Photo from Depositphotos: Cat draws a line.

A single man (“Bill”) saves up his money and buys a house with a swimming pool. His brother, sister-in-law and three children want to come over to swim. Bill says no: I don’t want to be responsible for the safety of children who tend to be uncontrollable. The brother waits for a time when Bill won’t be home and sneaks the family in to use the pool. Bill comes home to find these unauthorized users.

“Alice,”  a happy single childless woman, faces her sister’s request: “Can you watch the kids for a few hours while my husband and I go off for date night?” Alice says, “I have to be somewhere else at eight. This is firm.” The sister says, “Why? You don’t have any obligations; you’re just being selfish.” The parents came home several hours late, having turned their phones off as soon as they left.

More stories about annoying relatives? They’re really stories about a critical skill that happy single people learn. They’re based on a very funny YouTube video series “JK Stealing the Internet” that in turn is based on the Reddit group, “Am I the A——?” 

“Bill” actually called the police. The cops came, viewed security videos of the family sneak-in, and issued a citation and warning.  

 “Alice” had to make calls to change her plans. The parents didn’t come home when they promised and even shut off their phones so Alice couldn’t call them.

Both “Alice” and “Bill” set boundaries. Bill enforced his; Alice didn’t. Many commenters thought Alice also should have reported the children as abandoned; after all, it’s hardly responsible to turn off your phone when you have a babysitter.

Being willing to call the police may sound extreme. But many single people are probably cheering for Bill – not because he called the police, but because he enforced a boundary. And setting boundaries is a skill that happy single people learn and use. 

Why do we need boundaries?   

Coupled people make all kinds of assumptions about single people. They assume they can influence our time, home, vacation, and priorities. They assume we can be counted on as a free resource to help them. That’s because they assume if you don’t have a spouse and kids, you have infinite time on your hands, and you’d love to help with their children.

Bella DePaulo has a laugh-aloud story in her book, Single at Heart, about assumptions people make that aren’t as serious but are extremely common. 

 It was the day after 9/11, and she’d been on the phone all day.  She was exhausted when a neighbor called to say, “I was thinking about you being all alone and thought you’d want someone to talk to.” Obviously the neighbor associated “single” with “being alone” or even “lonely.”

An Essential Superpower You Can Learn

So based on these stories, and others too painful to tell, I’d say the number one superpower of successful single people is establishing boundaries. Boundaries come with an “or else” that can be as mild as saying “no” and walking away or as strong as calling the police.

You’re inviting me on a group vacation where all the single people share a room? That’s a firm “No. I’m not coming.”
You asked me an invasive personal question? Keep doing this and we’re no longer friends.
I’m supposed to eat at the kids’ table because I’m single? I just remembered I have to be someplace else.

Sure, some friends and families react badly. Setting a boundary carries risk. But what does the relationship look like when people don’t respect your boundaries? Will they keep pushing you and testing your limits for years to come?  Do they see you as a mature, responsible, independent adult? 

For me, one “no” answer is enough to disqualify them from having a place in my life. You’ll have to decide on your own. Going along just to keep the peace? It’ll be much harder to set boundaries later on.

Setting boundaries isn’t mean.  You’re educating others about their assumptions.

For a long time, those assumptions weren’t challenged. If you were a spinster, you were a sad little person who couldn’t find someone to take care of you. If you were a bachelor, you were a carefree, selfish person who loved playing “rich uncle” to other people’s children.

Alas, many otherwise intelligent people hold fast to these stereotypes. Not everyone has read a book on single people.

Fortunately, this superpower of setting boundaries is a skill that can be learned, even if it can be challenging at first. It doesn’t have to be something you’re born with.  I’ve seen what happens when single people first experience the joy that comes from the power of taking control of their own lives, gaining more freedom than they believed was possible.

The post People Who Are Happily Single Have Learned This Superpower appeared first on .

Image by Andriyko Podilnyk on Unsplash.

Recently, I’ve been seeing an unfortunate trend among articles and posts celebrating the joys of solitude. They see being alone not as a joyful opportunity, but as an escape from being around people, dealing with noise, holding political conversations, and more. This approach views solitude as withdrawing from the world, not as freedom to do what you enjoy in your own company.

Don’t get me wrong. I love staying home. Currently, I’m down to one cat who doesn’t like other cats, but for over 20 years I had 2 cats and a dog. After years of moving around, I now have a top-floor condo that is as quiet as a retreat house.  I can easily spend a day working on my latest writing project and learning Italian by reading giallos – Italian detective stories.

But there’s a misconception that single people want to be alone *all* the time. That is false. Single people tend to be more active in community associations, as Robert Putnam points out in the iconic book Bowling Alone.  Bella DePaulo goes even further in her book Single at Heart, pointing out that single people act as caretakers for their loved ones, volunteer, and have lots of friends. We’re not just an adult version of “Home Alone 5.”

There’s also a misconception that choosing to be alone means rejecting components of being in the world. People who embrace the single identity are saying “yes,” not “no.” Not just “no more irritating political conversations” or “no more boring dates.” We’re saying “yes to more silence in our lives” and “yes to making creative choices.”

Let’s face it: without reasons to get out and about, staying home would feel like serving a sentence under house arrest. Being snowbound is fun for a day or two, and then it becomes a trap. Even during quarantine, I went for long walks and to safe outdoor places, like farmers markets.

There’s no denying that solitude and a day alone can be a real gift. It’s why so many of us single people look forward to the holidays. We turn down invitations to eat turkey in the company of others in favor of a day doing exactly what we want.

Years ago, I spent a Thanksgiving holiday reading a murder mystery in the dog park while my dog played happily with her pack. When people asked what I was doing to celebrate, I lied and told them I would be going out in the evening.

But I find myself getting nervous when people say they’re staying home to avoid the bad parts of being in the world. Even desert hermits had a community. I want to think of time alone as a valve that opens and closes…not one that shuts out the world 24/7.

The post Being home alone doesn’t mean shutting out the world. appeared first on .

Photo by Rita E on Pixabay.

“If I had a partner, I could…”

A lot of posts by single people writing about their lives begin this way. For instance:

“If I had a partner, I could take a leave of absence from my job while I figure out what to do next

“If I had a partner, I could have a shoulder to cry on when I come home after a bad day.”

“If I had a partner, I would have someone to stay with me during a health crisis.”

These statements are true…sometimes. But each time I want to write a response:

If you had a partner, you might be under even more pressure to maintain a steady income. Your style of living might call for two incomes. Your partner could be laid off involuntarily. 

If you share your bank account, your partner might develop a gambling addiction or a belief in retail therapy. 

Years ago, my friend “Irene” was offered a job with more pay and prestige than her current one. To her surprise, her husband tried to dissuade her. He attacked her self-esteem: “Are you really ready to do that job?” 

Fortunately, she had a therapist and several friends who encouraged her to accept the job, where she performed magnificently.  

A male friend told me he wants a partner who will give him a delicious, nutritious hot meal every evening. I wished him luck. Some partners can’t be trusted to boil an egg.

A female friend confided that her husband was useless at hanging pictures and giving her rides to medical appointments; she loved him, but he wasn’t the answer to her everyday problems.

And not every partner will be supportive after a bad day. Theirs might be even worse.

Don’t get me wrong. I know people who were happily married for forty or fifty years, to the same person. They love their lives. 

And it’s not always smart to make decisions based on how you answer the question, “What’s the worst that can happen?” 

But it’s also not wise to look only at the positive. People write to advice columnists: “My spouse wasn’t there when I needed him.” Or, “My spouse was so supportive when we first married. She’s changed so much in the past year.”

How I’d Answer 

Here’s how I’d answer these posts, based on my credentials as a certified single person and casual observer of the coupled world:

First, if you want to be single, recognize the trade-off. When you hit a rough spot, you won’t have a partner. But you won’t have someone to make it worse either.

Happily single people can be remarkably self-sufficient. They know how to navigate life. They know when to DIY and when to hire help. I’ve heard my fellow singles say, “I’d rather live in a small, cramped apartment and be alone than live in a big house and share space.” 

We make our own choices.  I rarely spend time and money eating out, but it would take a death threat for me to give up my cleaning service.  

Second, be aware that partners don’t come with guarantees. You might be one of those with a 50-year happy marriage. 

Or you might be like “Jane,” who seemed to have everything going for her – a beautiful child, a fantastic house, a happy family life – all dissolved in a memorable, messy divorce. Or your life can come apart when a partner loses a job, becomes long-term disabled, or even dies.  

Some coupled people recognize the nature of the gamble, like my friend “Ann,” who had always made herself marketable and kept her own stash of funds. When her husband came home one day and announced, “I want out,” she was devastated but not destroyed.  

So for coupled people, the answer lies in knowing you can function if your world falls apart. For single people, it’s keeping fairy godmothers and Prince Charmings out of the planning process.   

The post “If I Had a Partner… Maybe. Maybe Not.” appeared first on .

Photo from Parsley Ball on Pixabay.

Why shared housing isn’t always better than aging solo.

Recently, the New York Times published an article about the “golden girls” lifestyle as a model for elder housing.  Earlier Chip Conley posted in LinkedIn, ” The Coming Explosion of “Golden Girls Housing.” I’ve known women who said they’d love to have a housing situation like the Golden Girls. 

“Golden Girls” was a TV show that ran for seven years, ending when one of the lead actors decided to opt out. The concept has become iconic: Golden Girls is a synonym for women over 50 sharing a home as roommates.

Home-sharing works very well for some people. But is it realistic to plan for a Golden Girls lifestyle…especially if you’re single and/or happily living alone? 

First and foremost: the Golden Girls weren’t lifelong singles. Three were widowed, and one was divorced.  They were accustomed to sharing a home with a spouse and possibly children.

That demographic alone makes them very different from the increasing numbers of people who are single and/or live alone.

Can people who have long preferred living alone realistically expect to enjoy sharing a house simply because they’re older? 

I have not seen research on this specific topic: how do people transition from living solo to living with others? 

However, the Mather Institute reports a German article finding that older couples prefer to live apart rather than inhabit shared space. It seems likely that if even romantic couples prefer to live apart as they age, friends would hold even stronger preferences

The Golden Girls were not very old. They were young and active. 

When the show started, three of the four characters were in their early fifties. They held jobs, had no chronic medical conditions, easily got around, and lived comfortably. They had spent significant portions of their adult lives learning to live with others, as wives and sometimes mothers. 

I’ve seen people present the Golden Girls model as a solution to loneliness.  But living alone doesn’t mean you have to be lonely. 

A Forbes article quotes Maria Claver, director of California State University Long Beach’s Gerontology program.  She cites the statistics correlating loneliness with death and suggests that living alone “contributes” to the “loneliness epidemic.”

That article was written seven years ago, so her position may have changed. However, an awful lot of people live alone and love it. 

Many people confuse solitude with loneliness. Studies of people living alone tend to omit the question: Do you want to live alone? Or are you forced to live alone when you’d rather be with others? I suspect those who enjoy living alone don’t feel they’re  part of the “loneliness epidemic.” According to Bella DePaulo, happily single people express a need for “alone time.” They look forward to spending long periods of time completely alone. 

 According to Forbes, Claver says that the Golden Girls benefited from helping each other when they went through medical crises. People who choose to live alone voluntarily soon learn how to develop resources to help themselves through these temporary crises. Anyway, living with others won’t guarantee they’ll be there to help like the Golden Girls. 

Like most TV shows, the Golden Girls leaves out the hard parts.

Roommates don’t always find instant compatibility. People have widely different tolerances for cleanliness, noise, and privacy.  As a television show, Blanche’s cast of rotating boyfriends was funny; in real life, roommates would be concerned about safety and privacy. 

And in real life, you need a good lawyer behind any shared housing situation, for both landlord and tenant. You don’t want to live with someone who’s become difficult and you don’t want to be out on the street because the landlord had a change of heart…or a bad day.

Choose your tradeoffs.

Shared housing works remarkably well for some people. They’re willing to do the work, get legal and financial advice, and make compromises. 

People who choose to live alone make different tradeoffs.  A studio apartment may seem tight if you’ve always lived alone in a big house,  but it may be more comfortable to have those cramped quarters all to yourself. 

Happiness requires a location where you have access to resources like public transit, taxis, takeout food, health care, and grocery delivery. People are genuinely different: as I write in my book on moving, sometimes the grass really is greener. Some places are more conducive to friends and your preferred lifestyle.. 

The Golden Girls was a popular TV show. That’s all it was.  Shared housing can be wonderful. But it’s still shared housing—not a sitcom.

Suggesting that shared housing will be like the Golden Girls is about as real as a fairy tale, or as real as believing that Carrie Bradshaw of Sex and the City (another popular show) could buy a closet full of designer shoes on a newswriter’s salary. It doesn’t compute. 

The post None of the Golden Girls were single. And for some of us, that’s a deal-breaker. appeared first on .

Image by Lars van Pouke on Unsplash.

Why Robert Putnam’s famous book says less about loneliness and remote work than many people assume.

“Twenty-six years after Robert Putnam warned that Americans were bowling alone, many of us are now typing alone.” 

That’s what a New York Times opinion piece warned us, a piece written by co-authors of an enormous study published in Science. The authors suggest that remote working will lead to increased mental distress, presumably triggered by being alone. Living alone, they say, makes the situation even worse.

Citing a widely read book adds authority to a viewpoint, especially when you join it to a catchy phrase like “typing alone.”

But these authors are making a common mistake: they’re borrowing a famous phrase that can take on a meaning well beyond what their authors originally intended. 

I saw this a while back when business storytellers were told to be vulnerable – just like Brene Brown.  But Brene Brown never said, “Share your story with customers.” She actually talked about setting boundaries and taking risks.  

Similarly, the phrase “bowling alone” has come to symbolize loneliness and personal isolation. But the book is about the decline of social capital: the pool of people you can call on for unpaid help. He argues that social capital used to be created by institutions that brought people together on a regular basis: card playing, churches, family dinners, volunteerism, and, of course bowling leagues.    

What the book actually says

“Bowling alone” doesn’t mean that people will literally bowl alone. He’s talking about the loss of bowling leagues where people repeatedly saw each other.

Putnam himself suggests that we can’t look to the face-to-face workplace to generate much social capital.  “Most studies of personal networks,” he says, “find that co-workers account for less than 10 percent of our friends. Workplace ties tend to be casual and enjoyable, but not intimate and deeply supportive.” 

Gaining social capital isn’t tied to marital status or living alone.   In fact, the book says, “married people tend to be homebodies.” Households are more isolated from one another and people living in households tend to spend their time watching television instead of building relationships. 

Married people with children are more likely to be involved in church. But marriage and children are “negatively correlated with memberships” in business, professional, and service clubs – established ways to create social capital.

Putting the book in context

Bowling Alone seems to be written about a time of transition in society. Many institutions that generated social capital have declined or disappeared entirely. More people are choosing to remain single and/or live alone. The traditional family – married couple and children – has become a minority. Union membership and card playing are unlikely to make a comeback.

But in the years since cellphones became popular,  new ways of connecting have emerged – options that didn’t exist when Putnam wrote the book:  coworking spaces, improv drama troupes, book clubs, and more popular fitness centers. 

And yes, we’re seeing more remote working. Jobs have changed. The workplace has changed. 

Contemporary focus on loneliness

The phrase “bowling alone” has become iconic. But we rarely talk about the book’s underlying premise – the loss of social capital. 

Putnam seems to view this decline as negative, but I’m not so sure, For example, we used to need social capital so we could get food when we couldn’t get out; we needed a ride when the car broke down and public transit wasn’t an answer. 

But now we can purchase, for very reasonable prices,  all kinds of food delivery services and ride shares. A busy friend might easily wonder, “Why don’t they just call Uber or Uber Eats?”  

Many of us have experienced enormous changes in the roles and expectations of friends and family. As people get more complex lives, they may no longer be willing or available to be part of someone else’s social capital. To take a familiar but simple example, you may wish for social capital to get a ride home from the hospital when your friends’ families no longer include a non-working spouse.  

Perhaps most importantly, the mental distress of living and working alone may be a temporary condition as people learn to make new kinds of social connections that don’t depend on the traditional methods. 

We may have simply decided to replace bowling leagues not with bowling alone, but with bowling with others on a mutually convenient schedule. Less catchy but more realistic.

The post We’re Not Bowling Alone. We’re Bowling on Our Own Schedule. appeared first on .

Image by Catherine Heath on Unsplash.

My primary care doctor – who I really like – is moving. And, as a single person, I’m a little nervous about my next step in the medical system.

I usually turn to the Internet when I have a question.  What insights can I get when it comes to health care and being single?

I started with the prompt “gay people seeking medical care.” My doctor was gay and I know that’s another stigmatized group. It would be a good baseline for comparison.

These days, search results come with AI-generated summaries. This one said:

The post What AI Told Me About Single People and Health Care appeared first on .

Image by artellliii72 on Pixabay.

I’ve read so many posts lately that begin this way

“I could use some help in making decisions.”
“I wish I had someone to share the rent.”
“I got some really bad news and I’d like to share.”

Comments like these arise from a certain set of beliefs. “Partners provide help. I want help, so I want a partner. I see couples X, Y and Z. I want what they have.”

But while I enjoy these people and look forward to spending time with them, I don’t envy them, even for a minute. I’m an example of what Bella DePaulo calls “single at heart.” I’ve always known that I’d be my own best source of support.

I know several people who are happily married or living with supportive partners. They help each other make decisions, share funds and are there for each other.

But people sometimes mistake a desire for support, companionship, guidance, or practical help for a desire for a romantic partner”

I’ve come to see that embarking on a relationship often fails to fill the dream of assuming something constant. It’s easy to believe that finding a partner means finding someone who will be the solution to many problems, from getting new tires to the car to disposing of a dead mouse to proviing emotional support for a crisis or decision.

In fact, they’re placing at least three bets that a partner will be the answer.

The first bet is that your partner will always be there for you.

Your partner pitches in to make decisions, shoulder some burdens, pay their share, and above all, be a major source of support.

And then something happens. They decide to leave. They become unavailable. Maybe they’ve always been the breadwinner and now they lost their job, as well as their motivation to find another one.

The partner left standing has to learn new skills. They’ve never been alone before. They don’t know how to do the things their partner did.

“Janice” seemed to have a storybook marriage to a great guy. She posted about their romance with evocative lines about their great sex life. He seemed to be a perfect father. And now she’s divorced. It was messy. She said she’d been suffering for years. He said she was unfaithful. We’ll never know.

But if you’d taken a snapshot during the years she was married, you’d think she had everything. But if you’d taken another snapshot right after the divorce, the picture would have been very different.

The second bet is that your partner will be helpful and supportive.

I knew” Nancy” as a teaching colleague from way back when I was a professor. She was married to a handsome professional I’ll call “Vince.” They had three lovely children.

Nancy was really good at her job and soon applied to a more prestigious university for a more competitive position. The application process was getting rough. It would be easy to think, “At least she has a husband to support her.”
But in fact, Vince’s comments lowered her self-confidence. “You might be getting in over your head,” he said. “Are you sure you’re qualified?”

Nancy got the job and went on to win awards and promotions. I lost track of her for many years and when I came across her online presence, she was listed as “divorced.”

The third bet is that your partner will remain as the the person you chose.

Your partner might start out as a rock you can count on. But they might undergo a personality change. They might be affected by a traumatic experience or a mental illness. They might do something illegal.

You not only lose a supportive resource. You have to step up to deal with a new set of problems, and ths time you’re on your own. That happened to someone I met; they became their spouse’s caregiver after a dementia diagnosis.

In a less extreme example, I heard a talk show episode, one partner decides to join the police force; the other had never considered being in in a relationship with a cop. It would mean round-the-clock stress, late nights alone and a change to the partner’s psychological state.

An end to couple envy

A lot of single people honestly believe that having a partner will make life easier. Sometimes it does, as long as you understand the assumptions you’re making.

Some of those singles are actively looking for a partner; some mostly enjoy the single life but have occasional “if only” twinges. Those of us who are single at heart (the term used by Bella DePaulo) rarely if ever have those moments, especially if we’ve been single all our lives.

So yes, the belief system often works. I’ve heard people say, “My partner is my rock and my best friend.”

But saying “I need help” doesn’t always lead to the conclusion, “I need a partner to help.” Sometimes the partner can’t or won’t help. Many of us “single at heart” people have learned to say, “I need a solution to a problem.”

In her books and videos, Bella DePaulo says, “Married people have The One. Single people have The Ones.” That way if one resource becomes unavailable you have another one. And you’ve learned to identify solutions in the community beyond looking to the One Partner. Som

Ironically, strong people also attract the best partners. When you lean on someone too heavily they’ll break. And usually when that happens you’re almost always much worse than you were before.

The post “Here’s where I could use a partner…” appeared first on .

Photo by. Cihan-Cimen on Pexels.

A few days ago the WSJ ran an article about aging alone. They described ONE 65-year-old person who lived alone in a house in Boston. She had just been through back surgery and heart surgery and was still recovering. She has a roster of friends who visit regularly.

I find this article distressing because it paints a one-sided, misleading picture of aging solo. It’s ludicrous to show the life of one person in detail with the editorial note, “Here’s what it’s like.” The implication is that she’s typical, when in fact the millions of people who will age alone are extremely diverse.

The post Aging Solo: Do you have to be miserable? appeared first on .

From Depositphotos.

 The Missing Question in the Research on Aging Alone

A recent article from the AARP represents an example of research that distorts the reality of single people who choose to live alone. The article focuses on people who are “aging solo.”  A sociology professor from the Institute for Health & Aging at UCSF calls it an “unprecedented” change…a reality check that times have changed.” 

The article gets that right, but distorts the perception of solo agers in two ways. 

First, and most seriously, the article lumps together people who are voluntarily single with those who are formerly coupled. 

There’s no indication that the researchers asked anyone – including the “never married” – how they feel about living alone. Are they living alone because they value solitude or are they forced by circumstances? Do they feel fulfilled or have they embraced the belief that being single is a deficit? 

And are people who have lived alone a long time different from those who have just begun to be alone (e.g., newly divorced) and have not yet learned the skills of singlehood, whether they want to or not?

And second, the research fails to address two key questions. Are these problems specific to solo agers or do they reflect the problems common to Americans of all ages and household sizes? And second, do these problems reflect the amount of time people have lived alone? 

Problems of lumping “live alones” together

For example, the article says that two in five – 40% of the sample – said the worst parts of aging alone were “loneliness and isolation.”   

Fair enough. But here’s the catch. The study – with 503 single subjects –  included “never-married, divorced, separated or widowed.” No distinction was made for those who were voluntarily single – what Bella DePaulo calls “single at heart.” No distinction was made for those who had been “divorced, separated, or widowed.” 

Even the “never married” aren’t always single by choice.  You can live a very coupled life without getting married. And some people live a lifetime of regret, feelings of failure and a sense of missing something. 

 We don’t know if formerly married missed their ex-spouses, resented living alone (and lacked the skills to be single even if they wanted to), and maybe searched for a new spouse, as compared to those who never looked back and were now happily single with no plans to date or marry again. 

So let’s look at that number: 40% report feelings of “loneliness and isolation.” Therefore it’s statistically possible that 100% of those who resent their solo status feel lonely, while zero percent of the “single at heart” report those feelings. 

We don’t know whether that’s true. However, the study design makes it impossible to tell.

It’s not just solo agers – it’s the general population

The article assumes certain problems are unique to solo agers, when actually they are found among the general population. 

For example, the article points out that many solo agers have no plan and no resources for a health crisis, like a heart attack. 

But we can compare answers from people who don’t live alone. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 53% of Americans over 50 had a will, and 76% of those over 75. 

They also asked the research question, “Do solo agers feel financial stress?” And of course the answer is “yes.”

But the presence of financial stress is not unique to solo agers. 

If you asked a solidly middle-class married couple – especially with young children – the same question, you’d get the same answer. 

In fact, the Federal Reserve estimates that 37% of the population couldn’t come up with $400 to cover an emergency.  Clearly, the problem of “financial stress” isn’t limited to solo agers.

Ideally, you’d compare people of the same age and income brackets, living alone versus living with others, by choice or by circumstances. 

For those living alone by choice, financial stress may be nonexistent – or may be preferred as a choice rather than living with others. Some people might prefer to live alone in a shack rather than live with others in a palace! 

More thorough research might even show that living with others can be costly. You’re exposed to financial fraud.  You may be responsible for debts and actions of co-residents.

People change as they live solo.

The study was what researchers call cross-sectional – looking at one moment in time and ignoring how the numbers might change over a period of years. 

A person who’s newly divorced or widowed needs time to learn the skills of singlehood, become more self-sufficient, and learn how to use resources and services. 

I would expect a person who’s lived alone for a lifetime to have developed new skills and an awareness of resources they can call on. In online forums, people living solo point out they can deal with anything from a medical crisis to a dead mouse.   

Summary

In many respects, the problems of aging alone are a microcosm of the problems of the larger community. For instance, health care costs can be outrageous even for a solidly middle-class family, not just a solo ager. Many cities do not have decent public transportation. 

As an experienced single-for-life person who’s growing older, I’d say the biggest problem is teaching others (especially the medical community) how to deal with people who live alone by choice and who are voluntarily and happily single. Articles like this one distort reality.  

As Bella DePaolo says in her book, single-at-heart people do not want forced companionship to alleviate a non-existent loneliness. They’ve taken self-sufficiency to a new level, and they’re remarkably good at setting boundaries and solving problems.  

Articles like this do us “single at heart” people a major disservice. They reinforce the deficit model of singlehood – the idea that being single means “something is missing.” Reinforcing this model will also reinforce stereotypes and false beliefs, ultimately leading to inappropriate responses by services.

When we talk about “solo agers,” we can focus more on the “solo” than the agers. That should lead to a more realistic and more hopeful perspective.

The post What the AARP’s “Solo Aging” Story Can’t Tell Us appeared first on .

Image from Depositphotos.

When I watch the romance scam channels on YouTube, I can’t help noticing that none of the victims seem to define themselves as single, let alone single by choice.

Scammers target people who are not only lonely, but who fear loneliness. “Being alone” seems painful and they’re willing to spend time, money and energy to avoid it.

Potential scam victims have a lot to learn from people who are happily single.

Potential scam victims have often experienced a recent break in their relationship or their marriage. Their identity has shifted.
“When her husband left her after 20 years of marriage…”
“After a really bad breakup, she was eager to find a new partner…”
“He felt the spark had gone out of his marriage and he was lonely…”

At this point someone often suggests they look into online dating as a way to feel less alone.

Then they get a message. “You’re beautiful.” “I care about you.” “You’re my queen!”

Besides being lonely, many targeted victims are innately kind and generous. When they love someone they want to give. They can’t imagine that the caller has a different agenda. The caller wants them to drain their bank accounts, sell their homes, and wait for a partner who never comes.

Victims appreciate the affection and often also are genuinely kind.  they feel bad when the caller is stranded on an oil rig or left behind by the US military after serving a mission. They think soldiers and sailors have to pay for going on leave or changing assignments.

Targets of a romance scam never seem to realize that being single isn’t the worst thing in the world. On some programs, the hosts even encourage this feeling. After the big reveal, they say reassuring things like, “I’m sure there’s a perfect person out there. Just date in your own community, don’t send anybody money, and make sure you can meet them.”

But if you’re “single at heart” you don’t get scammed in the first place.

You enjoy your own company. You don’t start dating because you assume it’s the only way to fill time. You don’t desperately hang on to that strangely-accented voice telling you how beautiful you are; the moment that voice turns to “I need money because my bank account has been frozen,” you realize you can live just fine without another person.

After all, why should you be the last resort for someone you’ve known less than six months? Don’t they have other friends? Or relatives?

Happy single people seem to be especially good at setting boundaries.

We learn fast. After all, people are always saying, “You’re single so you probably have lots of time on your hands.” Or, “You’re single so you won’t mind working late…or working on Christmas Eve…or handling this time-consuming chore for me.”

We guard our time not to be selfish, but because a single person isn’t necessarily put on earth to be everybody’s first responder.

If we have an empty week, we don’t have to fill it by dating.

And if a handsome stranger says, “If you don’t do this, you’ll never hear from me again,” a happily single person will look forward to more time with their dog, cat, art class, or gym time.

No, you can’t get money out of a “single at heart”  person by threatening to leave them alone forever. They just might reply, “Is that a threat or a promise?”

The post Why happily single people won’t get romance-scammed appeared first on .