Posted on 11/06/2025 8:47:10 PM PST by 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.
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. ■
In the case of lower-order animals (sea urchins, molluscs, etc.), procreation ends with the release of spermatozoa and ova into the environment. In the case of members of the Class Mammalia, however, some degree of parental investment extending beyond parturition is the rule. In the case of human beings, evolutionary physiology (competition between brain size of the newborn versus limitations on the size of the birth canal to maintain bipedalism) dictates that men, also, invest in the offspring. Evolutionary psychology has dictated that women seek to bind men to themselves so as to ensure continued provisioning and protection both during pregnancy and well after parturition (and generally until the progeny is capable of walking on their own and thus keeping up with the troupe as it moves from place to place, foraging, etc.).
In his The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris speculates at length about the evolution of the female orgasm, the visual conspicuousness of human breasts, and general hairlessness - largely due ultimately to bipedalism (which freed our hands and allowed us to become a tool-making species).
Sorry for the digression, but it's a fascinating topic!
For the last approx. 5,000 years of our history and especially in those societies first touched by the Agricultural Revolution - i.e., ever since it became possible to accumulate wealth, the status of men has increasingly been a function not only of their physical prowess and hunting skills, but of their competence in long-term planning and "governance," of a sort. Though this phenomenon probably didn't really "hit its stride" until the appearance of cities.
This is why women are drawn to powerful (read: high-status) men.
Overt and conspicuous physical deformities, genetic afflictions, or chronic disease will still trump women's attraction to power / celebrity / wealth - but it can't be denied that women are generally willing to overlook, e.g., short stature, or battle wounds, or obesity, if the man demonstrates these other traits.
Class dismissed!
Regards,
Good and interesting comments.
“Status” is of course a subjective trait—but anything that gives a man status in any environment is a major plus in mating strategy.
This can easily cause a lot of trouble—think male professors and female students, male psychiatrists and female patients etc etc etc.
Forgot to add one of my favorites—male clergy and female members of the “flock”.
One woman chose to bind herself to me, bear my children, to place herself under my leadership, and to follow me, and I am perfectly happy with that situation.
As for other women disdaining men like me - I don't know if that is the case; other women are virtually invisible to me, at least with respect to any sort of romantic attraction. And I don't know exactly to which of my many attributes you are referring - I have hitherto mentioned only my provisioning and leadership skills, so your little jab is rather pointless and pitiful.
Regards,
“no skills in cooking”
I had to laugh at that one.
When I met my future wife she had no skills in cooking—primarily because she grew up in a house with several sisters who were excellent at it—and she had other interests.
We talked about it while dating—and she said would like to learn how to cook. I bought her some cookbooks as presents and became the guinea pig for her efforts.
It was kinda fun for both of us—I was an easy to please critic. I used to go to local library sales and just scoop up every cookbook they had (we were relatively poor at the time) and then asked her to try specific things in them. Some were better than others—no big deal.
Decades later she has a whole bookcase of cookbooks of every possible kind—and is an amazing cook.
Bottom line—cooking can be learned if someone wants to do that.
You call that "trouble?!" My tenure as a Liberal Arts professor (adjunct) in a a little college town during the 1980s would have been simply unbearable without that!
And don't be fooled by the "accepted wisdom" that it's about getting an easy "A" in exchange for an easy lay! It's mostly about the female students deluding themselves into believing that the instructors are some kind of demigods.
Regards,
I'm referring to your hours and hours on FR picking fights with anyone unfortunate enough to address you, and your absolute obsession with teaching everyone you address a lesson, and with getting the last word. You claim to have a loving wife. Well, anyone can claim anything on the internet. I have no idea if you're telling the truth. All I can see for sure is that you spend more time on here arguing with people than happy husbands usually do. I find your tone and attitude repulsive. If this is not your normal demeanor in real life, I'd consider that a good thing.
The current trend is showing that if women can take care of themselves they will and as a result, the hostage marriage based on her lack of education, lack of property rights, and inability to obtain credit is dead.
A corollary is that if a man wants to stay married, he should participate as an adult in the activities of daily living and drop the expectation that he is entitled to unlimited domestic labor just because he is male.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/body-fat-percentage-chart-8550202
You don't see "body positivity" promotions aimed at fat men, only morbidly obese women. Any scolding about "body shaming" is aimed at men supposedly "body shaming" women.
It feeds the 49er Syndrome; where women who are 4s believe they're 9s. Obese women feel entitled to fit men.
I agree that many American women are overweight, and of course “body positivity” is complete nonsense for both sexes. However, you’ll find that women have a higher body fat percentage than men in every society, not just the US. Pregnancy requires a certain percentage of body fat, which is why very thin women cease menstruating. Until men start having the babies (i.e. never) women will have a higher body fat percentage.
I was thinking of those who don’t know how to cook and have no interest in learning. Glad you and your wife are happy.
A_perfect_lady: I'm referring to your hours and hours on FR picking fights with anyone unfortunate enough to address you, and your absolute obsession with teaching everyone you address a lesson, and with getting the last word. You claim to have a loving wife. Well, anyone can claim anything on the internet. I have no idea if you're telling the truth. All I can see for sure is that you spend more time on here arguing with people than happy husbands usually do. I find your tone and attitude repulsive. If this is not your normal demeanor in real life, I'd consider that a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.