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.”
 
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.
Lol. I guess I should have gone back one more step to what you initially responded to, to make the point. But good to know you're admitting you were wrong about taxing child support, and that government takes meaningful pieces of it. Good for you, honey!
How?

No, seriously, how can you type this shit and not see the problem with it??
Not sure which part you're objecting to. But that's the way it works. Most people go to a lawyer or lawyers (and often, a mediator), draft up an agreement, and unless it's patently ridiculous, it gets approved and entered as an order without appearances or argument. In some cases you may litigate it, but even in those cases, the ultimate agreement is drafted and presented to the Court for issuance. Children, I have both professional and personal (and Google-able, if that's more persuasive to you) knowledge of this [not of having to resort to assistance in collection, but I'm fancy like that, as are 80% of people in a potential child support situation].
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: LurkTrawl
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.
I'd honestly prefer if shit was like a job interview; and the times I tried that speed-dating shit it was. If we could understand each other's short and long-term goals, we could save each other a lot of pain and time. Instead, I have to stumble around in the dark and try to figure shit out with someone who is uncommunicative at best or an out-right liar at worst; and it's not big lies, but small shit like "what do you want to eat" and "I don't know" really means "I expect you to make the decision for me," which I didn't get.

When I tried that speed-dating shit, it was more like a job interview. The problem being is what each brought to the table was very one-sided; she wanted to know my income, car I drive, how I plan to climb the social ladder, all I wanted to know is how many ways she could cook eggs (zero) or if she her mother or grandma had any special recipes (no, or at least none she knew).
 
Most people go to a lawyer or lawyers (and often, a mediator), draft up an agreement, and unless it's patently ridiculous, it gets approved and entered as an order without appearances or argument. In some cases you may litigate it, but even in those cases, the ultimate agreement is drafted and presented to the Court for issuance.
:stress:

You think that's not government involvement?

I don't even know where to begin. I'm actually stunned.

What do you think the point of getting lawyers involved and presenting something to a court, a judge, is? Do you get why that gives contracts/agreements authority? Do you get what makes such agreements different from one made without lawyers or a judge involved?

What do you think the government is? I'm honestly hoping I don't come off as insulting but holy shit.
 
How is there no government involvement with use of judicial order. Who enforces those orders if not the government upon the citizens it is enacted upon?


I'm not that user, but I had the same confused problem with your post.
Christ.
Stepping through governmental hoops to get an enforceable order is not "governmental involvement" in enforcement.

But OK, ya absolutists, let's go back to what I was responding to, which was an assertion that child support is taxed, and the implication or statement that that accounted for some meaningful information related to the fact that there is a serious deficiency between ordered child support* and what is paid.

Child support is not taxed, and governmental entities do not grab a big piece of it, and the de minimis amounts involved in governmental enforcement of judicial orders are accounted for in the statistics about non- or pathetically partial payment of said support.

The vast majority of child support issues don't go to engagement of a government agency to enforce judicial orders. Most are resolved outside of an agency's involvement. Of the relative few that do involve the government as an enforcing party, there is still no taxation nor seizing of monies payable to one owed child support.

And again, statistics provided account for any minor fees associated with engaging the government for enforcement.
That was the original point of the discussion.
 
when this probably wasn't the case decades ago.
Honestly, I'm not sure. I mean, there was a very strong societal assumption in the past that you'd meet somebody, get married, and start having children, and do all of it probably in your early 20s. So the pressure to "get serious" may have been more external, but it was still very much hanging over your head.
 
Stepping through governmental hoops to get an enforceable order is not "governmental involvement" in enforcement.
No it literally fucking is, that's the entire point.

That's the point of everything to do with the legal system. From an NDA between an employer and their employee, to a parking ticket, to regulations on an industry. To apparently child support.

And it absolutely would be, what do you think is giving the authority to demand payment to begin with? Even if it's an "out of court" legally binding agreement?

This isn't "absolutism". It's the basic concepts of what a government even is. What gives any legal agreement authority at all. If an agreement/contract/whatever is not legally binding at all and hasn't had anything to do with the legal system then sure, it has no government involvement but also has no legal authority behind it, whatever an agreement in question might be.

Edit: You don't have to have a LEA have anything to do with the concept of "enforcement" of an agreement for it to be government involvement. Having a piece of paper authorized by a judge, for a private entity to point at and demand payment with authority, is still government involvement.
 
Honestly, I'm not sure. I mean, there was a very strong societal assumption in the past that you'd meet somebody, get married, and start having children, and do all of it probably in your early 20s. So the pressure to "get serious" may have been more external, but it was still very much hanging over your head.
Yup. Now it's just do whatever you want
and somehow everyone is surprised everything is going to shit
 
Yup. Now it's just do whatever you want
and somehow everyone is surprised everything is going to shit
Would you really be happier with there being an implicit societal judgement saying "you must have a stable job, get married, and have children" rather than the woman you're with saying "you need to have a stable job and then we need to get married and have children"?

I don't see much difference.
 
Would you really be happier with there being an implicit societal judgement saying "you must have a stable job, get married, and have children" rather than the woman you're with saying "you need to have a stable job and then we need to get married and have children"?

I don't see much difference.
the difference is the woman also had the expectations looming over her to pick someone and stay with them
that thing modern women are known only to do when they're nearly barren without the staying part
 
Would you really be happier with there being an implicit societal judgement saying "you must have a stable job, get married, and have children" rather than the woman you're with saying "you need to have a stable job and then we need to get married and have children"?

I don't see much difference.
If it were a different time and society, probably. Society pretends to be invested in your well-being as your well-being should translate into you being a positive member and contributing. People/Society used to police and help themselves, but in today's society, fuck no. The problem being, even with how screwed up our society is; people still carry certain expectations on others, they're just not as loud about it.
 
If it were a different time and society, probably. Society pretends to be invested in your well-being as your well-being should translate into you being a positive member and contributing. People/Society used to police and help themselves, but in today's society, fuck no. The problem being, even with how screwed up our society is; people still carry certain expectations on others, they're just not as loud about it.

EVERYBODY FOR THEMSELVES!

1255917219589.jpg
 
:stress:

You think that's not government involvement?

I don't even know where to begin. I'm actually stunned.

What do you think the point of getting lawyers involved and presenting something to a court, a judge, is? Do you get why that gives contracts/agreements authority? Do you get what makes such agreements different from one made without lawyers or a judge involved?

What do you think the government is? I'm honestly hoping I don't come off as insulting but holy shit.
I think you are misunderstanding a lot. My comment was in the context of a person asserting that government taxes child support and takes a chunk of it (which taxation and gifting supposedly contributes to the low percentage of child msupport actually paid).

That is the context. If you cannot think in context, I have no doubt it might be confusing for you. But as you were smart enough to find your way here, I have high hopes you'll also figure that out. Bonne chance!
 
Back