The stability of singlehood: Limitations of the relationship status paradigm and a new theoretical framework for reimagining singlehood

Abstract

The term single is limited as it is defined as the absence of a romantic partner, which places one's relationship status within a binary, assumes availability for romantic partnership, and implies single is a transitory state preceding union formation. These perceptions of singlehood serve to maintain hegemonic structures of marriage and nuclear family. However, the implications associated with the term single do not represent the experiences of all singles. This paper proposes an alternative framework for classifying singles based on their approach to romantic relationships that considers both openness to and desire for romantic partnership. I provide a typology of singles that defy the assumptions of singlehood and situate these categories within my theoretical framework. Finally, I demonstrate how this framework highlights the potential stability of singlehood, and I conclude by examining how social scientists can use this theory to better understand heterogeneity in singles' experiences.

Contextualizing singlehood among young adults: Exploring the meanings and perceived reasons for being single

“…Based on prior research on young adults' experiences with singlehood (e.g., Adamczyk, 2017; Beckmeyer & Cromwell, 2019; Spielmann et al, 2013; Tessler, 2023), we controlled for participants' age in years, gender (female = 1; male, transgender, or other gender = 0), race/ethnicity (White non‐Hispanic = 1; other race/ethnicity = 0), sexual identity (heterosexual = 1; lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, or pansexual = 0), and educational attainment (1 = college degree or more; 0 = less than a college degree). We also controlled for length of singlehood (never had a romantic relationship, 6 months or less, 7 months to 1 year, or more than 1 year).…”

“…Recently, scholars have advocated for more nuanced and reflective research on young adult singlehood (see Beckmeyer & Jamison, 2023b;Kislev & Marsh, 2023;Tessler, 2023). In doing so they have articulated the importance of considering single young adults as a heterogenous rather than a homogenous group.…”

Kaleidoscopic perspectives on theorizing singlehood

“…The authors note that romantic (dis)interest shapes how singlehood is experienced-those who enrolled in school, for instance, may not view a serious committed relationship as particularly important and are happy being single, whereas others actively desire a relationship and feel less positive about being single. This variability complicates the simple dichotomy of voluntary versus involuntary singlehood or singlehood as either a transitory or permanent state, akin to Tessler's (2023) model of singles' approaches to partnership discussed above. Luke and Poulin (2023) consider single women in midlife (defined as ages 45-65), with a specific focus on sexual activity.…”

“…Some key considerations and sources of nuance, such as gender or race/ethnicity, warrant further development, as noted by Kislev and Marsh (2023) in their call for an intersectional approach and demonstrated by Jordan and Martin (2023) in their focus on race and aging. Tessler (2023) and Lavender-Stott (2023) both introduce asexuality, and more work is needed to understand how singlehood, asexuality, and aromanticism are interconnected. Similarly, some authors (Mortelmans et al, 2023) discussed the role of partners, but much more work is needed to decipher how living apart together (LAT) relationships and other non-coresidential romantic and/or sexual relationships should be conceptualized when studying singlehood.…”

A scoping review of research on polyamory and consensual non‐monogamy: Implications for a more inclusive family science

“…Because relationship status is not a federally protected class, people who are polyamorous have been legally subject to discrimination in areas of hiring, housing, insurance, hospital visitation, employment, citizenship, marriage, and child custody (Rubin, 1984;Schippers, 2016). In fact, monogamy has such staunch institutional support that authors have called it a form of social control that is sanctioned by the State (Schippers, 2016;Tessler, 2023).…”