Hi Michael,

As usual, a powerful and thought-provoking post!

> First, ARE the number of singles increasing
> for real? Or is what is called
> "single" covering a wider area?

> If you're engaged (whether you live together
> or not) or are involved and therefore
> "spoken for" (whether you're
> living together or not), you are, in my
> opinion, not single.

> However, as you're not married, technically
> you're single.

That's a great point....

I think that most people are going by the marriage data - that a much fewer percentage of people are married now than people in a similar age range 20 years ago.

As you point out, that doesn't mean that they aren't "spoken for" in some way....

In that case, while *technically* they are "single," in reality they are not....

If you took this into account, would the results be different? And Michael, I bet you're right, they could be!

> Having said that, lets assume the definition
> of what is single has stayed the same and
> the increase is percentage based.

> The question was "Why?".

> One reason is

> Burning Bras.

> Women have been conned into believing they
> should go out and work.

> I say "conned" because I cannot
> comprehend any women who, when given the
> choice of long work hours or "honey you
> stay home and let me do all the hard work
> and provide for you and look after
> you", would choose to work.

> Me not understanding Why a person would
> choose to work over being looked after
> doesn't stop it from happening though. So
> that's one reason.

> It means, no longer does a girl/women get
> married and let the man provide. She now
> "Works".

> Her goal shifts from finding a mate (only
> briefly mind you - you can't fool nature) to
> a career. And that means less time for boys,
> for the time being.

Yes, there's been a big cultural shift....

Trying to look at it from a woman's point of view (even though I'm a man), I think there's a big increase in freedom for women in many ways....

I think women are still generally free not to have a career if they choose not to. (At least that's my impression....)

Where women have much more freedom now is in economic freedom. Because today's woman tends to have a career, I think money probably plays a smaller role in her decision to go out with a guy than it did 50 years ago....

There are highly successful women, though, who choose to leave their careers after having a child....

My cousin (in the US) has very strong views regarding women's liberation etc. She had a highly successful position working in government and politics, she was one of the people who actually was drafting new laws.

The system in the USA is that the President and Congress set out the general idea of what a new law should say, and then people like her draft the actual details. It was an important position....

I visited them (her and her husband) in 1998. What I saw when I was visiting was she was working almost without a break.... If she was *lucky* she could take Sunday off - but often she had to work on Sunday along with every other day of the week....

But last year my cousin gave birth to a baby girl. She left her highly prestigious job in government and politics, to devote her time fully to her child.... She doesn't miss her career at all.... And remember, she is a woman with strong feminist views....

Feminism has probably changed some of the nature of relationships compared to 50 years ago....

From a male view, it can be perplexing. Just being like our dads doesn't work as well any more, since the world is changing....

However, if you try to look at it from a woman's point of view, I can see the advantages they see.... Even though it means more work, it also means more economic power, and therefore more freedom of choice....

> Another reason stems from modern technology.

> We now have more and more entertainments.
> And easier access to information about
> entertainments and other things.

> Years ago a girl might not have known what
> the latest fashions coming out of Europe
> were. But now, she can't not know. It
> screams at her from the magazine rack, it
> screams at her from the TV. If she wants to
> stay "hip" and "up to
> date" with the fashion world, she needs
> money.

> To feed her fashion addiction to the extent
> she's been brainwashed by the fashion
> houses, she needs a source of income. That
> means a careers (less time for boys) and the
> schooling to get the career (less time for
> boys).

> So she stays single, longer.

That's an excellent point!

The fashion world has a real coup going. What's the "in" fashion changes every year, so fashionable people feel a need to buy a whole new set of clothes every year just to keep up....

> Also, the desire to follow the fashion
> trends makes a woman less-attractive to a
> guy. So they guy want them less.

> Girls... want to know what looks good on
> you? Ask a real man, don't listen to lesbian
> fashion magazine editors and poofter
> clothing designers.

> Hint: Marilyn Monroe wasn't a sex-symbol for
> nothing. And I cannot imagine her being
> thought of as "sexy" if she'd worn
> clogg-heeled shoes, hipster-flare pants and
> a boy hair style.

You're right! Most guys, I think, want a woman who looks like a woman.... Fashion supermodels generally don't have womanly curves, yet that's what most men still want....

Each man's individual preferences of course differs (just like women's preferences differ too).... What one man finds attractive might not be what another man does.... The world has far more diverse preferences than the fashion magazines say!

> Really though, you'd have to get inside
> their head to know what could be available.

> Pet care? Do they even own pets?

> House/flat cleaning? They may not like
> giving the key to someone to come in and
> clean while they're out enjoying their
> hyper-spending-and-consuming lifestyle.

> Personaly I'd go with something they are
> already spening money on.

> Singles Club? Maybe. Maybe not. They may be
> too engrossed in their career to bother
> hitting the singles clubs. Besides, they're
> single cause they aren't doing too much in
> the way of finding a mate. It could bea good
> idea for when they're ready to "settle
> down".

Have you heard of "speed dating"? It's been in the news a few times.... It seems like an interesting trend, which may fit in with the "singles" thing, as well as the general lack of time....

The idea is that you go to a dinner, where you get to meet everyone of the opposite sex, each for exactly 7 minutes.... After 7 minutes of quick conversation, you have to move on to the next one....

At the end of the night, you rate on your card which people you'd like to meet again. Then, if they have also listed you, you can contact each other....

This idea seems to have really caught on! When I first heard about it, I thought that maybe I should start something like this in my city.... :)

> Home delivered "insert item here".

> Food - they're too busy to cook, or were
> never taught how.
> Entertainments - save them time browsing the
> video store shelves by delivering the videos
> to their door. Assuming nothing good is on
> HBO :o)
> Dry Cleaning - pick it up and deliver it.

> Whatever. Find something they're spending
> money on already and that'll make your life
> a heck of a lot easier when getting in to
> this market.

> Keep an eye out for things which are taking
> off, and which aren't in your area yet. Then
> transplant it to your area.

> Live in a university town? Then find out
> what's taking off for university students
> and bring it to your town - or take it to a
> university town that doesn't have it yet.
> You get the idea.

That's a great way to look at it! University towns are full of singles, and full of services to cater for them.

> Researching this market should reveal all
> the opportunities you'll ever need.

Thanks Michael.... That was full of great ideas!

- Dien