51% of women live without spouse in US

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

According to this link 51% of US women live sans spouse.

Proof that eventually, anyone can learn to wise up, yes? 

For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005, married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape a range of social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

[Swatopluk]

Maybe going back to Augustus with mandatory marriage and procreation and heavy fines in case of shunting one's duty in that matter. There are people that would love that.
Could result in reverse keyhole spying:
"That guy hadn't had sex with his wife for a complete cycle despite them only having 3 children and the youngest being in pre-school already!" 

[Sibling Chatty]

Some of wise up pretty fast.

(Dan refers to himself as my anti-spouse, since we're both happy and neither one of us is whiner/bully/controlling like our respective former spouses. Whatever works.)

[goat starer]

and I never meet any of them! 

PS. I blame Ally Mcbeal - not just for this but for EVERYTHING!!

[beagle]

That dude, is because you live in Bradford. If you relocated to Cambridge you'd meet plenty. The slight drawback is that they'll be thirty years older than you, "doing Europe" with the money they got from the insurance when their first husband worked himself into a heart attack.

Before you sign up as a toy-boy check they have cable and a pool. So easy to overlook these things in love's early rapture.

[The Meromorph]

I was there in England for the end of the last cycle of most women being without a spouse. That one was caused by World War One. Most of (some say the flower of) the men of two generations were lost, mostly before, or early in, marriage. There were a lot of 'little old ladies' with sad eyes when I grew up. Not very many 'little old men'. 

World War Two was almost a damaging to an already damaged gene-pool, but not as selective. (Many more women were killed than in WWI)

[Griffin NoName]

That dude, is because you live in Bradford. If you relocated to Cambridge you'd meet plenty. The slight drawback is that they'll be thirty years older than you, "doing Europe" with the money they got from the insurance when their first husband worked himself into a heart attack.

Odd. When I was there, the Cambridge mulititudinous singles were all dirt poor having had their first husbands run off with younger models.....   

[beagle]

Ah, but we're not trying to match him up with a local, but with a nice American girl that likes goats (if that isn't an oxymoron).

[Griffin NoName]

I just realised what's wrong with this thread topic.

There is an implicit implication that women should live with spouse.

Will the world ever see people as individuals, first, foremost, and especially in packaging supermarket food?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I just realised what's wrong with this thread topic.

There is an implicit implication that women should live with spouse.

Will the world ever see people as individuals, first, foremost, and especially in packaging supermarket food?

Yup.  I agree-- BOTH genders should be recognized as people FIRST, I think.

"Single-ness IS OKAY" should be more wide-spread than it is, I think.

And, I'm living proof...