Young singles searching for love in Boston, say, have it hard enough. Now — societal age preferences and demographic clusters being what they are — try being a 50-year-old single mom in a Granite State “bedroom community,” where much of the nightlife likely consists of driving two hours from Boston and going to … bed. With that, we bring you this week’s installment — now on Mondays!* — of Ask Lynn, the advice column penned by BG’s alter ego at MSN.com (powered by Match.com). This week we meet “Searching in New Hampshire,” who, well, there you go.

She’s got two grown kids plus a 9-year-old — and room in her heart for a fella. Her hope both wanes — “I’m starting to feel that I need to move…as everyone around here is either married or in a relationship with women my age who don’t have younger kids” — and waxes: “I still feel that there must be men out there who like kids or have never had children and would like to experience them without the baby/toddler phase or miss having children around the house now.”

Yes, there must. And they are not made of wood. Or granite.

What suggestions — and reassurance — does Lynn have for Searching? Read the whole exchange, and then come back here to add your own!

* Our latest season of all-new adventures wrapped up a few Mondays ago >sniff< ! Stay tuned for more!

News from The American Sociological Association: “For years, researchers have known that adults who have swapped rings say they are healthier than their never-married peers are. According to a recent study, though, singles are catching up when it comes to good health.”

Among self-reports by adults ages 25 to 80, never-married folks reported a quality of health close to that of all those hale and glowing married folks in the New York Times.

But wait! The ASA article is all about “never-married adults” and “people” and otherwise gender-neutralicious until paragraph 5. Then this: “This narrowing health gap between the married and the never married applies only to men, but not women.” Hey! No fair burying the lede, and … no fair! The piece also doesn’t mention that the apparent health benefits of marriage apply predominately to men in the first place.

(more…)

Last week we told you that the top five cities for meeting men over 35 were spread throughout the country (#1: San Jose, #2: Salt Lake City, #3: Raleigh). Now the New York Daily News suggests that landing a man on the Eastern seaboard isn’t as tough as all that. In fact, New York has been ranked the #2 state to land a single guy, edged out only by Washington, DC. (Hey wait! That’s not technically a STATE! No fair!) According to the News, “there are currently 3.9 million men in New York City, and 35% of them are single.” Too bad there’s also 4.3 million women also living in the city, with nearly 70% of them being unmarried. (So, um, why isn’t the article — or, like, any article ever — about the best region for meeting single WOMEN, hrmm?). Apparently, though, a little move upstate will do some additional good to your odds: in Albany, 75% of men — and 75% of women — are single. (Now does someone want to do a study on why political cities are such singlesfests?)

Meanwhile, over at CNNMoney.com: Hoboken, NJ shows the most single people with 57.7%, followed by Cambridge, MA; Somerville, MA; Berkeley, CA; and Boston, MA (hello, college town). Albany appears at #15; New York City doesn’t show up at all.

Man. If only there were some sort of map. Oh, wait.

This week on Oprah.com (via Men’s Health): The five best cities to meet men over 35. (They don’t say how much over.) Here, we’ll spoil the slideshow: the winners are … San Jose, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, San Francisco, and Arlington “FUN CENTRAL”(tm) TX. Hmm! Perhaps our own “Feeling Rejected” should consider becoming (if she’s not already) a massive Rangers fan?

P.S. While we’re on the website, props to Oprah for addressing abuse in relationships. Say what you want about her weepy (or jumpy) couch confessions, or Dr. Phil, you can’t deny that when she talks, people — including people with something they need to hear — listen.

Here is this week’s installment of Ask Lynn, the advice column that BG’s alter-ego writes for MSN.com (powered by Match.com). This week, Lynn responds to a letter from Daria, who is quite content being single.

But if she’s happy without a partner, why write? Could she be lying?

Definitely not! But Daria needs to know that loving her independence does not preclude loving someone else; Oh, and not every guy is going to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars from you.

It’s a must-read. Then, when you come back here, a must-comment!

Ah, the eternal bachelor. The man who’ll never settle down, the man with many labels: “player,” “commitment-phobe,” “jerk!” — and now, according to new research, a big ole scaredy-cat. Turns out most bachelors out there aren’t necessarily afraid of marriage; they’re just afraid of a bad marriage.

Carl Weisman, a bachelor himself at 49 — and sick of being stereotyped for his status — set out to discover the reason why more and more eligible men are in their early 40s are choosing to stay single (reportedly up from 6 percent in 1980 to 17 percent today). The result: his new book, So Why Have You Never Been Married?: 10 Insights Into Why He Hasn’t Wed. “Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all,” Weisman told Reuters. “It’s so important to these men to get it right.” Yaaah, but isn’t seeking perfection — as some of the bachelors in his study claim they are — the, um, perfect way to remain a bachelor?

Though I generally loathe “Ladies! It’s still possible to get married after [X advanced age]!” stories — maybe we don’t want to get married at any age? Maybe, like George Clooney, we want to stay single for life? And that’s so sad and weird because? — I did, in fact, read this entire USA Today article and will now force it upon you, too.

What I was intrigued to find out was not that it is (“Ladies!”) still possible to get married for the first time after age 45 and that growing numbers of people are doing just that, but rather this: that the CDC tracks this information.

 As in: “A tally by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is available just for a 20-year period, 1970 to 1990, shows that in 1990, only 0.4% of women and 0.6% of men married for the first time at ages 45 to 49.” Huh. I thought the CDC tracked (not to mention controlled and prevented), you know, diseases — where one might still find the plague, for example. I’m not sure what this means for marriage. Pox, anyone?

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.

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

Here at BreakupGirl.net, we talk a lot about the challenges of finding love when you are shy, when you have low self-esteem, when you don’t look like society’s ideal single, when you live in a small town, when you’re spinning your wheels in a romance rut. But what about finding — and keeping — love when you know that at some dreaded point, just when things were going so awesome, you’re going to have to say, “There’s something I have to tell you”?

At this point, the news that anyone has a sexually-transmitted infection (STI) should not be a shocker. STIs are, in fact, shockingly common. (At least half of sexually active men and women get HPV at some point in their lives, for example.) Yet matter how “out” people are these days about Asperger’s or therapy or whatever they take to help them sleep, the stigma against STIs — and the 19 million people who have them — remains as virulent and pervasive as the infections themselves. They are, after all, about sex — stereotypically, about casual, anonymous, unprotected sex; about (also stereotypically!) skeevy sores where the sun don’t shine. Just look at the vernacular: people who say they’ve tested negative for STIs commonly call themselves “clean.” Opposite: “dirty.” Carriers of STIs: they’re seen (WRONGLY, let’s be clear) as slutty, stupid, damaged goods. (This despite the facts: you can, of course, get infected from your first and only partner; condoms may not provide 100% protection.)

Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a place, a magical place, where people with STIs never had to have The Talk? Where they could make friends — even find lovers — knowing that no one would judge them, never mind dump them, over a stroke of bum luck and the occasional cold sore?

(more…)