Happy Valentine’s Day, If Possible

Today is Valentine’s Day, although you probably wouldn’t notice it here at the home office. Ours is a contentedly solitary home life, shared only with a crabby cat named Miss Ollie, as we’ve had our fill of romance and true love and all that at this late point in life, but we nonetheless wish an especially good day to anyone out there who is still so foolhardy as to fall in love.
Based on our observations of our vast and very diverse friendships and friendly acquaintanceships, which includes a lot of young folk,  falling in love is less common than it used to be, and according to an astute columnist at The Washington Post there’s more scientific proof of that. He cites a professor’s study that 85 percent of “baby boomer” and “Gen. X” high school seniors went on dates, but that had fallen to 56 by 2015. Between 1989 and 2016 the percentage of twenty-somethings who were married had fallen from an already low 32 percent to unprecedented 19 percent, and we can count many many solitary individuals among our friends and friendly acquaintances of all ages.
Having come of age during the height of the Sexual Revolution, when everybody seemed to be heeding The Beatles’ advice to “Do It in the Road,” we’re quite surprised and entirely unsure what to make of the evidence that there’s also less sex going on, as the percentage of twenty-somethings who admit they haven’t been getting any lately has reportedly risen by half over the same ’89 to ’26 period. It’s fine by us if more young people have forgone the ephemeral pleasures and lasting pains of doing it in the road, but the same conservative instincts have us rooting despite all evidence for the propagation of the species, and when we note the falling birth rates, except in the poorest and most primitive parts of the world, it seems a mixed blessing.
All of these desultory statistics are backed up by our anecdotal evidence from the nightspots we visit,. We’ll often see attractive young couples in the next booth, but they’re invariably looking at those confounded machines in their palms rather into one another’s eyes. Our younger friends and friendly acquaintances frequently tell us about their sexual attraction to some other young friend or friendly acquaintance, but they don’t seem very hopeful, and they very rarely confess the sort of romantic yearnings we used to share with anyone who would listen. Try as we might to avoid the contemporary popular culture, it’s so unavoidable that we’ve noticed it doesn’t encourage romantic love the way it did back in the days of MGM musicals and clean-cut pop song crooners. Our politics are full of porn stars and Playboy playmates and serial marriages, and that’s just the Republicans, not to mention all the scandalous behavior those damned Democrats have long been up to..
Which is a shame, on the whole, as we figure it. True love entails risks, as we can readily attest, but so does life itself, and there’s no way life can go on without it. Among our many friends and friendly acquaintances we count many who have been happily coupled for many years, and like Walt Whitman we revel in “the chaste blessings of the well-married couple, and the fruits of orchards and flowers of gardens.”
We’ve been happily spared the perfunctory chores of buying chocolates and cards and flowers and expensive dinners at any restaurants the past several Valentine’s Days, but if you’re currently obliged to do so we urge you to do it hopefully. It might just work out happily ever after, and even if it doesn’t we can assure you there might be some memories you can warmly recall in some cold winter of your old age.

— Bud Norman

Finding True Love in Trump’s America

According to all of the public opinion polls President Donald Trump is widely unpopular among women, and the anecdotal evidence we’ve gleaned from conversations with our numerous female friends suggests that many women would not consider dating a Trump supporter. Fortunately for all those lonely fellows in the red “Make America Great Again” ball caps, there’s now an internet dating site that can match them with a politically compatible mate.
Trump.dating’s web site promises to “Make dating great again!” and help those who pay a matchmaking fee “Find the America first partner of your dreams.” After all, the site says, “When the political foundation is the same, the sky is the limit.”
The web site once featured the picture of a smiling couple who had found true love through their services, with the fellow’s “MAGA” cap on backwards and flashing the word “Trump” while his smiling sweetheart poses in a more feminine pink “MAGA” cap with the bill properly facing forward, but that was scuttled after the couple’s hometown newspaper revealed that the fellow had a past conviction for indecent liberties with a child. The updated site features a far more handsome fellow, who might or might not be an actual Trump supporter but is presumably not a convicted child molester, along with four other rather comely people who don’t look at all like stereotypical Trump supporters.
Trump.dating does not facilitate same-sex relationships between Trump supporters, as you can only register as a straight man or straight woman, and there’s been some predictable tsk-tsking about that in the leftward media. Based on the anecdotal evidence we’ve gleaned from conversations with our numerous homosexual friends, we guess Trump.dating is not missing out on much business with that policy, and we don’t think all those leftward media are really all so eager to hook up the few homosexual Trump fans.
The site should do well with many of those single and straight males who support Trump, on the other hand. In this age of bra-burning and man-hating women’s lib gone wild it’s hard to find a woman who shares your admiration for an obese serial adulterer with a bad comb-over who boasts of grabbing women by their wherevers, so it’s well worth a matchmaking fee to wind up with such a rare gem. If she looks anything like the hotties featured on the web site’s opening page, even the one who wound up married to the convicted child molester, so much the better.
Whether that proves the basis of a lasting relationship remains to be seen, though. Our own hard-luck romantic history has included some very opinionated liberal women, but they generally tolerated our conservative opinions, which were rather old-fashioned and as respectful of women as our loving Mom insisted on with a slap to our heads whenever we fell short, and they had many memorably fine qualities and  politics was never the problem. We had a couple of flings with some women who were generally in agreement with our daily rants, several more with women who didn’t care to talk about that nonsense at all, and although the lattermost group were by far the best of the lot none of them worked out.
In the unlikely event we ever encounter an attractive and intelligent and age-appropriate yet still-single woman whose political and cultural opinions are completely aligned with ours, we’re sure we’d be quickly bored. We still consider ourselves conservatives, but in the more likely event we encounter an attractive and more-or-less age-appropriate woman who likes the obese serial adulterer types with bad comb-overs and grab-’em-by-the-wherever tendencies, we’ll stand in solidarity with most of our women friends and won’t consider dating them. If that puts us in better stead with most of our women friends, so much the better.

— Bud Norman

Sex, Social Science, and the Single Obese Girl

One of our favorite old jokes, which unfortunately does not bear repeating in this family-friendly publication, concerns a government agency so anxious to spend the entirety of its budget before the end of the fiscal year that it commissions an expensive scientific inquiry into an amusing question which we must also demur to repeat. To our embarrassment we always recall the risqué punchline whenever reading the frequent stories we encounter about the arcane research being funded by the taxpayers’ dime, such as the one at the invaluable Washington Free Beacon about the National Institutes of Health’s nearly half-million dollar study of why obese women tend to get fewer dates than thinner women.
For half that parsimonious-by-government-standards amount we will gladly write a report to the National Institutes of Health speculating that the average man finds thinner women more physically attractive, and that physical attractiveness is the average man’s foremost consideration when deciding which women he will attempt to date, a hypothesis for which we already have such ample anecdotal evidence that we’re sick of hearing it, but the big brains at the NIH seem more intrigued by the alternative theory that there might be some hitherto unknown link between obesity and deficient social skills. This is contrary to our ample anecdotal evidence, which includes countless acquaintances with obese women who seemed quite socially skillful, as well as some who seemed bitter and withdrawn, with the former getting seeming to get more action than the latter, just as we’ve known some very thin and attractive women who were seemingly well-adjusted to society and others who were dangerously psychotic, with both sorts seeming to have the same overwhelming appeal to the average man, so we’re skeptical of the theory that obese women don’t have the great personality always promised by those trying to set them up on blind dates.
Should modern science somehow prove a link between obesity and lack of social skills, we expect the reason will be the inherent sexism of our patriarchal society. If not, the NIH will have to explain to the feminist lobby why they’re spending nearly half a million dollars for the social science equivalent of one of those “No Fat Chicks” signs with the red circle and red diagonal line. The First Lady can devote herself to molding overweight girls into her own mannish image without invoking the ire of the left, but any pasty-faced male in a white lab coat who runs afoul of the obese woman voting bloc is asking for more than a half-million dollars’ worth of trouble. If the root cause of obese women having dating difficulties is proved to be sexism, on the other hand, a Nobel Prize might well be in the offing.
Such a scientifically-proved social inequality might even provoke a political revolution. Armed with evidence that obese women have been rendered socially deficient and therefor can’t get their constitutionally guaranteed share of shrimp cocktails and apple-tinis and flattering conversation in between text messages on Saturday nights, along with the rest of the tawdry rewards of the contemporary dating scene, the progressive movement will have no trouble persuading the government to institute a new regulatory regime. Achieving dating equality will require the random matching of couples, of course, lest one’s racist or sexist or heterosexist or weightist prejudices give offense, but surely that’s a small price to pay for social justice. This arrangement improves that odds that the gal with great personality winds up at Cannes with that buff Hollywood hunk that’s actually a jerk according to all the tabloids, and it’s pretty much our only shot of scoring a date with one of those slinky movie starlets, so it seems worthy of society’s consideration.
In any case, we’re eagerly anticipating the NIH’s final report on the matter. Nearly a half-million bucks’ worth of social science should make for fascinating reading, and we’ll be especially intrigued to see how the methodology accounted for such variables as the spectrum from stuck-to-the-toilet-seat fat to pleasantly plump to downright zaftig, and how they manage to couch in terms that won’t offend feminine sensibilities.

— Bud Norman