipers I’d only be on for thirty days. 

My plan: only pay for the 30-day subscription.  This would allow me to “match” with unlimited people and send one “ping” (or message) per day. 

1. I’d swipe through fifty profiles each day (this takes a grand total of about four minutes). 
2. I’d read every single life through every single profile.  If a woman had no description or just one or two sentences on what she was looking for (“I’m looking for friends with benefits”), I’d swipe left.  If you can’t put any effort into your profile, then that doesn’t say much for how we’ll connect.
3. If I liked someone, I wouldn’t swipe it all until I got to fifty profiles.  Once I hit fifty, I’d look through the ones I like and narrow it down.  I would then send a message.
4. When writing, I’d always mention something I’d read in the profile.
5. I didn’t keep Feeld on my screen; I’d check it two or three times a day for updates.

The result: four matches, only one of which I swiped right on.  That person then exited the conversation.  The other three didn’t have anything interesting written on their profiles (one had nothing).  So, to quote Homer Simpson, “You tried your best, and you failed miserably.  The lesson is, never try.”

​My attitude really isn’t that fatalistic, but it may be accurate – at least, for me.  One thought I had was, “If someone responds, then I have to start committing time.”  And, much of the time, I didn’t like taking time from something else to devote to another person in that type of relationship.  So even though the experience wasn’t successful by conventional standards, I still learned something about myself and about the nature of dating.
That said, I can see why people can get hooked on dating apps.  Swiping can feel like dopamine.  And it can boost the ego to get “matched.”  There was a time when I would have “swiped right” just because you did, but that time has long since passed. 
To their credit, the owners have done their homework.  And they use it to get people to keep signing up, paying money, and swiping.  I always need these owners don’t want you to couple up, at least not for the long-term.  They may benefit from you going at it for a few months and then recommending the app to your friends, who then sign up.  And the apps make money, and people spend more time scrolling.  Meeting people in real life feels like an anomaly, just like me.
And I choose to live life as a Solo.  This experiment ultimately confirmed this desire.  And if you’re reading and want to give advice, I’d prefer you didn’t.  

Note: None of the content in this piece is true.  It's all fiction and my attempt at satire.

This week, the Davis Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee faced a litany of protests for refusing fertility treatment to a straight married couple, Chad and Karen Witherbottom.  The doctor, Kevin Mondel, cited Tennessee’s newly passed Medical Ethics Defense Act as a reason, referring to the fact that a doctor refused natal care to a woman for being unmarried.  “If it can work one way,” Mondel said, “Why not the other?”

Lindy Weitz of Tennessean Christians for Marital Privilege did not agree with Mondel’s interpretation of the act, saying, “God said man was not meant to be alone, that’s why he gave Adam Eve.  So that belief is wrong and this doctor will be condemned to Hell.”

Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), whose staffers had recently told the woman, “he’s not obligated to listen to his constituents,” was able to meet immediately with the angry couple.  He had this to say: “While the Medical Ethics Defense Act does entitle this doctor to treat according to his beliefs, I believe it is wrong for him to do so.”  He then had to exit the interview for a round of golf.

Doctor Mondel then said, “Well, I guess they’ll just have to go to one of the many other clinics that cater to straight married couples.”  He then concluded our interview to attend to a trans identify teenager who’d been denied care on the basis of their existence.
   

I miss the days of kids delivering newspapers by foot or bike.  It’s mostly because at the age of thirteen, I was pulling $40 per week, a fortune to a middle-class kid in a two-parent household.  I’d gotten a savings account, which my Dad had nudged me to put in $10 toward every week.  Every Christmas and summer, I’d take $200 I’d saved and go nuts at the mall, buying VHS tapes, cassettes, and clothing.

During the summer before 10th grade, I’d gone to a camp where my bunkmates all indulged in impressions of Beavis and Butthead (huh huh huh), which got me watching it.  After summer ended, I started watching it, where I saw it.  Beavis and Butthead banging their heads to Black Sabbath’s classic, “Iron Man” and vocalizing that classic guitar riff.  I was hooked on it.  So during the following spree, I looked through the Sabbath cassettes and found a double-sided cassette of Paranoid and Heaven and Hell.  It played nonstop on my stereo while Dad mused, “So, you’re a headbanger now, eh?”  How prophetic a statement.

Thanks to Beavis and Butthead, I became exposed to AC/DC’s “Highway to Hell” and Metallica’s “One.”  A friend, Steven, played Megadeth’s “Symphony of Destruction” and an acquaintance, Robert, made me a tape of Iron Maiden’s Fear of the Dark; all I had to do was ask.

I had friends, but I was a shy teen.  I wasn’t the best student, but I generally was polite and tried to do my best.  Some people say metal can lead to bad behavior; in my case, it did cause me to start pushing boundaries.  I tried to grow my hair long (though it seemed to grow out instead of down).  I befriended some of the “freaks.”  I took up smoking cigarettes.  I started ditching classes. At one point, I mouthed off to a Spanish teacher who, in my mind, was picking on me.  When I attempted to ride home on my friend Evan’s bus, and the driver tried to kick me off because I wasn’t on his route, I stood there and stared him down.  Classmates helped me hide under a seat and clothed me in a hoodie while said driver grabbed a security guard (he didn’t think to check under the seat?).

I also picked up the guitar, which I’ve played on and off as an adult; I’ve been known to bust it out for my students on occasion.  And as someone who’s “joined the system” (tenured professorship and mortgage), my hair’s shortened back up, and if a security guard tells me to do something, I’ll generally do it, even if I think the rule is ridiculous.

I’ve widened my musical tastes; I was a peripheral part of the jamband scene for years, although that’s giving way to more varied forms of entertainment.  But that rebellious streak remains, and I channel it in my work.  Singlism and matrimania are rampant in our world; it exists in our policies, our media tropes, our business practices, and our everyday interactions.  I can be a bit pointed in the way I push back at times, but I’ve sought to help bring it to others’ attention through my writing; it’s become my brand, enough that I’ve published, presented, and been asked to speak on the subject on radio and TV.

I’ve heard it said that our core self never changes.  Even as a child, when my first-grade teacher would have us repeat, “A city is a place with lots of people,” I would substitute “people” with “cars,” “buses,” and “buildings.”  It never got a reaction.  But even then, I was questioning things most people take for granted.
​
Celebrity deaths don’t usually hit me that hard; not since Neal Peart of Rush passed was I so affected.  While I don’t have Ozzy’s entire discography, his music marked the beginnings of a key transition in my adolescence, and, subsequently, my personality and outlook.  And I still bang my head to his tunes; as I write this in a Starbucks, “After Forever” plays on my headphones, and I bang my head lightly.  He’ll always fuel my life and work, even if it’s subliminal.