My closest friend lived in DC for 8 years, she joined activity groups, political ones as she was a poly sci major and she had one long term BF and then met her husband there after college. For her there college was just non serious dating and making friends. She also knows two other couples from DC who moved out here and they met their mates after college through networking activities.

People can meet at bars it's not impossible, it's just improbable after about 24, 25. It's not the best place as the people I know after a certain age who hang out at bars are non commital types. Plus the bar scene is too much focused on looks, if you aren't thin and attractive with nice hair guys don't pay too much attention to you. So bars work but for a small percentage of people. A party thrown by friends with lots of friends is a more suitable meeting place.

I know people who met their mates here in cooking classes, running clubs and a mixed gender softball.

Finding a mate is hard and I think you have to cast a much wider net if you haven't met someone through work or friends. If you join a club with few to no available men, don't stay there unless you click with a girl who you think can network you some more guys! I think that if you have gone 5 or more years without a marriagable relationship and you want to get married, it might be time to see a professional matchmaker to find out what you might be doing wrong.

I have one friend that wants to get married and she's having a hard time, but she's also very resistant to any advice given to her by all of us married. We can see why her dates don't work out but she won't listen to us. So I wonder if the unsuccesful at pairing up need help and guidence as opposed to some other people who may fall into it easily, which is where an arranged or assited marriage may come in handy.

It's usually found in fundamentalist Christian circles, but there is genuine courtship in America.

And by courtship I mean that a man and a woman meet each other to determine whether or not they'll be able to marry, and if they agree on their long-term relationship points, they then determine whether or not they like one another.

They also practice abstinence until marriage, etc.

Still happens.

You're right about there being men at Obama campaign meetings, and I think in most parts of the country that actually might be a decent way to meet single people, if you're 20s to 30s. However, here in DC, political meetings are very "special." Or should I say, full of a special type of person - careerist political machine types. Not your regular activists with normal lives that you might meet in any other city. I know this because I've been involved in politics both in normal non-DC places and in DC, and trust me, there's a big difference that you notice right away. So it's fine if you want to date or marry a career politico; if, like me, you run screaming from that type, it's not going to work. (And frankly, if you want to date a politico, you can meet one pretty much anywhere in DC. Go stand outside your apartment and one will drop on your head before too long).

As far as book clubs, dance groups, pottery/art things, whatever, I seriously defy you to prove that such activities are in any way balanced between the sexes. Now, beer tasting clubs might be quite different, and I've occasionally pondered doing one of those things, not really to meet men, just 'cause I like beer. But I digress.

But yeah, I'm bored, so bored I even named myself after it, and I'm not really looking to meet a husband right now anyway, so that's why I'm not out joining groups and being shiny and bright all the time. (Sorry, couldn't resist the Mad Men reference.)

"surely you can understand that your experience or that of your friends in no way represents the population generally"

Right back at you. This is exactly the sort of thinking I was getting at in my earlier post. What happened with one couple, or even many couples, is just what happened. It doesn't mean anything about how others should go about finding a partner.

I know a woman who lives in a rural area that she has lived in most of her life and where she is very well-connected socially (many of the families in the area have been there for generations). She was single (REALLY single, no dates whatsoever) for 8 years before meeting her husband. You'd think that she would have met all the single men in her area since there aren't all that many people there to begin with, but she met her husband at age 41 and married him a couple of years later. I know for a fact that she never took any particular steps to meet men. She just lived her life, and randomly met a good man in a very unlikely place. It's actually quite amazing that they had never met before, but they hadn't.

What's the lesson? This stuff is random. It doesn't much matter what you do. There's no telling which strategy will pay off and which won't.

b/c women are forgetting that nowadays it's a CHOICE to remain single. If you wanna marry that badly, you'll surely drum up somebody. Wanting someone of quality who'll also love you back--that'll take time, if it happens at all.

I've not seen the TV series "Mad Men" or "Swing Town," but everything I've read/heard about it surely reminds me that women didn't always have that choice. I'm old enough to remember when jobs in the classified ads read "Help Wanted--FEMALE." I remember my childish mind thinking, why is that, what's the difference?

For all we know, perhaps "MM" and "ST" are calculated to make women WANT to yearn for the domestic, happily-ever-after world. After all, if this Administration got its inspiration for torture from "24," it's not too much of a stretch.

But really, for Ms Jain and so many other women, maybe it's out there, or not. That's why it should comfort them to know that they CAN marry, or not; CAN go to college, or not; CAN have careers, good ones, or not; CAN have as many lovers, male and/or female, as she wants, or not; CAN have kids w/out a husband, or not. The beauty of it is, any woman can have a life--HER OWN life, on her terms. She's not just living life "in the meantime;" she's LIVING!

I married for the first time at age 47 before bolting 15 mos later (for very valid reasons). The first lesson I learned was that my single life was already pretty good; I just didn't know how good I had it til I lost it. I'm so very grateful that I was able to recoup it before my now-XH ruined me utterly on all levels. (Another hard lesson: I lost contact w/all "friends" made during that marriage. One thing about divorce is that women are almost always the ones discarded and forgotten afterward: women become "the extra woman," while men suddenly morph into "the newly-eligible bachelor." I was all the more grateful that I was able to fall back on my career and my own friends to survive that terrible time.)

I don't believe every pot has its cover b/c sometimes you ARE the pot AND the cover. The whole point is, contemporary women CAN decide for themselves what kind of life they want. I'd infinitely prefer to be alone and reasonably happy, than to be miserable w/company--if only b/c being alone, I still leave myself open to possibilities of all kinds, including men. Besides, I know plenty of married women who are very much alone despite their husbands' presence.

I think Ms Jain is missing the point--or she's been watching too much "Sex and the City." Remember, it's only a movie (or TV series)...