WARNING: THIS SEGMENT FLINGS MUD AT THE HAPPILY MARRIED

Catherine Zeta-Jones mocks me again. First, with the claim that she’s only 35. Yeah, right. She’s only three years older than I am? Granted, she’s prettier and in better shape, and looks MUCH YOUNGER next to husband Michael Douglas, but if she’s 35 then I’m an Academy Award winner.

But moving on to the reason behind this rant: Catherine, in her role as corporate shill for T-Mobile, has gone over the edge of discriminating against me as a single woman: now that company’s offering couples the opportunity to talk for free. Yet another way that America gives discounts to people already possess most of the elusive happiness that drives us all.

Married people already get to split their living expenses—rent, phone, cable and Con Ed can be split up equitably or financed by the more financially successful partner. Kind of like an employer that negotiates a group rate for health insurance, I think single people in the same building should be able to pay a group rate for cable, phone, Con Ed, whatever. This kind of arrangement also could build goodwill and cooperation within a building, creating a sense of community in a city that can feel so lonely.

Married people get to register for things they didn’t know they needed, but might like to have just the same. These luxuries, like rice cookers and breadmakers, aren’t vital accessories, but married couples get them anyway, during parties thrown in celebration of their happiness, to which all their friends—even their single friends—bring presents, so that the couple don't have to pay for them themselves. But since most couples are living on two incomes, couples have more money to spend on these things. It’s singles who should be able to register for the stuff they want and receive said swag gratis.

Most couples experience financial benefits to the legalizing of their unions. They have joint bank accounts and joint health insurance. One spouse can send the other to do shopping on the way home, and said food expenses are split. They have an extra person who can be on call for the cable guy’s arrival, who can remind the doorman in their luxury building that they’re expecting packages. I think singles should be able to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they’re married. I think married couples should register with some sort of central agency and enter into a work rotation to help out singles in all of these areas: once a month, a member of a married (or committed) couple needs to help out a single: either by providing a service like picking up dry-cleaning, or by providing a home-cooked meal to a single man or woman who’s been living on boxes of mac and cheese or slices of mushroom pizza (just two examples).

Perhaps couples could also legally “adopt” a single person, inviting him or her over for dinner every once in a while, helping pick out decorations for his or her apartment, and most importantly, claiming them the singleton as a dependent while providing a legal framework for that person’s right to health insurance. And if that couple wants to give the singleton a $50 allowance per week, that much the better.

But this all started with the concept of phone minutes. Time is money. But since singles, through the process of dating, already spend the most time and money, throwing cash back into the economy of the city through dinners, drinks and coffees, new outfits to impress potential dates, cover charges at clubs and singles events, memberships to social and philanthropic societies, therapy bills, overpriced trips to Club Med etc, don’t we deserve a little break when it comes to something as small and easy for the phone companies to offer as airtime minutes?

Why not give single people free minutes when they talk to other singles? It might even encourage romance, if single people could talk to each other for free. Why not allow best friends the chance to analyze blind dates without paying through the nose? Why further penalize singles for not having found the love of their lives?

We deserve a little “free time” at least as much as married people do. And maybe more.

WARNING: THIS SEGMENT FLINGS MUD AT THE HAPPILY MARRIED

Catherine Zeta-Jones mocks me again. First, with the claim that she’s only 35. Yeah, right. She’s only three years older than I am? Granted, she’s prettier and in better shape, and looks MUCH YOUNGER next to husband Michael Douglas, but if she’s 35 then I’m an Academy Award winner.

But moving on to the reason behind this rant: Catherine, in her role as corporate shill for T-Mobile, has gone over the edge of discriminating against me as a single woman: now that company’s offering couples the opportunity to talk for free. Yet another way that America gives discounts to people already possess most of the elusive happiness that drives us all.

Married people already get to split their living expenses—rent, phone, cable and Con Ed can be split up equitably or financed by the more financially successful partner. Kind of like an employer that negotiates a group rate for health insurance, I think single people in the same building should be able to pay a group rate for cable, phone, Con Ed, whatever. This kind of arrangement also could build goodwill and cooperation within a building, creating a sense of community in a city that can feel so lonely.

Married people get to register for things they didn’t know they needed, but might like to have just the same. These luxuries, like rice cookers and breadmakers, aren’t vital accessories, but married couples get them anyway, during parties thrown in celebration of their happiness, to which all their friends—even their single friends—bring presents, so that the couple don't have to pay for them themselves. But since most couples are living on two incomes, couples have more money to spend on these things. It’s singles who should be able to register for the stuff they want and receive said swag gratis.

Most couples experience financial benefits to the legalizing of their unions. They have joint bank accounts and joint health insurance. One spouse can send the other to do shopping on the way home, and said food expenses are split. They have an extra person who can be on call for the cable guy’s arrival, who can remind the doorman in their luxury building that they’re expecting packages. I think singles should be able to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they’re married. I think married couples should register with some sort of central agency and enter into a work rotation to help out singles in all of these areas: once a month, a member of a married (or committed) couple needs to help out a single: either by providing a service like picking up dry-cleaning, or by providing a home-cooked meal to a single man or woman who’s been living on boxes of mac and cheese or slices of mushroom pizza (just two examples).

Perhaps couples could also legally “adopt” a single person, inviting him or her over for dinner every once in a while, helping pick out decorations for his or her apartment, and most importantly, claiming them the singleton as a dependent while providing a legal framework for that person’s right to health insurance. And if that couple wants to give the singleton a $50 allowance per week, that much the better.

But this all started with the concept of phone minutes. Time is money. But since singles, through the process of dating, already spend the most time and money, throwing cash back into the economy of the city through dinners, drinks and coffees, new outfits to impress potential dates, cover charges at clubs and singles events, memberships to social and philanthropic societies, therapy bills, overpriced trips to Club Med etc, don’t we deserve a little break when it comes to something as small and easy for the phone companies to offer as airtime minutes?

Why not give single people free minutes when they talk to other singles? It might even encourage romance, if single people could talk to each other for free. Why not allow best friends the chance to analyze blind dates without paying through the nose? Why further penalize singles for not having found the love of their lives?

We deserve a little “free time” at least as much as married people do. And maybe more.