Reductress recently had an article on the top ten cities in which to meet men who still live with their parents. The apron strings may be thicker in these locales, or possibly employment prospects are harsher there, according to their somewhat snarky comments:
1. Davenport, Iowa
2. Staten Island, NY
3. Salt Lake City, Utah
4. Homer, Alaska
5. Odessa, Texas
6. Flint, Michigan
7. Homestead, Florida
8. Myrtle Beach, SC
9. Dayton, Ohio
10. Stockton, California
Anyway, the venerable Huff Post took up this story lately too.
But I feel a necessity for the Devil's Advocate role here: why is continuing to live with the parents a bad thing? It might suggest successfully being able to live in a multi-generational situation, and probably maintaining good relationships with one's parents. They may not be parental domicile basement-dwellers who are otakus or internet trolls.
No, I'm afraid that one element behind the bitchiness inherent in the article is that the places named are not on the list of Cool Places to Live! Seattle, Atlanta, New York City, Miami, Austin, and San Francisco did not make the roll call of these places where males live with their parents. (At least stereotypically uncool places like Bakersfield, CA, Cleveland, OH, Omaha, NB, and Montgomery, AL were not mentioned!)
And if living with parents means having a lack of feck, or money, or independence, how come women in their twenties get a pass on it? No, normal families (speaking from personal experience) do tend to adapt to the realities of one or more of the children going into adulthood while staying at home, and in a number of cases there may be some who return to their parents' home.