Young men reveal why so many of them are single: ‘Dates feel more like job interviews’

From: https://nypost.com/2023/03/01/rate-of-single-men-in-the-us-looking-for-dates-has-declined/

They’re single but they’re not mingling.

New data from the Pew Research Center has shown that 63% of men under 30 are single – up from 51% in 2019.

COVID isolation and women’s high expectations for something serious are the main reasons they’re avoiding going out and coupling up, young guys say.

“Dates feel more like job interviews now. Much more like ‘What can you do for me and where is this going?'” said Ian Breslow, a 28-year-old high school teacher who lives in Astoria.

“The ‘getting to know you’ period is gone and that doesn’t feel so great after coming out of isolation.”

He recalled a recent first date that went quite well until the woman interrogated him on their walk home.

“She literally asked me, ‘Would you rather our kids go to public or private school?’ Followed by several more extreme questions about getting married. I just started responding with what I knew she would hate the most to get her to leave,” Breslow told The Post.

Experts agree that women are certainly wanting more than ever before.

“The overall picture [is] that if a woman is going to go on a date with a man, chances are it’s not for a casual fling,” Ronald Levant, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Akron, told The Post.

“Especially if the woman is kind of getting close to 30, [she’s] thinking about the biological clock and wants to have a family,” he added.

Breslow isn’t looking to settle down and get married anytime soon, so he’d rather have casual flings.

“The way dating is currently just makes me want to hook up locally with no stress or strings attached,” he says. “Fortunately that part comes very easy … I’m unmotivated to search for something serious for the time being.”

Ian Breslow said the face of dating has changed greatly since COVID.
Andrew Bruno, a 28-year-old nurse from Bellmore, NY, says flirting in the post-COVID era just isn’t as fun as it once was.

“Being able to naturally approach people while out isn’t like it was pre-pandemic. People are still much less likely to leave their groups or cliques at a bar,” said Bruno. “They’re certainly less talkative and that’s lowered my incentive to put myself out there.”

He also said the pandemic, more than ever before, made dating apps the central means for meeting people — and he’s not a fan.

“That just really isn’t my style. Like there is a weekslong prerequisite before you can think about getting involved, even for casual things,” Bruno said. “I’d rather take all that effort and put it towards my career.”

And, like Breslow, he’s in no hurry to get hitched.

Andrew Bruno feels that people have become less approachable while out since COVID.
“I’m also still very young,” Bruno said. “I don’t feel the need to rush, especially if people don’t act as naturally as they did before COVID. Why would I put it all out there for someone who can’t or won’t hold a conversation?”

For Mike M., a 25-year-old in Queens, it’s his — not the opposite sex’s — social skills that are still battling a bad case of long COVID.

“I definitely can’t walk into a room and go talk to someone I’m interested [in] like I used to be able to. It feels like my outgoingness has suffered some atrophy,” Mike, who withheld his last name out of embarrassment, told The Post.

He’s also having less sex than he did pre-pandemic.

“I have definitely been going online to take care of my urges more than I have by seeing people,” Mike admitted.

What do you think? Be the first to comment.
He feels as though he lost two prime years in his early 20s of being able to date and have fun without worrying about being in a serious relationship.

Now, he’s under pressure to find a long-term commitment, but can’t put himself out there.

“I also feel like I’m caught between two worlds,” he said. “Ultimately I’ve just been crashing and have had neither lately.”
 
1. The article is literally a bunch of fuckboys mad that women are taking things seriously when they themselves aren't.

2. Datings fucked. Especially as a guy. I get the sense that women just don't want a relationship with men in general. Could just be me, but I'm confident in myself enough to doubt it, and I see better dudes than me also getting fed up with some pretty wack shit.
 
I think a lot of the issue is there's just some people who don't think they have to put the effort into a relationship.

It's not just sex. It's about being interesting and accommodating, keeping the other half happy by doing things you know they want even if you yourself do not necessarily enjoy that particular thing.

A lot of men and women, though in my experience disproportionately women, don't want to make that last sacrifice of doing things they don't really want to.
 
I wonder if porn has a lot to do with it. The generations coming up now have been raised on porn and really nasty stuff at that.
I think men have become so pornsick that they don't know how to interact normally anymore and women who have watched porn are running a mile.
I'm sure thats a ton of it. I hear from female friends their insane encounters with men and indecisiveness, bitchiness, and emotionally guilt tripping them if they aren't acting like a porn addict themselves is pretty common.
 
Yes? And they're checking out completely when they realize women are treating relationships in such a joyless, dour way.

I'd do the same in their shoes.
There is no shame in IRL shitposting your way out of a bad date. I've done it and it was funny as hell, to me.
 
Yeah, so many people can't TALK anymore
I feel like the political divide contributes to this a bit. Where I am lot of people who can't stfu and stop interjecting politics into every other conversation, it grows tiresome and you stop wanting to interact with people as every conversations becomes me gritting my teeth because I genuinely don't care to have every conversation become some debate nor do I want to pretend to agree because of my pride. I'm passionate about a bunch of topics like that but I keep it to close friends and family not every stranger or co-worker. Its nuts, used to be there was a rule about politics, religion, etc but it all went out the window since 2016.
 
oh my god
so much of what you post makes sense now
Tf is wrong with you? Are you retarded?

2 official government sources, and because you're apparently a certifiable moron, a wiki entry explaining the basics:

Child support is paid by a private person:

https://www.usa.gov/child-support

("The government does not pay child support​

Federal and state governments do not pay child support. But they provide the help you may need to collect it from a parent.") (emphasis in original)

ABCs:


Child support is tax neutral:


For support agreements/orders in place prior to 2018, support amounts were also deductible by the owing party.

The ONLY time a government agency is involved in child support is 1) if the recipient is on public welfare and the owing party fails to pay (in which case the owed party may execute an assignment of rights to enforce the order, so that the agency may pursue payment to the owed person independently), or 2) the owed party (whether or not on public assistance) applies for assistance by the agency in enforcing the order. Non-public-assistance people seeking government assistance in enforcing a child support order may be charged a de minimis fee (e.g., $25 application fee) to engage the agency.

Once a government agency is engaged, they check in maybe once/6 months. At that point, the agency has multiple avenues to pursue payment. If the agency has to pursue garnishment, that money (caps on amount vary by state) can be required to be withheld by an employer from an employee's wages. The employer may also deduct a nominal fee for having to process payroll for a person with a garnishment issue.

Garnished amounts are collected by the agency and turned over to the owed party, less a minimal fee (max is generally no more than 2% of the monthly amount, up to a (low) cap, and typically waived completely for any recipient on public assistance of any sort).

Note: Federal law also requires a $35/year fee for child support enforcement services, provided a minimum amount ($550) is actually collected, unless paying person is on public assistance, in which case typically $0. Who pays this onerous $35/year fee? "19 jurisdictions pay the fee with state funds, 5 jurisdictions collect the fee from the noncustodial parent, 2 jurisdictions impose the user fee directly on the custodial parent, 27 jurisdictions impose the fee indirectly on the custodial parent by retaining the fee from the family’s child support payment (after a minimum amount of child support has been collected on behalf of the family), and 1 jurisdiction imposes the fee on both the noncustodial parent and the custodial parent via the family’s child support payment" https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22753.html


If you think the government pays child support or taxes child support, I can only assume you're either woefully ignorant or have been involved in one way or another :tomgirl: with a situation in which an owing party was so deadbeat that they had to involve government assistance in enforcing the support order, and somehow absorbed inaccurate information about the extent and amount of associated fees.

And back to my original citations, those collection percentages accounted for any such enforcement fees; i.e., if an enforcement action collected the full amount, then the full amount was credited, regardless of any de minimis fee.

If you have further questions, I suggest you contact your father's lawyer.
 
100% certain you did not read and digest all the facts and links I provided prior to your post.

Baby, go buy a coloring book or something.
>The government is not involved
>Here are all the ways the government is involved

I have no idea how else I can convey this to you. The very source you use to to try and argue the government is not involved is the government showing how its involved. Even the very act of getting an order is a government procedure through the judicial branch of government. There is no possible way child support is free from government influence. Either you are legitimately retarded or pretending to be, which is the same as being so.
 
>The government is not involved
>Here are all the ways the government is involved

I have no idea how else I can convey this to you. The very source you use to to try and argue the government is not involved is the government showing how its involved. Even the very act of getting an order is a government procedure through the judicial branch of government. There is no possible way child support is free from government influence. Either you are legitimately retarded or pretending to be, which is the same as being so.
You are an idiot. Find your goalposts and leave them there.

I said:
the 5.4 million parents who were owed child support payments received 62% of the amount they were supposed to get, on average

You said:
"It's almost like the government deducts taxes from such payments. "

I said:
"You don't pay taxes on child support."

You said:
"do you legitimately think the government gives everyone and its agencies the funds it says they will receive?
do you think they instituted child support because it benefits its citizens?"

I said:
"Do you legitimately think the government pays child support?"

You said:
"oh my god
so much of what you post makes sense now"

I said:

("The government does not pay child support​

Federal and state governments do not pay child support. But they provide the help you may need to collect it from a parent.") (emphasis in original)
https://www.usa.gov/child-support


Q.E.D.
 
I'd imagine it's hard to get a gf/bf if you're a Zoomer since 25% of the identify as gender blobs. If I was a Zoomer I wouldn't want to be in a relationship either.
Many of them have transitioned from male or female to 'blob'. The current obesity rate is somewhere over 42%

I swipe through Tinder from time to time, and 99% are 'blob', 'heavily tattooed' or 'fake(bot)'
 
You also said

Seriously, you're only digging yourself deeper.
Seriously, you're a dumbass. I understand now that nuance is lost on you. I always overestimate people.

1. You asserted that child support is taxable. X
2. You suggested that governments seize a meaningful portion of child support (in one way or another). X
3. Child support is often agreed to without a judicial order.
4. Judicial approval of a privately negotiated settlement agreement (with or with it a child support agreement) is merely to close the loop, no more nor less than the government's involvement in creating marriage. It is pro forma in most cases.
5. A judicial order itself is not government involvement in enforcement or collection.
6. Most child support enforcement efforts don't involve government invention, even if they should (due to owers not paying).
7. The only government involvement in getting child support paid is by request, a minority of cases.
8. Requested assistance for enforcement of a judicial order involves minimal costs to the person owed.
9. The statistics I quoted about the gap between support owed and support paid account for the de minimis fees a person might have to pay IF they elect to request government assistance in collecting child support; most proceed along without that assistance.

The government is not siphoning off child support payments and turning that in to statisticians so those folks can inflate the deficit of child support owed and not paid. You fucking fool.

Now shut up and go fellate the banana you've been eyeing all night.
 
Seriously, you're a dumbass. I understand now that nuance is lost on you. I always overestimate people.
Nah, you just misread what I was making a point against and instead of deciding to admit you were wrong doubled down on the one I did not address as if that was what I was referring to. Next time, just admit you said something stupid. It'll save you from looking like a complete idiot and a sperg.
 
4. Judicial approval of a privately negotiated settlement agreement (with or with it a child support agreement) is merely to close the loop, no more nor less than the government's involvement in creating marriage. It is pro forma in most cases.

5. A judicial order itself is not government involvement in enforcement or collection.
How?

No, seriously, how can you type this shit and not see the problem with it?

I don't give a shit about his point or yours to be frank but this shit is lunacy.
 
Back