The rise of singlehood is reshaping the world: A great relationship recession is under way

The Economist ^ | 11/05/2025

[SeekAndFind]

For most of human history, coupling up was not merely a norm; it was a necessity. Before reliable contraception, women could not control their fertility, and most were far too poor to raise children alone. Hence the centuries-old convention that, whereas a tragic play or saga ends in death, a happy one ends in marriage.

So the speed with which the norm of marriage—indeed, of relationships of any sort—is being abandoned is startling. Throughout the rich world, singlehood is on the rise. Among Americans aged 25-34, the proportion living without a spouse or partner has doubled in five decades, to 50% for men and 41% for women. Since 2010, the share of people living alone has risen in 26 out of 30 rich countries. By The Economist’s calculation, the world has at least 100m more single people today than if coupling rates were still as high as in 2017. A great relationship recession is under way.

For some, this is evidence of social and moral decay. As we report, many in the “pro-natalist” movement believe that the failure of the young to settle down and procreate threatens to end Western civilisation. For others, it is evidence of admirable self-reliance. Vogue, a fashion magazine, recently suggested that for cool, ambitious young women, having a boyfriend is not merely unnecessary but “embarrassing”.

In fact, the rise of singlehood is neither straightforwardly good nor bad. Among heterosexuals (about whom there is the most research) it is largely a consequence of something clearly benign: as barriers to women in the workplace have fallen, their choices have expanded. They are far more able than in the past to live alone if they choose, and face less social stigma for doing so. The more they can support themselves financially, the less likely they are to put up with an inadequate or abusive partner. This shift has saved countless women from awful relationships, and forced many men to treat their mates better if they want to stay together.

However, it has also had unhappy knock-on effects. Flying solo can be liberating, but it can also be lonely. Plenty of singletons say they are content to remain so, especially women. But surveys in various countries suggest that 60-73% would rather be in a relationship. A poll in America in 2019 found that, although 50% of singles were not actively looking for a partner, only 27% said this was because they enjoyed being single. Many have given up, either because they despair of finding a mate, or because they don’t rate the mates on offer.

A truth universally acknowledged no more

If lots of people want to couple up but don’t, something is amiss in the relationship “market”. One problem—widespread sex-selective abortion that has led to a shortage of women and a surplus of bachelors in parts of Asia—is fortunately diminishing fast. But experts see many other obstacles.

Some think social media and dating apps have fostered unrealistic expectations (other people’s relationships look fabulous on Instagram) and excessive pickiness (most women on Bumble reportedly insist that a male must be six feet tall, thus filtering out 85% of potential matches).

Another problem is the growing political gulf between young men and women, with the former leaning right and the latter leaning more to the left. Many singles insist that any partner must tick the same partisan boxes, which makes matching trickier.

Other experts point to a decline in social skills as people spend more of their lives gawping at screens. Americans of all ages socialise less in person than they did two decades ago, but the decline is especially steep among the young. Social media spread fears that women will be assaulted if they go out; and that men will be digitally shamed if a date goes badly.

Perhaps the most important factor is that, as living alone has become easier, women’s standards have grown more exacting. For many, a mediocre partner no longer seems a better bet than remaining single. Women are more likely than men to say that they want their mate to be well educated and financially solid. More men are failing to clear this moving bar, as they fall behind women educationally and the less bookish ones flounder in the job market. Men with no college degree and low earnings struggle to attract a partner; doubly so if they do not share domestic chores, or if after frequent rejection they start to dislike women, a common vice in the online “manosphere”.

Some of these problems may be self-correcting. One obvious idea is for men to grow up, do a little more housework, behave more responsibly and so turn themselves into more desirable partners. Cultural norms may impede this shift. But the prospect of avoiding lifelong loneliness and celibacy will surely serve as a powerful incentive for men to change. Many countries have been moving in this direction for years, with cleaning, cooking and child-minding more evenly split between men and women.

And yet, even in such enlightened spots as the Nordic countries, the trend towards singlehood shows no signs of abating. In Finland and Sweden roughly a third of adults live alone. At the very least, the shift is likely to exacerbate the already dramatic fall in global fertility, since single-parenting is hard and cultural taboos against it remain strong in many regions. Since young, single men commit more violent crimes, a less-coupled world could be more dangerous.

It is also possible that the relationship recession will not correct itself. A striking 7% of young singles say they would consider a robo-romance with an AI companion, and these lovebots will only get more sophisticated. AI, after all, is patient; AI is kind; it does not ask you to clean the bathroom or get a better job.

Many may worry that a world with fewer couples and children will be sadder and more atomised. Yet bemoaning the prospect will not avert it. And it is not the place of governments to overrule ordinary people’s preferences—though they should certainly try to tackle male underperformance in school. A future with far more singletons is coming. Everyone, from construction firms to the taxman, had better prepare. ■

[MinorityRepublican]

Nobody was happier about the feminist movement than men — especially lazy promiscuous men.

Gavin Newsom and Bill Clinton—yes.

Others, no.

[MinorityRepublican]

I’d prefer you get it right for your own sake.

🥱

[reasonisfaith]

Your little symbol there contradicts your posting behavior.

Do you even know your own purpose?

[FLT-bird]

So men wanting an inexperienced and naive wife is not something to be judged, but women wanting a successful husband is. Interesting.

Naive is your characterization, not mine. Its quite possible to be young and not naive. Also, I haven't judged women for wanting a successful husband. In fact, I understand it.

[FLT-bird]

Men would rather date the secretary than the boss. Men don’t care about a woman’s career, it just is.

I'd honestly be OK with either. Its great if the wife makes a lot of money but its not all that important to me. Lemme put it this way, if the choice is between a hot 25 year old in a blue collar job or much less attractive 35 year old who makes a lot of money, I'd choose the former every time all else being equal. So would most men. Women would overwhelmingly make the opposite choice.

[T.B. Yoits]

“It all has to do with the effects of turning from God. Men didn’t leave their wives because their faith in God kept them on the straight and narrow.”

The entirety of marriage licensed by The State excludes God.

The State inserted itself as an unwilling third partner into every marriage, making it no longer a joining of two people but instead an aberration where The State makes it advantageous for the second party to conspire with it against the third.

Society has become extremely hostile to men and wants men to take a 2nd class role, while simultaneously expecting those same men to shoulder the primary responsibility of society itself. Why would we expect any male to accept that?

The problem for women is that they got what feminism promised them - a world where they aren't bound to men, financially, emotionally, sexually. Well, that works both ways. Men aren't dropping out, they're rejecting "traditional male roles" just as women have rejected "traditional female roles".

[FormerFRLurker]

You said men were more inclined to compromise than women. I provided a counterexample. You also mentioned focusing on career and physique as alternatives to compromising. I was merely pointing out that American men don’t do that either. Lacking a work ethic, an attractive body, OR a willingness to compromise, the American man has nothing to offer a woman. I’m sorry that you interpreted that as bashing all men.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

A female secretary with a liberal arts degree making $30K will think dating a male plumber with a $100K income is "dating down".

Terribly flawed on her part. If she dates a $100K/year plumber, not only does she satisfy the modern female itch for a six-figure income, but she has a husband who can fix stuff around the house.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Justpearlythings also said, of women’s emotional state, that if they had the strength of men, we’d all be in big trouble.

[MinorityRepublican]

6 figures, 6 feet, 6 pack plus the status that comes with a “cool career”.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Just wait’ll she needs her sink fixed or the line from the street replaced. She will see who is really cool then.

[A_perfect_lady]

They learned relying on one man was not safe in the 20th century? So "letting their financial well-being rest entirely on one man" was safe enough in the 7th century, the 15th? the 18th?

Yes, actually. Divorce was difficult and rare.

[alexander_busek]

You said men were more inclined to compromise than women. I provided a counterexample.

No, you didn't provide a counterexample, and thus you didn't refute my claim. A true counterexample would have been: "See, here's an actual U.S. government - dominated by women - that isn't deadlocked! You see! Men are less compromising than women!"

Besides, as I already pointed out, my claim was that men are more compromising in the realm of dating/mating - I said nothing about politics.

Specifically, men are far less likely to reject a dating candidate because of, e.g., a lack of educational attainment, a lack of material wealth or earning power, a lack of height, or because she is stuck in some dead-end, low-prestige job. Further, men don't really care about a woman's social status. Her having a big circle of friends, being president of the local Chamber of Commerce, or even being a Nobel Laureate does not really "turn us on." As Joan Rivers famously observed, "No man ever reached under a woman's skirts looking for a diploma!"

Rather, she should have a decent appearance and be young and fertile. She should also be relatively friendly and co-operative. And that's about it!

You also mentioned focusing on career and physique as alternatives to compromising. I was merely pointing out that American men don’t do that either.

You still don't understand: My initial assertion was exactly that: That American men don't have to compromise! That they don't have to join the "rat race" and focus on career or the gym. That they can instead either "settle" or "opt out" entirely.

Lacking a work ethic, an attractive body, OR a willingness to compromise, the American man has nothing to offer a woman.

You (the women) are supposed to be the "pretty ones" - not we men! Men are visual creatures. Within milliseconds of encountering a woman, men assess - on the basis of visual clues - a women's ability to bear and rear children. Nota bene: Women are simultaneously attempting to estimate the man's ability to provide (including whether he will stick around after the orgasm for at least the next 4-5 years in order to actually deliver those provisions / whether she will be able to manipulate him into sticking around); that perforce requires more time.

I’m sorry that you interpreted that as bashing all men.

I have been able to state my case (and disassemble yours) without "bashing" women; I have said nothing about U.S. women being predominantly obese, promiscuous, tatted-up, etc.; I have advanced no claim about the percentage of women who have disfigured themselves or lowered their SMV in those respects (though I have pointed out that men prefer women who don't display those earmarks of dysfunction).

You, on the other hand, seem to delight in denigrating men, and have claimed that U.S. men are slovenly, unfit, and lazy - and thus have nothing to offer. You didn't even qualify your statement by saying "the majority of U.S. men." Instead, you said just "U.S. men."

I have made no corresponding claim about U.S. women. So I think that I am entitled to classify your characterizations as "bashing."

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

T.B. Yoits: They learned relying on one man was not safe in the 20th century? So "letting their financial well-being rest entirely on one man" was safe enough in the 7th century, the 15th? the 18th?

A_perfect_lady: Yes, actually. Divorce was difficult and rare.

So you are arguing that we should return to making divorce difficult and rare, as a solution to that problem?!

Because until now, it has sounded rather as though you were arguing that women should instead boost their earning potential (through education and career) so as to be more self-sufficient and thus more able to divorce!

Please make up your mind!

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

MayflowerMadam: Nobody was happier about the feminist movement than men — especially lazy promiscuous men.

MinorityRepublican: Gavin Newsom and Bill Clinton—yes. Others, no.

Initially - I'm talking about the first, few years of the Sexual Revolution of the late 1960s - all men (in the U.S.) may have rejoiced - but then the majority soon realized that they had deluded themselves, that they had been suffering from the Apex Fallacy.

Except for a short period of experimentation in late adolescence and early adulthood - during which time even average men might "get lucky" - only the top 10-15% of men were able to profit from the feminist movement (due to increased sexual access). (I believe that this is what MinorityRepublican is saying.)

And the phrase "lazy promiscuous men" is an oxymoron: Unless a man has inherited wealth or genes for truly stunning physical appeal, he cannot be both "lazy" AND "promiscuous."

Regards,

[T.B. Yoits]

Lacking a work ethic, an attractive body, OR a willingness to compromise, the American man has nothing to offer a woman.

Willingness to compromise with women will earn derision as a simp. It is NOT a part of the Cute vs Money Matrix.

It's not exactly a man's work ethic women want - they just want the money. In fact, they'll complain that a man who works all the time doesn't give them enough attention.

As for an attractive body on a man, that's only one part of the Cute vs Money Matrix. A good-looking but broke guy is in the fun zone; (Chad, Pookie, or Ray-Ray). While a woman would fornicate with him and even have children with him, she will only marry money. If he has enough money, she doesn't care what he looks like.

For those who haven't seen it, here's a link to a one-minute video of the Cute vs Rich Matrix for Women (the women's opposite of the Hot vs Crazy Matrix for Men). There is one caveat to the chart: What the original author calls the "no-go" zone is true but hoe_math more accurately described the men there as ghosts, because they simply don't exist to women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd4u4B-hrlE

Cute vs Money Matrix for Women

[reasonisfaith]

“The entirety of marriage licensed by The State excludes God.”

Almost right. Here’s a better way to state the reality of the situation: The entirety of marriage licensed by The State attempts to exclude God.”

Meanwhile, your statement here fully confirms my premise—that man has turned from God.

Turning from God has changed the behaviors of both men and women. Yes, society has become hostile to men.

But society has also become hostile to women, in giving them the lie of feminism which only brings them sorrow and regret.

[cgbg]

“she should have a decent appearance and be young and fertile. She should also be relatively friendly and co-operative. And that’s about it!”

Agreed.

In the 1950s and 1960s probably two thirds of young women could meet these criteria.

I don’t know the numbers today—but we are probably talking less that one quarter.

[A_perfect_lady]

So you are arguing that we should return to making divorce difficult and rare, as a solution to that problem?!

No, I would never want to return to those days. I'm just saying that our present day situation is a result of more factors than merely women deciding suddenly, and for no apparent reason, that they were desperate to escape the company of men like you.

[FormerFRLurker]

Rather, she should have a decent appearance and be young and fertile. She should also be relatively friendly and co-operative. And that's about it!

I think you and I both know that a woman who is merely young, pretty, fertile, and "co-operative", with no skills in cooking and cleaning, and no interest in children is put in the "mistress zone", not the "wife zone".

You (the women) are supposed to be the "pretty ones" - not we men!

The purpose of sex, from a biological standpoint, is procreation, yes? Overweight men don't just seem more effeminate than fit men; they actually are. Overweight men have higher estrogen levels and lower sperm counts than fit men. Sex with a physically unfit man is a biological dead end. This is not even getting into the unmanly lack of self-discipline that being overweight implies. If a man can't even control his own appetites, he is unfit to lead a household.
Impact of obesity on male fertility

Are there some women who go against this biological imperative and marry fat men? Yes. There are also male fetishists who prefer overweight women to healthy women. However, it is unrealistic to expect all or the majority of women to go against their biology, just as it is unrealistic for feminists to expect men not to care about their wife/girlfriend's weight. Picking a mate is not as bifurcated as you seem to believe. There are some qualities (looks) that help both sexes and some qualities (laziness, whining, self-pity) that hurt both sexes' chances.

As a woman I might quibble over the exact boundaries of the chart and add a z-axis (personality), but T.B. Yoits is essentially correct. There is a "no-go zone", and unfortunately many men are falling into it. Telling them that a well-paying job is enough, as you seem to be doing, isn't helpful. The sort of economy where a man could make enough money to support a non-working wife and kids straight out of high school (or college) is gone and it is not coming back, no matter what Trump does. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just what the reality is for the under-40 set. You might as well advise young men to become phonograph repairmen. The good news is there are two more axes (looks and personality) that men (and women) can work on. I'm not saying it's easy to lose weight or work on one's personality, but it is probably easier than finding a job that supports a family in today's economy.