Is There a "Best" City to Date In? The Love Life Podcast Ranks the Rankings
Matthew Hussey
On this episode of the Love Life podcast, Matthew Hussey, Audrey, Stephen and producer David go through published rankings of the best and worst cities in the world for dating. They treat the lists with open skepticism, and several times admit they know little about the places being ranked. The conversation soon moves to a bigger question: how much does your city actually determine your dating life, and how much is it something people blame when they're frustrated? Matthew's position, which he develops at length, is that density and circumstances matter, but that people in big cities and small towns alike tend to underuse the opportunities they already have. The episode also covers two listener emails about money and relationships, a voice-note question about age gaps, and a closing game matching cities to romantic scenarios.
The Time Out List of the Worst Cities to Date In
Stephen had a list from Time Out of the worst cities in the world for dating. He later said the metric was love-life satisfaction reported by locals. He read it from tenth-worst to worst.
Vienna came tenth. No one on the panel had dated there, and Matthew asked listeners in Vienna to write in and say whether it deserved the spot. Sydney was ninth, which surprised the group because of its outdoor culture. Someone replied that Los Angeles also has an outdoor culture and is considered hard to date in. Matthew guessed Sydney might be a good place to date if you're in your twenties and at the beach, and harder in your thirties, forties or fifties.
London and Brisbane tied for seventh. Stephen was surprised by London. He had always called it a great dating city because it's dense and draws people from all over the world, so "you can get any kind of person." The others guessed at rain, bad weather and cost as explanations. Asked about her time living in London, Audrey said she also enjoyed dating there, which prompted some teasing from Matthew.
Los Angeles vs. New York
Los Angeles and New York tied for fifth. Most of the panel thought New York was the better of the two. One host said you could have "three dates in one night in New York," and someone else answered that this might be exactly the problem. They agreed the two cities are hard for different reasons.
The case against LA was high competition, especially on looks, many famous people, a spread-out geography, and a lot of people working in the same industry. Matthew objected that people forget how big LA is: it isn't only the entertainment world, and plenty of people there do many different kinds of jobs. He still agreed that people in LA stay indoors a lot and that it's hard to get anyone to do anything.
Audrey framed it around each city's values. She called New York a "hustler city" where people have to sink or swim, and where finding love and settling down may not be most people's priority, so dating can feel casual and transient. In LA she saw "a currency around fame and status" in some pockets of the city. Going on a date with someone who holds those values could leave you feeling inadequate. She added that she had never dated in LA herself.
Matthew said LA has its own hustle culture, because many people gave up a lot to move there for a dream, and that can make nothing else feel allowed to get in the way. For him the bigger factor is sprawl. He said it raises the "activation energy" for doing anything. In New York, if you're already out and friends text you to join them at another bar, it's a quick cab ride. In LA the same invitation means a 40-minute drive, and once you've committed to one place you tend to stay there. One of the hosts also said they believed New York skews female in its numbers, which is a reason some women there complain.
Marseille, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Bilbao
Marseille came fourth. No one could explain it. The others joked that Audrey, as the closest thing they had to a French correspondent, should answer for it. Hong Kong was third. The guesses were a large expat population, an intense work culture, and a dating scene that is active but transient.
Tokyo came second, and this got a longer discussion. Matthew said it's increasingly uncommon everywhere for people to walk over and talk to a stranger. In his view, men in recent years have become more worried about looking creepy, and people's social skills in general have eroded. As he understands it, Japan has been "leading the pack" on this for a long time.
Audrey added another factor, which she said is based on anecdotes from people she has spoken to. In a fairly traditional country with traditional gender-role expectations, women who move up in their careers and gain independence may see a relationship as coming with the expectation that they become something like a housewife. Many don't want that. She said this creates friction between the genders and is also hard on men, who may want something women don't feel able to offer right now. Someone noted the irony that Tokyo may offer the most fun dates anywhere because there's so much to do besides drinking. The others joked about three dinners, then McDonald's, then karaoke.
The worst city on the list was Bilbao, Spain. No one had been there. Someone asked whether it's known for excellent restaurants. Another host said that if a city of Bilbao's size is on the list, plenty of other small cities should be too. Matthew then said the panel wasn't qualified to judge most of these cities, including the ones they had opinions on. He called Time Out's list "questionable" and asked listeners from those places to write in.
The "Best Cities" Lists and Their Contradictions
David brought two lists of the best cities. Before he started, he said he was surprised San Francisco wasn't on the worst list, because he often hears women say it's hard to date there.
The first list ranked cities by the percentage of single people, and it listed the percentage of divorced people separately. The panel was confused by that. They wondered whether a lot of divorce was meant to count as a good sign because it means more available people, and why that wasn't already covered by the single figure. Someone called it a "poisoned chalice": lots of available people, but also more divorce. Another joked that you'll find love and then lose it. Going up from the bottom of the top ten, David read Berlin, San Francisco, Chicago, Barcelona and Stockholm.
Chicago made sense to some of the panel, who described it as a less intense New York with more Midwestern vibes and people more willing to commit. They mentioned a couple from Chicago they met on holiday who had married at about 26. A figure of 62% single was also mentioned in this part of the conversation. At the top of the list, Gothenburg was third (David cited 58% single and 55% divorced), London second (57% single), and Miami first. The panel pointed out that London was now both one of the worst and one of the best cities. David said the lists measured different things: this one only counted how many people were available. Someone added that Miami, with its many single people, is probably a hard market in its own way because people there are less inclined to commit.
David preferred a second, US-only list that combined three factors: availability of singles, rent, and the city's national nightlife ranking. Someone asked whether a 50-year-old looking for love cares about nightlife. David said the nightlife measure included restaurants and places to socialize, so it was about social opportunities more generally. Salt Lake City came third, with a median one-bedroom rent of $1,200 and a top-10 entertainment ranking. Knoxville was second and St. Louis was first. The worst cities on this list were Henderson, San Jose, Fresno and Bakersfield. David said three were in California, where he is from.
Matthew's reaction was that the more he heard, the more he wanted to "scrap the idea" that there's a perfect city for dating. Someone noticed that mid-sized cities kept appearing near the top. Another host said smaller cities also limit your choices, so they come with their own disadvantages.
Blaming Circumstances
Audrey compared the city debate to the way people talk about age. In your twenties, dating is the worst because no one is ready for a relationship. In your thirties, it's the worst because everyone is pairing off. In your forties, it's the worst because everyone left is damaged or just out of a marriage. She accepted that some ages and places really are better or worse. Someone looking intentionally at 28 has more options than someone at 60, and three dates a week beats one date every three months. But she thought people are prone to blaming circumstances and treating their own as the worst, and that they do this with cities too.
Matthew agreed that blaming circumstances is an easy place to go when you're frustrated. He still said being around a density of people helps, and that a very small place is harder. Audrey asked whether density still helps in places like LA or New York, where it can feel as if nobody is dating intentionally.
Matthew rejected that premise. He said there's no city on earth where people don't feel the pull toward a partner, and that in a city where you're "trying relentlessly to make it," many people think a loving partner would make life easier. He called the idea that everyone is too happy chasing careers to want a partner "not a reasonable analysis of human behavior." People pursuing a career aggressively often put it first, he said, but not everyone is like that, and values often change when people meet someone they really like. He accepted that more density means more competition, so you have to stand out, but he argued this is achievable by making the best of yourself.
He also said people should check their own behavior. In dense places, the belief that there will always be someone else makes people so picky that they don't invest enough in anyone to see how good they could be. They skip the second date or the extra conversation, and so "we can end up becoming that vibe ourselves."
City Loneliness and the Courage to Engineer Interactions
Matthew described a loneliness he thinks is particular to cities. You walk home past people spilling out of bars and restaurants, laughing with drinks in their hands, and feel that you haven't found your people or your person. Someone added that cities give you constant FOMO, so you feel you're inside the city but outside the experience.
Matthew said meeting people in a city takes a lot of courage, and that you have to "engineer interactions." For some people that means being willing to approach others more. He said he was never so confident that he didn't feel nervous approaching someone. Sometimes it went well and sometimes it didn't, and Stephen had been with him for both. When it went badly he felt stupid and embarrassed, but he had still done it. He said people need to keep that courage, especially if they don't want to be stuck in a city depending on dating apps because they no longer know how to meet anyone in person.
Approachability and Micro-Interactions
Matthew said a key point many people miss is that approachability matters as much as approaching. People are so focused on how to walk over to someone that they don't think about making it easy for others to walk over to them. Do you stand facing the wall, or facing inward at the bar, or do you position yourself so someone could easily start a conversation? Someone added eye contact.
He then described micro-interactions, which he said he's "very, very big on." People think of it as either talking to someone or not, with a huge gap in between. Matthew wants people to imagine "100 slices" between those two states that make it more likely you'll "tumble into" a conversation: eye contact, where you stand, asking someone what they're drinking because it looks good, clinking glasses with the person next to you at the bar, complimenting a bag, jacket or shoes. These small moves, he said, signal that you're open to talking, warm, and "not a person who's going to bite your head off." Walking across a room to talk to someone is a big move. His advice was to stop fixating on big moves you never make and to focus on low-risk, low-stakes interactions that tend to grow into something more.
Audrey added a tactic for bars and similar places: talk to lots of people as soon as you arrive, before deciding whether you find anyone attractive. You warm up, so when someone you're interested in does appear, talking to them isn't a huge leap after spending the night in your shell. Matthew said at that point "it's not a strategy, it's a way of being."
Pride, Routine and the Tourist Mindset
Matthew said pride is often the enemy, especially the longer you live somewhere. Over time people settle into a few friends and a few routines. The first time you walk into a coffee shop, it doesn't feel embarrassing to introduce yourself to the barista, ask someone's name, or ask the person next to you where else is good nearby. After a hundred visits, though, it's "my coffee shop" and you don't want to embarrass yourself, so people become "too cool to be vulnerable."
He contrasted that with tourists, especially young ones staying in hostels, who talk to everyone because they're only there for three days, have paid to be there, and want an adventure. They end up engineering new friendships or a romance. His explanation for why someone might find nobody at home in five years and then meet someone on holiday is that they "adopted a holiday persona."
Audrey agreed but said it's genuinely easier when you're passing through. Being only in town for three days gives you a cover story: you're not desperate, you're talking to everyone. When you live there, speaking to someone feels like it signals interest, and that makes you more nervous. Matthew said this is "only something in our head." His example was a restaurant owner who walks around asking diners how their night is going. Nobody knows the person owns the place, but they act as if they do, and people respond. He suggested adopting a similar story: resolving to make the most of your city again and treating it as if you're new in town.
Advice for People in Small Cities
David asked what people in smaller places should do. Matthew said to accept that you'll have fewer options, but to ask whether you're really making the most of the ones you have. Are you being brave with people at your coffee shop or local bookshop, and are you joining clubs? A small place means you won't meet new people on every corner, so you have to be more proactive: engineer social groups and community, and build a "tribe" on purpose of people who like what you like and value what you value.
Audrey's practical tip was to widen the radius on dating apps, and to include a larger city about an hour away if you're willing to travel. Matthew called this trading convenience for options. In New York you might only need a one-square-mile radius, but if you live upstate somewhere less populated, you may need a much larger one and to be willing to drive an hour for a date, which he said is "not the end of the world."
Listener Emails on Money: Paige and Dana
The panel then went back to an earlier episode, "What's behind the male fear that women only care about money," which had prompted two emails.
Stephen read the email from Paige, who described themself as a 37-year-old single woman living in Texas and a longtime listener. Paige said they were bothered to hear the theme repeated across several episodes because it seemed to validate the rhetoric of the far-right "manosphere." Paige wrote that they and their single friends are homeowners and financially independent. They invest, give to charity, look after their homes, and are generous with loved ones. None of them need a man who earns more than they do, or care much about how much a man earns. They're looking for equals with similar values. Paige's concerns were different: men who can't cook and spend a lot eating out ("Chipotle boys"), men who invest less well, give less to charity, spend more on hobbies and frivolous things, or are drifting toward a sports-betting addiction. Paige included links to articles on several of these points. Paige also wrote about the fear of ending up with a man who doesn't contribute at home regardless of income. Their points were that women who out-earn their partners still do more housework, carry the mental load, and seem to seek therapy more. Paige acknowledged the topic has much more nuance, including pay parity, social expectations and generational differences. They said they and their friends now talk about looking for a "partner" rather than a boyfriend or husband, and asked for a more balanced conversation in future.
Matthew said he loved the email. He said the panel may have given the impression that they were reinforcing manosphere stereotypes, but that they try to say the opposite: these are things people often claim women care about, and the claims don't match the women the team knows or coaches. He said some women fit the stereotype, just as some men do, and that the team has long prided itself on not reinforcing gender stereotypes. He would be sad to think they had failed at that.
He then read the email from Dana, who wrote that financial goals and lifestyle expectations clearly matter in dating, but that couples with similar means often run into serious trouble when their financial values don't match. Dana's examples were couples with similar salaries where one wants to save hard for a home while the other prioritizes travel or eating out, or where one wants to stay in an expensive city and the other wants to move to save money. Dana said such mismatches can cause as much strain as income gaps, or more.
Matthew called this a wonderful point. How we spend money shows our values, the lifestyle we aim for, and what we prioritize. Someone added that it also shows how we waste money, or whether we even consider something a waste. He argued that focusing heavily on income or wealth gaps distracts from differing values around money, which can cause just as much incompatibility. He added that if two people share values around money but have very different amounts of it, those shared values may be what makes them compatible despite the gap. He ended by speaking to men who worry they'll be overlooked for not earning enough: many women are looking for someone with the same money values, and that matters more to them than whether a partner earns as much or more.
Love Lifeline: Dating at 53 When Men Date Much Younger Women
The listener voice note came from Janelle, who is 53. Janelle said they're proud of their age and have no problem with it, but that men seem to. Men show interest, and then Janelle learns they're dating, or have dated, a woman younger than Janelle's daughter. Janelle sees a man around 50 who has dated someone in her twenties as a major red flag and finds it "gross," and asked whether that's too judgmental and how men think about it.
Audrey said she fully understood the reaction and partly agreed, but that the key question is whether it's a pattern. If someone consistently dates people 10, 20 or 30 years younger, she said, it's "kind of creepy," and she finds it strange to gravitate only toward that, if only in terms of maturity. One or two big age gaps mixed in with age-appropriate relationships is different in her view. People try things when they date, the relationship may have been mainly about attraction, and some older men feel their age heavily and feel younger dating a younger woman. Matthew noted that the team also hears from women in their fifties who enjoy dating younger men.
Matthew asked Audrey whether the size of the gap changes things: someone in their fifties dating someone in their twenties versus someone whose last partner was 35. Audrey said her view still applied. She repeated that she agrees with Janelle and would feel the same, but said people shouldn't be written off over one relationship. Anyone could look at a couple of our exes and wonder how we were ever attracted to them, so people should give each other grace. She said the way someone talks about it matters. Describing it as a somewhat embarrassing post-divorce semi-relationship that obviously didn't last is different from saying "my ex was 28 and there's nothing wrong with that." Her advice was to watch whether it forms a pattern and a profile of the person.
Matthew agreed that the pattern is the most important thing to look for. He also said how someone talks about why it didn't work out tells you a lot. He gave a hypothetical of a 53-year-old saying the relationship was fun and the attraction was real, but that the gap in life experience showed them how much they need deep compatibility with someone who truly understands them. Someone else said it would bother them if the younger partner was about the same age as the man's own child, and in that respect agreed with Janelle. Another person mentioned a couple they know who are married, one about 28 and the other in their fifties, and noted that the older partner has no children.
Matthew's own view was that each person has to decide what they value, and that dating someone from a very different generation says something about what you value. Maybe you're dating "the wisest 28-year-old in the world," he said, "but probably not." What looks like an old head on young shoulders is often a superficial maturity rather than the kind that comes from living through things. The younger partner also may not share your references or understand what your thirties and forties were like. He said it's fine for Janelle to find it off-putting and to decide such a person probably isn't for her. He also said people make "very human diversions." After a divorce, both men and women sometimes swing the pendulum and try dating someone younger, and he warned against condemning someone's character or giving them an identity based on one relationship, "within reason." What he would listen for is what the experience taught them, or whether they clearly thought it was great and would do it again without a second thought. He said how someone has been shaped by their experiences matters as much as, or more than, what those experiences were.
The team said they never hear voice notes before recording, apart from David who selects them, so the answers are given on the spot. They asked for notes of about 30 seconds.
"Steve Sleeves": Love Maps
The episode ended with Stephen's recurring segment, "Steve Sleeves." This time the game was "love maps": Stephen gave a scenario and the others named a city.
For the city you go to after a breakup, the answer was Paris, which the group said is always the answer on Netflix: a new outfit, a beret, and fluent French in about 60 days. Audrey mentioned watching the third season of The Summer I Turned Pretty, in which the heroine seems fluent in French almost immediately. Matthew complained about the show and then started watching it. When Audrey corrected someone's pronunciation of the Seine, she explained why she's careful. After a previous episode, listeners had criticized her for not remembering a French word. She speaks fluent French but left France when she was nine. Matthew said that kind of humility is how you know someone actually speaks a language.
For the city where you'd fall for the wrong person, the answers were Las Vegas, Miami as a party city for a fling, and Amsterdam, which one host tried to remember by describing it as the city people visit for drug tourism. For meeting someone completely different from your usual type, Berlin, for its rave scene and grungier, indie crowd. That led to jokes about the club scene and a "bondage rebound," and a quip that if you're already into that, you should go somewhere quieter and find a wine enthusiast.
For a fantasy meet-cute, the panel refused to give Paris another turn. They suggested Seattle, where you come in from the rain slightly steaming and meet someone in a coffee shop, and then a tropical Asian city where you duck into a cozy place out of the rain. When someone objected that you might not share a language, the others joked about learning fluent Japanese in two weeks and waiting outside the nearest izakaya.
Before signing off, someone mentioned that one of the lists had named Beijing and Mumbai as great cities to date in. No one on the panel knew why, so they asked listeners from those cities to write in and explain.
Stephen, you have the data from Time Out on the worst cities in the world to date.
That's true. I do.
Take us through them.
Okay. Starting with number one.
Are they in order of how bad they are, or are they just, these are 10 horrible?
They're in order of how bad they are.
Okay. So number one's the worst.
The worst. Let's start with number 10 then.
Number 10, Vienna. Number nine. Wait, you have any comment on Vienna?
I haven't been to Vienna. It's very small, I think. Isn't it a small city?
I can't say I've ever been or know much about dating in Vienna. Do we have anyone out there dating in Vienna who can verify that Vienna is a horrible city to date in? Email us, podcastmatthewhussey.com.
Number nine, Sydney, Australia.
That surprises me.
That surprised me a bit. That surprises me because it's a very outdoor culture.
So is LA, and LA's horrible to date in.
Well, there's a theme that comes up. We can talk about that. A lot of big cities seem to be low ranked. So number joint seven.
I'm surprised at Sydney, though. I feel like Sydney is a good place to date. Well, maybe if you're a young person, Sydney's a good place to date. Like 20s, you go out to the beach, get out the bod. Maybe that's the vibe.
Yeah.
Maybe if you're in your 30s, 40s, 50s in Sydney, maybe it starts to get more difficult.
Joint number seven is London and Brisbane, Australia. Again, London surprises me because I always found that a great city to date in. And I would always tell people, London's amazing because people come from all over the world. Great mix of people, dense. You can get any kind of person in London.
Maybe it's the rain. Bad weather makes you not want to go out.
Expensive, maybe.
There's a big density of people in London, and there are lots of different kinds of people.
Audrey, you lived in London the longest. How was it to date?
I am the same as you. I enjoyed dating.
Oh, for God's sakes.
Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I dated before you.
I think I rate London highly. Okay. Joint five, Los Angeles and New York City.
I can't believe Los Angeles. Oh, wait. Los Angeles is worse than London.
Yeah.
Yeah. Oh, that makes sense.
But it's just right behind it.
But LA and New York joint. I feel like New York's better than LA.
Yeah, I would totally agree with that.
New York's so much easier. You go out, you could have three dates in one night in New York.
That's the problem. There we go. There we have it.
They're different problems, mate. LA is bad for different reasons. LA is hard because you've got very high competition, especially in looks, and you've also got a lot of famous people. It's very spread out, a lot of similar people all in the similar industry. So I think a lot of people here find dating harder than a lot of cities. So that makes sense. I am surprised New York.
It's a very monotone conversation for a lot of people in LA when it's in the bubble of the entertainment industry. But people forget how big LA is. LA is not just entertainment people. It's massive, and there are many different people doing many different kinds of jobs.
No, it is. But people stay indoors a lot in LA. They do things around there. Yeah, I think it's—
I think that's the hard part, is it's hard to get people to do anything in LA.
It's also the values of a city, right? New York is a hustler city. People move there, they have to sink or swim, and they're just incredibly driven, and they hustle, and they're trying to get somewhere. And finding love and settling down might not actually be top priority for a lot of people. So then it feels a bit more casual and transient and all the rest of it.
LA, to your point, there's a lot of different people. Well, I was going to say, with LA, I think the values of LA, not everybody. There's, again, so many different kinds of people in LA, but there is definitely a currency around fame and status, which then means that you have to navigate the values of the city in some pockets of the city. If you fall prey to, if you go on a date with someone that's a bit like that, it could make you feel inadequate and not good enough.
Yeah, maybe. I think it's still—
I say that, I've never dated in LA, so I don't know.
There's still a huge hustle culture in LA because a lot of people gave up a lot to be in LA.
True.
They moved across the country. They have a dream that they're pursuing, and they've made so many sacrifices to be there that it's kind of like, nothing can get in the way of that, because that's my entire reason for being in this place. And then you have those people who grew up here. I'm not best placed to talk about why that's hard, but I do think the sprawling nature of the city just makes the activation energy for everybody higher to just do anything, to leave your house.
And also, the advantage of somewhere like New York is that someone can say, you could be already out and someone in New York says, come meet us over in this bar, and you're like, sure, because it's just a quick cab ride or it's—
Exactly. In LA, when you're out and someone says, we're out over here, you're like, well, that's a 40-minute drive.
That's never happening. Once you've committed, you're in.
Yeah. Actually, a lot of women complain about New York because I believe New York is quite female-heavy on the numbers side. So I think maybe for single New York helps.
Number four, Marseilles, France.
I have no clue what's going on in Marseilles, France, and it's number four on the list.
Marseilles is the fourth worst city to date in the world.
Yeah.
Yeah. I've been there once. Don't look at me. I don't know why it's the worst date. It's a little bit—
We're looking at you as the closest thing to France. We have a French correspondent.
Yeah. No. Okay.
No, I don't know.
I'm sorry for everyone in Marseilles who's going through.
Number two. Number three, Hong Kong.
Don't know what's going on in Hong Kong. I don't know. A lot of expats there. Maybe it's just super busy work culture. Not sure. Hong Kong's quite a datey culture, I think. Especially all the expats there, probably a lot of dating and transient stuff. So I think maybe that's harder.
Yeah. Interesting. Number two, Tokyo, Japan.
Yeah.
You think it's cultural?
You hear all the time, when it comes to Japanese culture, the difficulty people have in meeting each other.
Yeah.
Getting to know each other, that it's not a cultural norm to—I think it's becoming less culturally normal everywhere for people to just stroll over and talk to each other. So I think that's in Europe.
I think over the last few years, men have been more concerned about looking creepy when they talk to somebody. I think people in general have had their social skills eroded. And so the idea of, I'm going to just walk over and talk to someone, it's not not a thing, but it's less of a thing than it was.
Japan is kind of, as I understand it, leading the pack and has been leading the pack for a long time in—
Yes.
Finding it strange to just walk over to someone and start a conversation. The other thing as well, which I think is really important to mention, is Japan is quite a traditional country, and I think with that comes maybe traditional values around gender roles and things like that. And so as women—and we see this in other pockets of the world, but I definitely think this is true in Japan, and anecdotally from speaking to people, this seems to be true—as women rise up in the ranks, get jobs, get independence in that way, they look at relationships as almost the expectation is that they then would become almost a housewife to a man.
And they don't necessarily want that because they feel like they've got their independence. Why would they settle for that? And that kind of traditional values ends up creating friction between the two genders, and I think—
I can understand that women feel that way as well.
Yeah. And then it's obviously hard for men because they're maybe looking for something that women are not necessarily able to give them in this moment in time.
It's crazy because Tokyo, you can have probably the most fun dates because there's so much to do that isn't just going out for drinks.
You just go for three dinners.
And then finish off with McDonald's.
And then karaoke.
And number one, which I have no idea about, is Bilbao in Spain.
That's number one? Doesn't Bilbao have some of the best restaurants in the world, or am I thinking of somewhere else?
I'm not sure if it's that place, but I've been to several Spanish cities. I've never been to Bilbao. It can't be that big. So I don't know why locals in Bilbao are really saying the dating scene—
And it feels like if you're putting Bilbao in that list, it feels like there should be plenty of other small cities in the firing line.
Interesting. Well, we are not qualified to talk about many of these cities, even the ones we are weighing in on. We would love for you to tell us, if you're in one of these cities, is it as hard as Time Out is suggesting in this questionable list that they've put together? Let us know. podcastmatthewhussey.com.
Now, David, you have found what are allegedly a couple of the best cities to date in.
Yeah. I'm actually curious, what did it say the metric was for measuring?
It was just according to locals.
According to locals. Okay.
No, it was love life satisfaction according to locals.
Okay. So it was a percentage of people who felt satisfied in their lives.
Yeah. Okay. Actually, in all this list, I'm really surprised San Francisco didn't come up because I always hear from women who say it's difficult in San Francisco. So I'm actually very surprised that didn't come up.
Well, so this is a somewhat conflicting list, and albeit the metric for this is oddly—I have two different lists. The metric for this is single percentage, but also weirdly separated out is percentage of divorced people, which I feel like—
They're saying that's a good thing if there's lots of divorce.
If there's lots of divorced people.
Because what, people then were married at some point?
No, they're saying because people are available, right?
Yeah.
Wouldn't that also just be single?
Yeah.
Yeah. So it's making a distinction between single and—
So let's take this list with a grain of salt, but the bottom of the top is Berlin, Germany.
Also, it's a bit of a poisoned chalice.
Yes.
Isn't it? We have the most people available, but more people get divorced here.
Yeah. Yeah, is it?
You'll find love, and then you'll lose it.
Yeah. It's true. It's true. Berlin, Germany, at the bottom. San Francisco is next above that because there's so many single people. Chicago, Barcelona, Stockholm, Sweden.
Chicago makes sense to me for some reason.
Yeah, I feel like—
It's like a slightly less intense New York. And maybe it's a bit more Midwest vibes, people willing to actually commit, unlike New York.
We were on holiday recently. We met a couple who were from Chicago, and they were really sweet, and they'd got married. They were like 26.
Yeah, Chicago makes sense.
So, call—
62% people single, apparently.
But I actually think that I have a more interesting list, but it's only in the US, which rates—
Wait, did you do the top ones?
What were the other top?
The top top of that list was Gothenburg, Sweden, at the third most.
That was the third best place to be single?
Yeah. Gothenburg, Sweden. 58% people single there, 55% divorced.
Then London, with 57% people.
That's confusing.
It's because it's a different metric.
It's just saying how many people there are for you to opt. Yeah.
Okay.
But it's like there's so many available people because no one wants to commit.
Miami is number one.
Yeah.
There's a lot of single people in Miami.
Yeah. You hear a lot of complaints.
That's also a tough dating market in different ways because it's probably less committal.
So that's why I think the better one is the top cities, this other list, which balanced it off of three factors. One was single availability, cost of rent, and their placement on national nightlife ranking, which I think is a good three.
But if you're 50 and looking for love, do you care about nightlife in that way?
Part of nightlife was good restaurants, good places to socialize. But yeah, it's not all nightlife. It's good social opportunities.
Okay.
I'll just give—
Nightclubs.
I'll give you the top three, and it's only in the US. Salt Lake City, Utah, is third place.
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Median one-bedroom rent is 1,200. And people can tell if that's their experience, but 1,200 is a one-bedroom rent. And it's top 10 in entertainment in terms of being able to go out and infrastructure for being able to go out. Number two is Knoxville, Tennessee.
Okay.
And then number one is St. Louis, Missouri.
Wow. And then they also have the worst cities, which three of them are in California, which is in the Bay Area, which is where I'm from. Henderson, San Jose, Fresno, and Bakersfield.
Do you know what? The more I listen to these lists, the more I'm just like, we can scrap the idea that there is this perfect place to go and date. It just doesn't exist.
There are ones that come up quite frequently. They seem to be mid-tier size cities. But I also think that that comes with, some people like that in Sweden, but they're also very small, and your choices actually, you don't—yeah, I don't know. I think you get disadvantages because it limits your choices as well.
Guys, one of the most challenging things about modern dating is not just finding someone that we like, which can be challenging all by itself, but even once we have and we find someone who likes us back, it still feels so difficult to get to the point of actually having a real committed relationship with that person. That's because of something called the investment gap. It is the time in early dating where we are willing to give and invest and commit more than the other person is.
I have put together a free training called From Casual to Committed where I talk about how to overcome the investment gap. It is one of the most common things in the world right now. And I show you very specific things that you can do and say that actually start to progress the relationship in an intentional way that leads to real commitment.
And I know of what I speak in this area, not just because I've been coaching people in this area for two decades of my life, but also because in the beginning of my relationship with my wife Audrey, I was the one who was having some fears around commitment. And some of the things I talk about in this training are things that she literally said and did with me that made all the difference to my ability to commit.
It's amazing what the right language and the right actions can do in creating a relationship that actually goes the distance. I want to show you what they are in Casual to Committed, which you can watch for free right now at getcommitment.com. That link again is getcommitment.com.
But something that I think we are all quite guilty of is when we're in our 20s, we'll be like, dating in your 20s is the worst because nobody is ready for a relationship or everybody is whatever. Then when you're in your 30s, you're like, dating in your 30s is the worst because everybody is pairing off and there's no one left and I'm going to be on my own. When you're in your 40s, it's like everybody in their 40s who is still single is either damaged or coming out of a marriage and doesn't want a relationship. Dating in your 40s is the worst. Anyway, you've got that every single stage of dating and every single stage of life.
And I think that people do the same thing with where they live, right? Where there are objectively worse and better places and worse and better ages to date. I think you're more likely to find someone more quickly if you're intentionally looking at 28 years old than 60 years old, even by default of having more people available to you. Same with if you're going on three dates a week versus one date every three months, you're more likely to find someone to be with. But I do think that we're guilty of almost blaming our circumstances and always seeing that that's the worst thing.
I don't know if you guys agree with that. People will do that with their cities.
It's kind of the easiest place to go when we're frustrated, or it's one of the easy places to go when we're frustrated. Look, it certainly helps to be around a density of people. That much is true. And I'm tempted to say that having a density of people around you is generally better than being in a place where there's very few people around.
Being in a tiny place is harder.
Yeah. Do you think that's true, though? If you're somewhere like LA or New York where it feels like no one really is intentionally dating?
There's no city that exists on Earth where people are not feeling the pull towards meeting a partner. Everywhere there are people who go, you know what would make life a little easier in this city where I'm trying relentlessly to make it? A person, a loving partner to do this with. And the generalization that everyone is so blissfully happy chasing their careers that they have no interest in finding a partner, I think that's not a reasonable analysis of human behavior.
Yes, when people are in a mode where they're pursuing aggressively a career, their career often comes first. But not everyone is like that. And many people's values shift as they meet someone they really like. Yes, it's true that when there's a greater density of people, you're up against more competition. You are. So you have to stand out. You have to be better. That's just true.
But you don't have to put that in your mind as something unobtainable or unattainable. It can be something that you do by just making the best of yourself. And I think we have to check ourselves in these environments because we're also the ones who are often so choosy based on the idea that there's always going to be another person that we don't actually invest enough time and energy in somebody to see how great they could be. We don't go on that second date or have that extra conversation to actually get to know someone. So we can end up becoming that vibe ourselves.
I also think that cities are lonely places for a lot of people, and if you're not proactive about meeting people in general, you can really get lost in a city. And it's a particular kind of loneliness when you're in a place where it feels like everyone else is hanging out doing cool things. You're walking home, people are spilling out of bars and restaurants and laughing together on the street holding a cocktail and doing that, and you're like, I don't have that. I'm going home. I don't have my people. I've never met my people here. I don't have a person. Cities can make you feel incredibly lonely in that way.
That's true. And you kind of get FOMO all the time for what you could be doing or an experience you think you should be having, but you're not having that experience. So you feel like you're inside a city, but on the outside of the experience.
And I really believe it takes a huge amount of courage and bravery to meet people in a city. You have to engineer interactions, and for some of us that means being willing to make the approach more. I was often scared to make the approach. I was always a bit scared to make the approach, to be honest. I was never so unstoppably confident that I didn't feel nerves when I went over to approach somebody, and sometimes it would go well and sometimes it wouldn't. Stephen, you've been with me on both occasions. Times where it's gone well and times where it didn't.
And in those moments, you feel stupid and you feel a bit embarrassed, but you did the thing. And I think that we have to keep our courage in creating these moments with other people, especially if you don't want to be sitting in a city addicted to dating apps and, you know, I can't get off these things because I just don't know how to meet anyone in real life anymore.
And also, it's not just about approaching, it's about approachability. This is one of the key things that so many people miss, is they're so busy thinking about how do I go over and talk to someone that they don't think about how they make themselves more approachable. How do you position yourself in a room? Do you position yourself facing the wall or standing at the bar, facing inwards towards the bar, or do you position yourself in a way where it would be easy for someone to come over and talk to you?
Are you looking at someone as well?
Are you making enough eye contact? Absolutely. Are you creating micro interactions? I think a lot about the idea of micro interactions. I'm very, very big on this. We think in terms of I'm either talking to someone or I'm not talking to someone, and it feels like there's this enormous gulf between those two things. But micro interactions is like, if I sliced this, what are the hundred slices in between that make it more likely that something happens, that we tumble into a conversation?
It might be eye contact. It might be how I position myself. It might be asking someone what they're drinking because it looks good. It might be cheers, cheersing someone who happens to be standing next to you at the bar, and just, hey, cheers. These little tiny moments. I like your bag. I like your jacket. I really like those shoes. These little things that signal to someone all the time, hey, I'm a person who's open to speaking to people. I'm a person who's warm. I'm not a person who's going to bite your head off for talking to me.
We should focus far less on the big moves, because walking across the room to talk to someone is a big move, right? But instead of obsessing over those all the time and never doing anything, we should be thinking, what are the micro interactions that I can have with a person that are very risk-free? They're very low stakes, but they have a weird way of growing into something more if I do them, because you're signaling to the world.
And also, I think if you're especially in a bar environment or in a kind of social environment in that way, if you walk in and you talk to everybody before you even identify, do I like anyone? Has anybody walked in that I think is attractive? Any of that. If you walk in and you talk to lots of people and you make lots of touch points with people, you kind of warm yourself up so that then if somebody is attractive and you do find somebody attractive, then you are able to talk to them more comfortably, and you haven't been in your shell the whole night and suddenly it's a massive leap to talk to this person.
Because now it's not a strategy, it's a way of being.
Yes. Exactly.
And that changes it. So I think that's the biggest advice I would give to people in big cities, is that your pride is your enemy in a lot of ways. Especially, by the way, the longer you've been in a city. This is something that you'll notice. The longer we're in a city, the more we sort of concretize and we find our couple of people and we find our little routines.
When you first walk into a coffee shop, having never been there, it's not embarrassing to introduce yourself to the barista, to ask someone's name, to say hi to the person next to you and ask where else is good around here. None of those things feel weird when it's your first time in a neighborhood, in that coffee shop, or when you're a tourist. But when you've been to that coffee shop a hundred times, all of a sudden it's like, I don't want to embarrass myself in my home. This is my coffee shop. I don't want to do anything embarrassing.
And that happens in a city. It's like all of a sudden we become too cold to be vulnerable. The tourists don't do that. Why do tourists have the best time? Because tourists, especially young tourists, they go and stay in a hostel and they talk to everybody because they're like, I'm only here for three days. I'm having fun.
Yeah. I'm not settling for three days in this place that I'm probably never coming back to and not having fun. I've paid my money. I am here. I've traveled the distance. I need to have an adventure here. So then we start talking to people, and guess what? We engineer an adventure. We engineer a new friend for three days. We engineer a romance, and then we're like, I haven't found a partner in five years back home and all of a sudden I found someone on holiday. Why is that? It's because you adopted a holiday persona when you were on vacation.
But you know what's—yes, you're so, so right. I agree with all of that, and it's so true. But it's easier to do it when you are transient somewhere because I think also you have the excuse and the story to hide behind of, I'm only in town for three days, therefore I don't look desperate for speaking to you. I'm just speaking to everybody. Whereas if you live here, it's like, I live here and I'm speaking to you. Therefore, you must think I like you. Which instantly makes you feel more nervous.
It's only something in our head.
I know.
Here's a really interesting thing. Watch the owner of a restaurant when they're walking around a restaurant. No one knows they're the owner, right? In a local restaurant, who the hell knows that that guy over there owns the place? No one. But that person walks over and says, "How's your night?" And you're like, "Good, thanks." And you start talking to them, right? For all you know, you're talking to a complete stranger.
Oh my God, they fancy me.
But this person walks over like they own the place and asks you, "How's your evening going? Are you having a nice time?" And they didn't say, "Hi, I own the place." They just started talking to you like they owned the place. It's a story. You can have that story in your head that I'm going to be someone who starts making the most of my city again. I'm going to treat this like I'm new in town.
Okay. Advice, because I know we have to move on. Advice for people who live in a small city.
Acknowledge that you're not going to have as many options, but you're probably not making the most of the options that are in your town or your city. Are you really being brave and courageous in talking to people when you go places? Whether it's your coffee shop, whether it's the local bookshop, whether it's joining clubs and being like, you don't know everyone.
And yes, it's harder, but that only speaks to the fact that you have to be more proactive. You're not going to bump into people on every street corner. So you're going to have to engineer social groups. You're going to have to engineer community, and you're going to have to build your tribe more consciously of people who like what you like and value what you value because you're just not going to have as many. So you're going to have to build out that tribe.
I think that's so true. And I think as well, on dating apps, set your preferences and your radius to a wider radius. And even if you can catch a big city that's an hour away from your city, so long as you're comfortable commuting and you're not able to leave where you live.
Definitely.
That's also a hack, I think.
Yeah, you sacrifice convenience for options. You have to be willing to do that. If you're in New York, you only need to go a square mile. If you live upstate in a place where there's just a lot less people, then you might have to set it so that you include a lot more people and be willing to drive an hour for a date. It's not the end of the world, and you are giving yourself more options.
I'm eight and a half months pregnant, which basically means comfort has become my entire personality. That means that now more than ever, I want to wear clothes that feel comfortable and soft. My number one go-to for this is Cozy Earth. I've talked about Cozy Earth many times before. Matthew and I love their bamboo bed sheets, but right now I'm obsessed with their bamboo pajama set in the blue stripe. I think they might be last sale. They're amazing. They look good. They feel buttery soft and lightweight. And they've even been growing with me, which is not something I can say for most of my other clothes right now.
I know I'll be wearing these once the baby is here, too. And I actually love them so much that I got them for both my mom, Matt's mom, and my sister so that they could wear them over the holidays. And by the way, Black Friday is happening right now at Cozy Earth. So you can stack our code, which is LOVELIFE, on top of their sitewide sale, and it will give you up to 40% off savings for a limited time. These deals won't last. So start your holiday shopping today.
And if you get a post-purchase survey, be sure to mention that you heard about Cozy Earth from here, the Love Life Podcast. Thanks, guys.
Okay, I want to move on. We can talk more about this later. If there's anything you want us to touch on more, podcastmatthewhussey.com, let us know. We had an email in from someone, in fact, two different people who had a couple of thoughts on the episode that we did on money in relationships. What was that episode called, David?
It's "What's Behind the Male Fear That Women Only Care About Money."
All right. So this was the episode, "What's Behind the Male Fear That Women Only Care About Money." Stephen, why don't you read that email that you saw?
Yeah, so we had an excellent email from Paige, which I thought was so thoughtful and interesting, and she said, "Hi, Matthew and team. Longtime listener, first time writing in. I wanted to respond to recent pods bringing up the idea of gender dynamics, in particular having to do with money. I'm a bit upset to hear this theme repeated over several podcasts as it feels like it's validating the rhetoric of the far-right manosphere.
If I may, I'd like to share my observations as a 37-year-old female who is single and living in Texas. My single friends and I are all homeowners and are financially independent. We invest, we give charitably, we take care of our homes and are generous with our loved ones. None of us need a man who earns more than us or particularly care how much a man earns. So our money concerns are different. We're looking for equals with similar values. However, we often encounter men who don't know
How to cook and spend a lot on eating out. She calls them Chipotle boys. There's an article on it. They don't invest as well as we do. Brackets: women are better investors. There's another article on that. I'm guessing men take more, maybe crazy risks in investing than women do. They're not as generous in charitable giving as we are, spend way more on hobbies and frivolous spending, and are flirting with a sports betting addiction. And she says links to all of these.
We are scared of ending up with men who don't contribute domestically despite how much or how little they earn. Women who earn more still do more at the home. Women take on the mental load for the home. And anecdotally, women seek out therapy more. I know there is so much more nuance to add to this conversation. Questions of pay par, societal expectations, generation differences, and more. But for what it's worth, I've noticed my friends and I no longer say we're looking for a boyfriend or a husband, but rather a partner. I think the change in vocabulary is reflecting what we and the majority of women want. I hope this is helpful and I'd love to hear a more balanced side of this conversation from the podcast in the future. Thanks, Paige.
It's a really great email. I love that email. And Paige, I hope we— It sounds like we have created the impression that we're reinforcing those stereotypes that exist in the manosphere. But the truth is, I think we always try to go out of our way to say the opposite, that these are the things that people constantly assert are important to women, and that this just doesn't resonate empirically with women we know, women we coach. Of course there are some that fit the stereotype, just as there are some men that fit the stereotype. But one thing that we've prided ourselves on over the years is not just reinforcing stereotypes about gender differences, and certainly would be sad to think we've failed in that.
I agree with what you've said, the idea of finding a partner. In fact, there was another email that came in from Dana on the same episode who said, "Hi team, really enjoyed your latest podcast. Great to see you diving into complex topics. On the money debate, I agree that financial goals and lifestyle expectations play a huge role in dating and maybe unfortunately in how people filter or choose potential partners. You discussed how disparities in income or wealth can cause tension, but I think it's worth pointing out that even couples with comparable means"—and this, Paige, is where Dana, I think, would really agree with your point—"often run into serious issues if their financial values or goals don't align. I've seen relationships where both partners earn similar salaries, but one wants to aggressively save for a home while the other prioritizes travel or eating out. Or one wants to stay in a high-cost city while the other would rather relocate to save. Those mismatches in priorities can create just as much strain as income gaps, if not more. Thanks for everything, Dana."
That is a wonderful, wonderful point because that is one of the things that people miss, that one of the ways we show our values is through how we spend our money, through the lifestyle that we aspire to. What do we prioritize in life?
Or how we waste money.
Or how we waste money, or whether we even see that as waste versus the other person who does. And the hyperfocus on income disparity or wealth disparity actually does take away from focus on that idea that we might just have different values around money in general, and that can be just as much a source of incompatibility as having very different amounts of money. And of course, if we have similar values around money, but we have big differences when it comes to how much money we have, our values around money being the same might actually be the thing that makes us compatible in spite of those differences.
Yeah, true.
I don't want to take too much time adding to these points, but for Dana and Paige, thank you for highlighting that because I think it's really, really important. And I hope that for men listening, especially anyone who has the insecurity that, "I'm going to be overlooked because I don't earn enough. I'm not going to be as worthy. I'm not going to be seen as attractive," that actually there are many women out there who are looking for someone with the same values when it comes to money and compatibility in that area, and that that's actually more important than having someone who earns the same or more than they do. Those are really wonderful points and very well made.
We have a love lifeline here. Who is it today, David?
We have got Janelle.
Janelle.
Hi all. I'm hoping to bounce off a question from you guys, get your opinions, all three of you if you could. I am wondering about dating at 53. And it's not so much dating at 53. I'm proud of my age. I don't have a problem with my age. It just—men do. It seems like men do. Not necessarily when we talk or whatever. I seem to get interest, what have you. But then I find out that they have or are seeing a woman that's younger than my daughter. Do you know what I mean? I just have such a problem with that.
None of them have been a— Everything's been a no-go, but for me, that's a major red flag, is somebody who even dated at one time somebody in their 20s and they're almost 50 or 50. And I just have an issue with that. I think it's gross, but I'm just wondering how you guys feel about that. Am I being too judgmental? Am I throwing up the red flag too soon? I'm just kind of trying to get your opinion about that and maybe how men think about this or even another woman's opinion. I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Well, great question.
Yeah.
Interesting.
It's so interesting, Janelle. I completely understand the instinct to feel that way, and I am in agreement with you to an extent. I think that there's a big difference here that we need to look at, which is: the person in question, do they have a pattern of dating somebody who's like 10, 20, 30 years younger than them? Because if it's a pattern, then yeah, it's kind of creepy. I think I kind of agree with that. And that's just my opinion. But I do think it's a little bit strange. Why are you not going for women on your level? Even from a maturity standpoint, I think it's just a strange thing to gravitate only towards that.
But if somebody dated one or maybe two with a major age gap, and also within their past relationships there's people who are more age appropriate, I think that's less of an issue because I think when you're dating you're trying different things. And it might be that that was just more of a sexual and more of an attraction-based relationship. Or even something where I think a lot of older men, and you guys can maybe speak to this, but sometimes obviously older men feel their age weighing heavily on them. And actually dating a younger woman makes them feel younger, which makes them feel good about themselves, which is also where the draw of that comes in.
Which, to be fair, we hear from women too who are in their 50s and are like, "I'm really enjoying dating younger men." I suppose the question I would put to you, Audrey, is: do you think Janelle has a point when she talks about the size of the age gap? So if she's like, "I just really find it hard to respect someone and not find it gross when it's literally someone in their 20s and they're in their 50s." Do you think that there's a point to be made about that as opposed to he's in his 50s and the last person he dated was 35? Or do you think that your argument still applies?
I think for me, my argument still applies. I agree with you. So I really want to say that one more time. I really agree with you and I understand the being grossed out by it thing. I would feel the same way. But I don't think we should write people off just because of one person they dated. I think if people were to look at any of our past and see maybe one or two of our exes, they'd be like, "Oh, dear God, how could you have ever been attracted to this person? They're awful." And I think that we're all guilty of having dated people that are not the best people for us in our lives. And I think that we have to give each other grace.
So for me, it wouldn't necessarily be this giant red flag and no-go. But obviously if it's in any way a pattern, or if they talk about it in a way where they're not like, "Yeah, this is a little bit embarrassing, but I actually came out of my divorce and ended up in this kind of semi-relationship with this woman, but she was 28 or whatever, and obviously it didn't last because LA," then that's a different thing. Whereas if they're like, "Yeah, my ex was 28 and there's nothing wrong with that." I don't think writing people off for one thing is necessarily the way to go, but I do think it's something to look out for and see if that builds a pattern and a profile of that person. Does that make sense?
It makes total sense. And I think that idea of pattern being the thing to look for is really, really important. I think that everyone is capable of falling for someone who's in a very different age group. And I really believe how they speak about that is important. And I don't think that they have to share it as an embarrassing fact necessarily, but certainly how they speak about why maybe that didn't work out is relevant information.
If someone's 53 and they dated someone in their 20s and they were like, "Look, I was attracted to this person. It was really fun. We had a great connection, but ultimately it was something that really made me realize, when you're with someone and you've learned a lot of life lessons they haven't, and you're in a very different place in your life, at a certain point you're not going to have that level of deep compatibility that you have with someone who you feel really understands you. And that relationship was, albeit an enjoyable experience, it just made me realize it's really important for me to have someone that I feel truly compatible with in every way."
It's also really important that they haven't got a child that's around the same age as the person they dated. I actually agree with Janelle. If you date a person and then they've gone out with someone who's the same age or a couple of years older, younger as their kid, that would freak me out because it'd be like, why would you be attracted to someone who's the same age as your child?
Which is why I kind of—
But again, we're talking about the rarities here, right? There's not a lot of 50-year-old men.
And even as I'm saying it, I'm like, that's a really big age gap.
I know someone who's married to, I think she's 28 and her partner's in his 50s, and they're married.
He hasn't got kids.
Yeah, I bet. Listen, every individual has to decide what it is they value. And when someone is dating someone who is from a very different generation, in a way you are making a certain statement about what you value. Okay, maybe you're dating the wisest 28-year-old in the world, but probably not. When you date younger people, there is a sense of people can seem like they're an old head on young shoulders, but in reality, a lot of that is kind of an act. A lot of that is a kind of superficial maturity. It's not the deep kind of maturity that comes from having lived and been through things. You've not got someone who understands your references, who understands what it's like to get punched in the face in your 30s and 40s and like it.
I don't know. I agree with you. I really agree. I agree with you and Janelle that I think it's okay to find it off-putting. I think it's okay to decide this person's probably not for me because if they're dating someone that much younger, we don't have the same values in terms of what we value in a relationship. But I do think it's entirely possible that people make these sort of human, very human diversions that lead them back to a place where they become very acutely aware of what's important to them.
And some people, men and women, do get divorced and they swing that pendulum for a moment because they're like, "I want to try dating a younger person," or whatever. I think we have to be careful to condemn people's character or just label them with an identity because of a relationship they've had, within reason obviously. But I do think that you have to pay attention to the way they speak about what they value now. What did it teach them? Did it teach them anything? Or is it just clearly that's just a thing and they thought it was awesome and they'd do it again in a heartbeat? Those things matter.
Those are the parts I would listen to. How has someone been shaped by their experiences is as important, maybe more important, than what their experiences actually are or have been. So hopefully that helps, Janelle. Let us know. Feel free to write back and let us know if that shed any light on this subject for you. And thank you for leaving your question. I know a lot of people will have benefited from it.
If you want to leave us your question, podcastmatthewhussey.com. Leave us a voice note around 30 seconds. Not too long or we won't be able to play it. But we love hearing from you and we love answering your questions in real time. We never listen to them before the show. David has listened to them, but whenever we hear them, it's the first time we've heard them. So it's really fun to answer those questions on the fly.
It is that time again.
Stevens. No, it doesn't work if I say Stevens. No, Steve. My name sleeves.
Don't be ber. You know that we can't live without another episode of Steve Sleeves.
It's five o'clock. Welcome to Steve Sleeves. So today we are going to play love maps.
Okay.
We talked about cities where you'd date. I want to give you a few different—you're going to give me the city and I'm going to give you the phrase, like the city you would go to for blank. And I want you guys to give me the answer. Okay.
So we give you the city.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay. The city you'd go to after a breakup. Well, if you watch any TV shows on Netflix right now, it's always Paris.
You go after a breakup.
It's always Paris. If you have a hard breakup, you get yourself an outfit and you just move to Paris.
Pop a little beret on.
Yeah.
And take about 60 days to speak fluent French.
I was watching The Summer I Turned Pretty season 3. It's unreal how quickly she's fluent.
It makes no sense.
And Matt was like, "This show sucks. Why are you watching this?" And then within half an episode, he was next to me just watching it.
She's been there, Steve. She's been there five minutes and she's standing on a roof and she's like, "This is my town." And she speaks every word in French.
Maybe she did Duolingo or something. Do you walk pensively around the Champs?
Yeah. Do you go so when you have a little bag?
I'm only correcting you, by the way, because in the previous episode—
And I like to be good at my pronunciation.
But in the previous episode I didn't know what a word was or I pronounced it wrong or something, and people were like, "Are you even French?" People were very mad at me because I didn't remember a word. I left France when I was nine, guys, though.
You speak fluent French.
I do, but I don't remember every word because I left France when I was nine.
Now, that's the voice of someone who actually speaks a language. Humility.
Like Belly from The Summer I Turned Pretty.
Anyway, I think...
So you wander along the Seine being philosophical, but getting your bag, going on your way to meet your newfound European friends.
Okay.
French boyfriend.
The city where you'd go to fall for the wrong person.
Paris.
No, I...
Well, you go for a bit of danger.
Anyone we say, though, we're going to...
Everyone's going to get offended. I just meant you're going to go for a bit of a... I'm just going to...
Vegas, I guess, would be where you go for the wrong...
Vegas. Vegas.
Vegas. Vegas. Or...
Miami. Who's coming up?
Miami is a party city. Miami might be where you go for a fling.
Yeah.
What's the city that people go to for drug tourism?
Amsterdam.
There's weed cafes.
Oh, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam. Oh, did you say Amsterdam?
Yeah. I feel like Amsterdam could be...
Amsterdam's a fun city. Yeah, you go for a good time in Amsterdam.
All right. Well, there you go.
Where you go to meet someone completely different from your usual type.
Berlin, probably.
All right. Okay. Yeah, probably.
Like a rave, kind of a bit more grungy, indie type, that sort of thing.
Get your bondage rebound.
What?
Hello.
I think Berlin is all about...
All about bond. Everyone in Berlin.
The club scene in Berlin has a lot of...
What if you're already into bondage? Then that's not...
If you're already into bondage, then to Sedona.
Los Olivos.
Los Olivos. Yeah. Just find a nice wine enthusiast.
This is a good Steve Sleeves.
I like it.
Strong. It's taking us in all sorts of directions.
Keep it serious, Steve. Keep it serious. You're formal.
The city you go to.
The city you'd go to for a fantasy meet-cute.
What's a fantasy meet?
No, you can't have Paris. Paris can't have all of them. Milan. Paris.
A fantasy meet-cute. Yeah, but you kind of have Paris again. We can't send people to Paris for every occasion.
I think you could do Washington.
Somewhere that rains.
Like Washington State.
Yeah.
Mhm.
Like Seattle.
Seattle. It's rainy. You're coming in. You're steaming a little bit.
I don't know why there's steam. It might be cute.
It's a hot rain.
Yeah, it's a hot rain at a coffee shop. She's like, "You're steaming." And you're like, "I don't know what's happening."
It's so humid outside. I'm sorry, but what, are we in Miami?
No. More to me feels like you're in an Asian city. You could get into a cozy place. You come out from the rain. It's quite tropical outside, and then it's like...
You meet someone.
Yeah. But then you don't speak the same language.
They might speak English.
Well, you only need to be there for five minutes.
You go to Japan for two weeks. You learn fluent Japanese, and then you stand outside the closest izakaya.
Actually, one of those lists said Beijing and Mumbai were great cities to date. So I have no idea about, but if anyone from Beijing and Mumbai is listening, tell us why they're great to date in.
I'd like to hear. Well, everyone, thanks for playing Steve Sleeves.
Well, thanks for listening, everyone. It's been another wonderful time with all of you, and we can't wait to do it all again with you in the next episode of Love Life. Thank you, Audrey. Thank you, Stephen. Thank you, David. Thank you, Harrison.
Thanks, everybody.
Thanks, everyone.
Bye.
Article published · Updated