Even if I don't want it, can I still keep the ring?

Single and ready to mingle. There's no better way to assert your nonexistent relationship status than by declaring it proudly in an overused rhyme. Some of you may have had fond memories using this phrase. For me, it evokes something more like the Ghost of Christmas Past--eighth grade dances, windbreakers, and flared jeans with the tuxedo stripes running down each leg. '90s flashback, anyone?

Not to say that there's anything wrong with being single. (Though people who still say the aforementioned cliche? That's debatable.) Some people are ecstatic about being single, some absolutely loathe it. Such discrepancies lead me to ask the following question: Does one choose to be single or is one single by default?

Let me clarify. I'm often asked the following question:

"Why are you still single?"

It never fails to amuse me. No, I don't think that there's anything particularly wrong with me, if that's what you're thinking. And even if there were something tragically flawed about me, don't you think that I'd lack the insight to acknowledge it? Second, what do you mean by still? Was I supposed to wait for Prince Charming?

A guy friend of mine made the following argument:

It's more socially acceptable for women to stay committed. It's almost like they are expected to stay in relationships. If a woman is single, I assume one of two things--either she's not yet met the right guy or she just got crapped on by another. For guys, it's different. It's as if society permits them to stay single so that they can stay promiscuous. And even if a guy is dating a girl with seemingly great attributes, he might have no qualms about leaving her.

I think he makes an excellent point--men are generally known to be more promiscuous than women. It's a truism that rings too familiarly; society has traditionally encouraged men to pursue numerous sexual partners while it had ostracized women who do nothing else but the same. Hence, women had been expected to remain in monogamous relationships while men were allowed to peruse the shopping aisle.

We came up with the following conclusion: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? (A novel concept, I know--but we had to stick with the grocery store analogy.) Most would agree with the statement that it's much easier for women to find sexual partners than it is for men. That said, where are these so-called promiscuous men finding their sexual partners, assuming that they're straight? Though it's clear that the double standard on promiscuity between the sexes still stands, societal viewpoints on this topic have become more progressive. (Thanks, Nelly Furtado?) Promiscuous women, at least in Western first-world nations, have become more accepted into societal norms. In this regard, women are relinquishing the upper hand on selecting sexual partners. Because more women are having sex outside the boundaries of a monogamous relationship, men have a broader selection from which to choose from. Whether the man selects the Grade A beef or some ground meat is another story.

So how do the dynamics of gender promiscuity relate back to the question of single by choice or by default? Women can choose to be single and promiscuous. Similarly, a man can settle down and commit when he's met someone he's decided is worthy of his transformation.

Gender roles have become more complicated as women have become more independent and as marriages (or alternatively, long-term relationships) lean closer towards becoming equal partnerships and away from paternalistic dependencies. The next questions, then are these--what's to happen to our gender roles as we redefine what's acceptable and what's not? Do we progress closer to gender equality or will we suddenly turn the opposite direction?

A former tomboy,
Shopgirl.