How many times have teachers heard their students ask, “When am I going to need to know this?” From trigonometry to the periodic table, there are many lessons we learn in school that don’t exactly pop up in real life. We spend hours, years, decades on homework for math and science class…but what about learning the simple equation of boy + girl? What about the finding the happy solution for love + family+ career?

A recent article in the New York Times revealed that Singapore — whose population is shrinking due to an alarmingly low birth rate — is now teaching just such a class. “Love Relations For Life: A Journey of Romance, Love and Sexuality” is a college course designed to teach students the art of finding and maintaining a romantic relationship. The goal is for Singapore’s “desirable” women to marry “desirable” men and populate the country with “desirable” children. It’s actually one of many programs designed by Singapore’s government to encourage educated young people to nurture relationships and have prosperous families as opposed to focusing only on career. From sponsored moonlight cruises to tea party dances, Singapore’s government has practically become a desperate mother, matching up her aging children and then constantly asking, “When will I have grandchildren?”

While the United States may not have a comparable population crisis, our high divorce rate doesn’t exactly suggest that we have it together in the relationship department. What kind of Love Ed, if any, should be offered in U.S. schools? Have you had any such class? What was it like? Did you at least do your homework?

Way to man’s heart = through his left ear.

Quoth FOBG Sarah H.: “Huh, and I always thought it was through his left nostril.”

Single superhero, smart/cute/funny, enjoys world travel and spicy food, seeks that one special reporter who will not get sucked into writing yet ANOTHER unbalanced story about how internet dating is dangerous and SCAAAAAAAAAAARY.

The latest dispatch, from CNN, reports that more and more people (mostly women, I guess) are becoming victims of “romance fraud:” scams by would-be suitors “designed to prey on [their] emotions to get [their] money.” (Wait. Doesn’t that describe the wedding industry? Har.) There’s even a website called RomanceScams.org, with tips for avoiding romance fraud and help for those who fell prey. Founder Barb Sluppick told CNN that the site, now three years old, has over 30,000 members: 833 have reported financial losses totaling $8,244,800.05.

Okay, that’s a lot of money for new “work boots” and (yes) wedding expenses. I’m not saying this info’s not newsworthy or troubling in and of itself, or that people shouldn’t be aware of red flags. (Like, er, being asked for lots of money by someone who “owns a diamond mine.”) But a little context would be nice. Like the fact that Match.com alone has a membership of 15 million, which is a lot more than 833. Or the notion that the Interwebs are not the only domain of scammers, or even of jerks and meanies. Just because you meet someone at a party does not mean he or she is telling the truth about needing help, just this once, with a car payment. Or how about the flipside: that while, yes, heartbreak — sometimes the illegal kind — happens online (and elsewhere), so does the opposite. You know, love and happily ever after. I don’t know why some are still so hellbent on portraying dating sites as some sort of giant maximum security prison network. To the eleven of you who still haven’t tried online dating: be aware, but don’t be scared.

Sometimes people take one look at the name of this website, see the words “breakup” and “.net,” and — without a further glance — think, “Oh! That must be a place that encourages the posting of vengeful, personal, and possibly actionable rants about their exes!” Nope, sorry. That’s YouTube.

This Broadsheet post at Salon.com by FOBG Sarah Hepola is so delightful and spot-on, we’re just going to cut and paste the whole damn thing.

Good news for single women between the ages of 25 and 44 — not only are you a booming demographic, but you also might not be a poor and luckless lonelyheart. Go figure. All this, and you get your own buzzword, too! According to the Guardian:

“‘Freemales’ — manless women who are happy to remain so for the present at least — are now a force to be reckoned with and are overturning the dated Bridget Jones image of the lonely woman staring despondently at an empty Chardonnay bottle. They are too busy living life to the full to make time for ‘Mr Mediocre’ and the last thing on their minds is, ‘Will I find Mr Right today?'”

Well, good for them. I’m always skeptical of these trend pieces, but it’s nice to hear news stories about women who are actually happy with their current situation. Too many articles depict a stricken, desperate existence for us single women. (Lori Gottlieb, anyone?) But not all single women are fumbling for the panic button. In fact, a new report in Britain states that while the number of women living alone between 25 and 44 doubled in the past two decades, “more than two-thirds of people questioned in a recent survey believed they did not need a partner to enjoy a happy and fulfilled life.”

Now, let’s admit that “freemales” is a terrible buzzword. It sounds like the kind of account you get when you join Yahoo. (I have been amusing myself by pronouncing the word like “tamale.” Sorry, just living life to the fullest! You know how we freemales get!) Apparently, I am on the “terrible buzzword” beat: It was only last week I wrote about “thrisis,” the acute anxiety of mid-thirtysomethings freaking out about their future. But since we do so much reporting on what is tough and frustrating and painful about being a woman, I thought it was worthwhile to hear that some news, dumb buzzword notwithstanding, isn’t so bad. As one single woman quoted in the article noted: “It’s not difficult being single. It’s not lonely. It’s pleasurable.”

By the way, in my experience, it is occasionally difficult being single. Rumor has it, that’s true of marriage, too.

The blogosphere is OMGing over Gossip Boy Chace Crawford’s split with Idol darling Carrie Underwood via text message. Sure the couple were dunzo a while azo, but a fresh quote from Carrie over the weekend provided the juicy SMS twist to their “mutual” breakup that has people typing.To us, Charrie (Crawwood?) never seemed so serious that decorum would dictate a face-to-face breakup — especially with C-Bear constantly on tour — but there’s something about texting that suggests “I want to spend as little time on this breakup as possible and use the fewest number of letters.” Ouch. What do people think? Is this the appropriate way to extricate oneself when one of the parties has their own commemorative Louisville Slugger?

Fantastic new study featured in this month’s Psychological Science finds that college-aged men are more likely to misinterpret friendly non-verbal cues for sexual cues than college-aged women. (Um…duh?) The data out of Indiana University and Yale suggests that “women have an advantage when it comes to interpreting facial expressions and body language expressing a variety of emotions, thus are more likely to accurately ID cues for sexual interest.” This contradicts the simpler, more popular theory that young men just tend to over-sexualize everything. The findings excite me for a purely selfish reason: Finally, after so many years of shame, writing the same (not really, but essentially) How to Tell If He’s Interested In You-esque quizzes and articles, I see that they worked! So vindicating. If even one shy co-ed had the cohones to approach the guy ogling her because she recognized his subtle shift into the (very interested) “cowboy stance,” then I have served all of my sisters.

Want to know where all the single people are? Here’s a map. No, really.

Us: Venerable, award-winning website about love, and/or lack thereof, geared for both men and women and combining witty advice with sophisticated comic-strip adventures. We are seeking a new sidekick for help with content on this very blog!
You: Ace reporter, crackerjack writer. Able to spot relationship-related news stories and the clever or insightful angle therein. You should have your own distinct voice and take, but should also be willing to roll with us in terms of style and philosophy. We may also want you to help track and moderate blog comments when necessary. Swinging geeky is good; affinity for superheroes a plus.
Pay: Alas, none. This is a VERY part-time (part-part-time?) pursuit in which you may engage from the privacy of your own home/cafe/McJob.
Payoff: Honing of your voice and your nose for news. Tons of [short] clips. Considerable cachet / street cred! The opportunity to become part of a tight, fun team who will give you glowing references. And, possibly, your very own cartoon alter ego.

If you are interested, please e-mail bg@breakupgirl.net with a resume and writing sample(s).

Thank you!
Team BG

Take one look at this picture and tell me that story is being covered EVERYWHERE out of serious concern for public health. Come on. It’s a CHEERLEADER who DIED during surgery for BREAST augmentation. In the meteorology of sex-and-death-sell headlines, it’s the perfect storm. It would have been enough the young woman had just been, you know, white and blond. But she is also a cheerleader. And oh, do we have a thing about cheerleaders. In high school, they stand to destroy our social lives. In Heroes, they stand to save the world. But while we’re busy thinking about cheerleaders doing everything but leading cheers, they are actually busy being insanely good athletes, performing superheroic stunts like the basket toss and — yes — the Superman. If you need reminding of that, or proof, check out this interview my alter ego did with Kate Torgovnick, author of Cheer!: Three Teams on a Quest for College Cheerleading’s Ultimate Prize. Hint:  the “ultimate prize” is not popularity.