How Americans Met Their Partners

Two Stanford surveys asked 6,204 Americans how they met their partner. The meetings run from 1934 to 2022.

Couples who met in1934

met through a person or in a place met online
A screenprint of an empty living room after a gathering: chairs pulled into a ring around a table of used glasses, and an open laptop on the rug.
A living room after a gathering.

Meeting online passed every other way of meeting a partner. It passed school in 2000–⁠04, family, work and the bar in 2005–⁠09, and friends in 2015–⁠19.

Each way is counted on its own, so a couple who met at a party through a friend counts in both.

Ten ways of meeting, ranked against each other in every five-year period. The thickness of a ribbon is that way's share of couples. Point at a ribbon, or tap a name, to read it across the century.

195019601970198019902000200520102015

Met through friends

  1. 1950–⁠5427.1%
  2. 1955–⁠5939.5%
  3. 1960–⁠6436.7%
  4. 1965–⁠6934.1%
  5. 1970–⁠7433.0%
  6. 1975–⁠7935.9%
  7. 1980–⁠8435.8%
  8. 1985–⁠8932.9%
  9. 1990–⁠9434.3%
  10. 1995–⁠9935.9%
  11. 2000–⁠0434.9%
  12. 2005–⁠0931.2%
  13. 2010–⁠1428.9%
  14. 2015–⁠1923.1%

Met in a bar

  1. 1950–⁠5418.4%
  2. 1955–⁠5918.5%
  3. 1960–⁠6414.5%
  4. 1965–⁠6915.3%
  5. 1970–⁠7419.7%
  6. 1975–⁠7918.2%
  7. 1980–⁠8427.4%
  8. 1985–⁠8919.7%
  9. 1990–⁠9418.0%
  10. 1995–⁠9918.0%
  11. 2000–⁠0415.8%
  12. 2005–⁠0918.5%
  13. 2010–⁠1420.1%
  14. 2015–⁠1921.6%

Met at work

  1. 1950–⁠5410.0%
  2. 1955–⁠594.6%
  3. 1960–⁠6413.5%
  4. 1965–⁠6914.6%
  5. 1970–⁠7415.8%
  6. 1975–⁠7921.1%
  7. 1980–⁠8423.8%
  8. 1985–⁠8919.8%
  9. 1990–⁠9421.1%
  10. 1995–⁠9922.9%
  11. 2000–⁠0417.9%
  12. 2005–⁠0912.9%
  13. 2010–⁠1414.2%
  14. 2015–⁠1914.0%

Met through family

  1. 1950–⁠5418.9%
  2. 1955–⁠5925.4%
  3. 1960–⁠6429.4%
  4. 1965–⁠6922.9%
  5. 1970–⁠7424.5%
  6. 1975–⁠7920.5%
  7. 1980–⁠8418.8%
  8. 1985–⁠8917.2%
  9. 1990–⁠9421.6%
  10. 1995–⁠9914.8%
  11. 2000–⁠0414.5%
  12. 2005–⁠0911.7%
  13. 2010–⁠1411.7%
  14. 2015–⁠196.5%

Met at school

  1. 1950–⁠5422.3%
  2. 1955–⁠5922.5%
  3. 1960–⁠6420.8%
  4. 1965–⁠6920.3%
  5. 1970–⁠7416.7%
  6. 1975–⁠7912.2%
  7. 1980–⁠8410.2%
  8. 1985–⁠8912.9%
  9. 1990–⁠9414.3%
  10. 1995–⁠9912.0%
  11. 2000–⁠048.6%
  12. 2005–⁠098.7%
  13. 2010–⁠1410.9%
  14. 2015–⁠196.0%

Met at a party

  1. 1950–⁠5410.5%
  2. 1955–⁠5910.8%
  3. 1960–⁠6412.8%
  4. 1965–⁠697.3%
  5. 1970–⁠7412.8%
  6. 1975–⁠798.9%
  7. 1980–⁠8412.3%
  8. 1985–⁠8911.6%
  9. 1990–⁠9414.8%
  10. 1995–⁠998.8%
  11. 2000–⁠0411.2%
  12. 2005–⁠0911.7%
  13. 2010–⁠1410.7%
  14. 2015–⁠199.7%

Met online

  1. 1950–⁠540.0%
  2. 1955–⁠590.0%
  3. 1960–⁠640.9%
  4. 1965–⁠690.0%
  5. 1970–⁠741.3%
  6. 1975–⁠790.0%
  7. 1980–⁠840.6%
  8. 1985–⁠890.7%
  9. 1990–⁠940.5%
  10. 1995–⁠993.4%
  11. 2000–⁠0413.6%
  12. 2005–⁠0919.8%
  13. 2010–⁠1423.6%
  14. 2015–⁠1935.3%

Met at college

  1. 1950–⁠546.5%
  2. 1955–⁠596.6%
  3. 1960–⁠647.7%
  4. 1965–⁠696.5%
  5. 1970–⁠748.4%
  6. 1975–⁠797.5%
  7. 1980–⁠844.7%
  8. 1985–⁠896.6%
  9. 1990–⁠947.5%
  10. 1995–⁠9911.3%
  11. 2000–⁠0410.2%
  12. 2005–⁠099.2%
  13. 2010–⁠147.5%
  14. 2015–⁠195.6%

Met as neighbors

  1. 1950–⁠5415.7%
  2. 1955–⁠597.8%
  3. 1960–⁠6413.0%
  4. 1965–⁠697.2%
  5. 1970–⁠748.4%
  6. 1975–⁠797.1%
  7. 1980–⁠847.3%
  8. 1985–⁠8911.0%
  9. 1990–⁠947.4%
  10. 1995–⁠9911.2%
  11. 2000–⁠047.7%
  12. 2005–⁠096.6%
  13. 2010–⁠144.7%
  14. 2015–⁠194.3%

Met as a customer

  1. 1950–⁠545.2%
  2. 1955–⁠595.9%
  3. 1960–⁠648.3%
  4. 1965–⁠697.6%
  5. 1970–⁠7411.7%
  6. 1975–⁠795.7%
  7. 1980–⁠846.6%
  8. 1985–⁠8911.1%
  9. 1990–⁠948.3%
  10. 1995–⁠999.3%
  11. 2000–⁠047.6%
  12. 2005–⁠096.7%
  13. 2010–⁠145.0%
  14. 2015–⁠196.4%
1950197520002015

Met through friends

  1. 195027.1%
  2. 195539.5%
  3. 196036.7%
  4. 196534.1%
  5. 197033.0%
  6. 197535.9%
  7. 198035.8%
  8. 198532.9%
  9. 199034.3%
  10. 199535.9%
  11. 200034.9%
  12. 200531.2%
  13. 201028.9%
  14. 201523.1%

Met in a bar

  1. 195018.4%
  2. 195518.5%
  3. 196014.5%
  4. 196515.3%
  5. 197019.7%
  6. 197518.2%
  7. 198027.4%
  8. 198519.7%
  9. 199018.0%
  10. 199518.0%
  11. 200015.8%
  12. 200518.5%
  13. 201020.1%
  14. 201521.6%

Met at work

  1. 195010.0%
  2. 19554.6%
  3. 196013.5%
  4. 196514.6%
  5. 197015.8%
  6. 197521.1%
  7. 198023.8%
  8. 198519.8%
  9. 199021.1%
  10. 199522.9%
  11. 200017.9%
  12. 200512.9%
  13. 201014.2%
  14. 201514.0%

Met through family

  1. 195018.9%
  2. 195525.4%
  3. 196029.4%
  4. 196522.9%
  5. 197024.5%
  6. 197520.5%
  7. 198018.8%
  8. 198517.2%
  9. 199021.6%
  10. 199514.8%
  11. 200014.5%
  12. 200511.7%
  13. 201011.7%
  14. 20156.5%

Met at school

  1. 195022.3%
  2. 195522.5%
  3. 196020.8%
  4. 196520.3%
  5. 197016.7%
  6. 197512.2%
  7. 198010.2%
  8. 198512.9%
  9. 199014.3%
  10. 199512.0%
  11. 20008.6%
  12. 20058.7%
  13. 201010.9%
  14. 20156.0%

Met at a party

  1. 195010.5%
  2. 195510.8%
  3. 196012.8%
  4. 19657.3%
  5. 197012.8%
  6. 19758.9%
  7. 198012.3%
  8. 198511.6%
  9. 199014.8%
  10. 19958.8%
  11. 200011.2%
  12. 200511.7%
  13. 201010.7%
  14. 20159.7%

Met online

  1. 19500.0%
  2. 19550.0%
  3. 19600.9%
  4. 19650.0%
  5. 19701.3%
  6. 19750.0%
  7. 19800.6%
  8. 19850.7%
  9. 19900.5%
  10. 19953.4%
  11. 200013.6%
  12. 200519.8%
  13. 201023.6%
  14. 201535.3%

Met at college

  1. 19506.5%
  2. 19556.6%
  3. 19607.7%
  4. 19656.5%
  5. 19708.4%
  6. 19757.5%
  7. 19804.7%
  8. 19856.6%
  9. 19907.5%
  10. 199511.3%
  11. 200010.2%
  12. 20059.2%
  13. 20107.5%
  14. 20155.6%

Met as neighbors

  1. 195015.7%
  2. 19557.8%
  3. 196013.0%
  4. 19657.2%
  5. 19708.4%
  6. 19757.1%
  7. 19807.3%
  8. 198511.0%
  9. 19907.4%
  10. 199511.2%
  11. 20007.7%
  12. 20056.6%
  13. 20104.7%
  14. 20154.3%

Met as a customer

  1. 19505.2%
  2. 19555.9%
  3. 19608.3%
  4. 19657.6%
  5. 197011.7%
  6. 19755.7%
  7. 19806.6%
  8. 198511.1%
  9. 19908.3%
  10. 19959.3%
  11. 20007.6%
  12. 20056.7%
  13. 20105.0%
  14. 20156.4%
A screenprint of an empty church basement hall: long rows of folding chairs facing a low platform, and a coffee urn on a trestle table.
A hall laid out for a crowd.

The share of couples whose story named another person, anyone who did the introducing, sat between 57.3% and 70.0% from 1950 to 1999. By 2015–⁠19 it was 43.3%.

Share of couples whose account of how they met named another person. One thread per percentage point; a thread ends where that point is lost.

60.6%1950–⁠54 66.9%1995–⁠99 43.3%2015–⁠19
19501960197019801990200020102015
60.6%1950–⁠54 66.9%1995–⁠99 43.3%2015–⁠19
1950197019902015
A screenprint of an empty dining room laid for a large family meal: a long table under a plain cloth, eight chairs drawn up to it and one extra chair added at the near corner, plates and glasses set out, and a lit doorway at the far end.
A dining room laid for a family meal.

When a relative made the introduction, it was most often a sister: named 124 times in the 2009 survey, against 100 for a brother.

Only the 2009 survey asked which relative.

Times each relative was named as the one who introduced the couple. Women on the left, men on the right, one count scale.

sister
124 100
brother
mother
100 49
father
aunt or niece
15 16
uncle or nephew
grandmother
4 1
grandfather

Named without saying which

cousin
62
other relative
49

Counts of hand-coded answers in the 2009 survey, which is the only one that asked. The longest bar, a sister, is 124 namings. A story can name more than one relative.

A screenprint of an empty hall after it has been closed up: every folding chair stacked in leaning columns against the walls, the tables folded flat beside them, a bare floor, and one lit doorway at the far end.
A hall with everything stacked against the walls.

Three ways of meeting came and went. The military fell from 11.1% of couples to 0.4%, the blind date from 7.8% to 0.5%, and the internet chat room lasted one five-year period.

Share of couples who met each way, by five-year period. The area of each circle is the share.

Met in the military

11.1%1950–⁠54
0.4%
1973the draft ended

Met on a blind date

7.8%1965–⁠69
0.5%

Met in an internet chat room

5.4%2000–⁠04
0.9%
1950197019902010

Each circle's area is that period's share of couples. A period with no circle is a period nobody named that way of meeting.

A screenprint of an empty introduction agency office: a desk with two client chairs facing it, a wall of small card-index drawers behind, and a computer monitor at one end of the desk.
An office where somebody kept the cards.

Blind dates and dating services never introduced more than 8.7% of couples in any period. Internet dating introduced 19.4% of the couples who met in 2015–⁠19.

All three are somebody other than the couple doing the introducing. The survey counts them separately.

Share of couples introduced by a website or an app, drawn upward, and by a blind date or a dating service that was not online, drawn downward. One scale, two directions.

20.3%any of the three 19.4%internet dating 0.9%blind date or dating service 8.7% up: by a website or an app down: by a person or a service
19501960197019801990200020102015
internet dating any of the three blind date or dating service
20.3% 19.4% 0.9% 8.7% up: by a website or an app down: by a person or a service
1950197019902015
A screenprint of an empty internet cafe at night: two long desks of computer monitors down opposite walls, every screen lit, and a wheeled chair pushed in at each one.
An internet cafe after closing.

Same-sex couples met online more often than different-sex couples in every period the survey can measure: 62.5% against 33.5% among couples who met in 2015–⁠19.

Share who met online, among same-sex couples and among different-sex couples. The grey riser is the gap.

+2.7+15.0+25.9+29.0 59 same-sex couplesunder the floor of 60, not drawn 62.5%same-sex couples 33.5%different-sex couples
1995–⁠992000–⁠042005–⁠092010–⁠142015–⁠19
same-sex couples different-sex couples
+2.7+15.0+25.9+29.0 59 same-sex couplesunder the floor of 60, not drawn 62.5% 33.5%
19952000200520102015
A screenprint of an empty American bar: two stools at the counter with a gap between them, one glass, and a phone lying face up on the wood.
A bar at the start of an evening.

Meeting in a bar or restaurant rose again after 2000, but only among couples who had already met online.

Share of couples whose account of how they met mentioned a bar or restaurant. After 2000, split by whether the couple had met online.

31.2%couples who met online 21.6%all couples 16.3%couples who did not 18.2%all couples, 1975–⁠79 from 2000–⁠04, split by how they met
19501960197019801990200020102015

The survey counts the first time a couple saw each other in person as a first meeting, even when they had already met online. The bands are 95% intervals.

all couples couples who met online couples who did not
31.2% 16.3% 18.2%all couples, 1975–⁠79 split from 2000–⁠04
1950197019902015

The survey counts the first time a couple saw each other in person as a first meeting, even when they had already met online. The bands are 95% intervals.

A screenprint of an empty back yard on a summer evening: a long trestle table set with plates and glasses, folding chairs down both sides, and a string of bulbs strung overhead.
A back yard in June.

Couples met most in June and September and least in December. Couples who met online since 2005 met evenly all year.

Only the 2017 survey asked which month a couple met.

The month couples met in, against a flat calendar. Colour is how far a month is from its fair share.

Met before 19901,127 couples

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 194Jun46Dec

Met online, 2005 on409 couples

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 129Jan74Aug

The grey circle is a flat calendar: 100 means a month had exactly its share of the year, 200 twice it. Only the 2017 survey asked the month. Counts on this mark are unweighted.

A screenprint of an empty front porch: two rocking chairs and a small table, looking out between the posts down a street of houses that get smaller into the distance.
A porch looking down a street.

Everything a couple already had in common before they met became rarer. Grew up in the same town: 39.1% of couples in 1950–⁠54, 17.8% in 2015–⁠19. Their parents already knew each other: 13.6% to 2.3%.

Five things the survey asked about the two people before they met. One dot per five-year period, palest for the oldest.

1950–⁠54 2015–⁠19

met in the state they grew up in

83.5%1960–⁠64 2015–⁠1969.4%

already had friends in common

56.8% 39.2%

grew up in the same town

39.1% 17.8%

went to the same high school

30.3% 7.9%

their parents already knew each other

13.6% 2.3%

The paler the dot, the older the period. Each track is its own question with its own base, so no track is part of another. Two of the five were asked only in the 2017 survey and begin in 1960–⁠64.

A screenprint of the inside of a city bus at night: rows of empty seats down both sides of the aisle, grab poles and an overhead rail, black windows, and the ceiling lights throwing the only cool light down the length of the floor.
A city bus at night.

Couples of different races went from 5.2% of those who met in the 1960s to 24.0% of those who met in the 2010s. Couples who met online are no more likely to be one than couples who did not.

Couples of different races, by the decade they met

5.2% 24.0%
1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s

Among couples who met from 2005 on

couples who met online332 couples

21.4%

couples who did not769 couples

21.4%

Difference: 0.0 points. The survey could have told apart a difference bigger than about 6.1 points, so there is no evidence of one. Who meets online is not a random draw, so this is a difference between two groups of couples, never something the channel did.

A screenprint of a small bedroom at night: the bed made and empty, a curtained window and a chest of drawers, and a phone lying face up on the nightstand throwing the only light in the room up the wall and across the ceiling.
A bedroom lit by the phone on the nightstand.

Of the 55 couples in the survey who met in 2020–⁠22, 58.9% met online. Of the 67 who met in 2018–⁠19, 29.6% did.

Five ways of meeting, before and during the pandemic. The hollow dot is before, the lit dot is during.

met in 2018–⁠19, 67 couples met in 2020–⁠22, 55 couples

met online

29.6% 58.9%

in a public place

7.0% 17.6%

through friends

22.7% 13.4%

in a bar or restaurant

14.0% 8.7%

through work

20.8% 7.2%

These are the only meetings either survey recorded after 2017: the 2017 panel was asked again in 2020 and 2022 about partners met since. 55 couples is under the floor of 60 the rest of this page draws to, which is why the counts are on the mark.

A screenprint of an empty diner: a row of booths along the window wall, a counter with round stools opposite, and a blank television screen high on the far wall.
A diner with its booths empty.

Among couples who met from 2010 on, online is the most common way for people who met at 41 or older, and only the fourth most common for people who met at 21 or under.

Age is how old you were when you met, not how old you are now.

Pick the period you met in and how old you were. Every column is drawn on the same scale.

1950–19741975–19891990–20092010–2022 21 and under 22–25 26–30 31–40
33 couples, too few
41 and up
7 couples, too few

Met in 1950–1974, aged 21 or under

712 couples

  1. online 0.6%
  2. through friends 36.8%
  3. at school 25.8%
  4. at college 7.9%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 14.4%
  6. through family 26.7%
  7. at work 10.3%
  8. at church 6.5%

Met in 1950–1974, aged 22 to 25

134 couples

  1. online 0.7%
  2. through friends 26.4%
  3. at school 1.0%
  4. at college 6.3%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 23.6%
  6. through family 18.0%
  7. at work 17.5%
  8. at church 5.3%

Met in 1950–1974, aged 26 to 30

77 couples

  1. online 0.0%
  2. through friends 28.7%
  3. at school 1.3%
  4. at college 7.3%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 29.6%
  6. through family 24.1%
  7. at work 24.7%
  8. at church 6.0%

Met in 1975–1989, aged 21 or under

519 couples

  1. online 0.9%
  2. through friends 38.6%
  3. at school 25.1%
  4. at college 8.8%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 16.5%
  6. through family 19.3%
  7. at work 14.6%
  8. at church 9.2%

Met in 1975–1989, aged 22 to 25

259 couples

  1. online 0.0%
  2. through friends 37.3%
  3. at school 0.8%
  4. at college 6.4%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 24.7%
  6. through family 21.4%
  7. at work 27.8%
  8. at church 5.6%

Met in 1975–1989, aged 26 to 30

212 couples

  1. online 0.1%
  2. through friends 33.3%
  3. at school 1.4%
  4. at college 6.0%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 23.0%
  6. through family 17.8%
  7. at work 26.0%
  8. at church 6.9%

Met in 1975–1989, aged 31 to 40

203 couples

  1. online 0.0%
  2. through friends 22.7%
  3. at school 0.4%
  4. at college 0.7%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 26.5%
  6. through family 13.2%
  7. at work 31.1%
  8. at church 5.4%

Met in 1975–1989, aged 41 or older

65 couples

  1. online 1.1%
  2. through friends 29.9%
  3. at school 5.4%
  4. at college 1.4%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 38.3%
  6. through family 20.3%
  7. at work 11.6%
  8. at church 12.4%

The thinnest cell drawn, and the one the survey reaches worst: these couples are the oldest people it could have interviewed.

Met in 1990–2009, aged 21 or under

998 couples

  1. online 7.4%
  2. through friends 41.1%
  3. at school 24.1%
  4. at college 18.6%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 10.5%
  6. through family 17.0%
  7. at work 11.5%
  8. at church 8.0%

Met in 1990–2009, aged 22 to 25

420 couples

  1. online 6.7%
  2. through friends 32.1%
  3. at school 3.7%
  4. at college 9.2%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 20.0%
  6. through family 17.6%
  7. at work 28.8%
  8. at church 7.6%

Met in 1990–2009, aged 26 to 30

427 couples

  1. online 9.9%
  2. through friends 31.4%
  3. at school 1.8%
  4. at college 4.6%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 22.1%
  6. through family 10.9%
  7. at work 24.3%
  8. at church 6.1%

Met in 1990–2009, aged 31 to 40

586 couples

  1. online 17.3%
  2. through friends 27.4%
  3. at school 1.3%
  4. at college 1.3%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 23.1%
  6. through family 13.8%
  7. at work 22.0%
  8. at church 3.7%

Met in 1990–2009, aged 41 or older

588 couples

  1. online 15.6%
  2. through friends 26.7%
  3. at school 0.1%
  4. at college 0.9%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 23.4%
  6. through family 12.7%
  7. at work 15.6%
  8. at church 4.7%

Met in 2010–2022, aged 21 or under

210 couples

  1. online 14.8%
  2. through friends 31.0%
  3. at school 22.5%
  4. at college 20.4%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 9.7%
  6. through family 5.3%
  7. at work 10.6%
  8. at church 5.2%

Met in 2010–2022, aged 22 to 25

136 couples

  1. online 27.5%
  2. through friends 37.1%
  3. at school 4.2%
  4. at college 2.0%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 20.6%
  6. through family 7.5%
  7. at work 20.6%
  8. at church 6.4%

Met in 2010–2022, aged 26 to 30

139 couples

  1. online 44.1%
  2. through friends 20.0%
  3. at school 2.8%
  4. at college 0.0%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 21.3%
  6. through family 7.7%
  7. at work 16.2%
  8. at church 4.6%

Met in 2010–2022, aged 31 to 40

167 couples

  1. online 34.9%
  2. through friends 21.5%
  3. at school 0.9%
  4. at college 0.0%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 27.1%
  6. through family 18.7%
  7. at work 16.8%
  8. at church 4.6%

Met in 2010–2022, aged 41 or older

237 couples

  1. online 43.2%
  2. through friends 16.3%
  3. at school 1.0%
  4. at college 0.0%
  5. in a bar or restaurant 26.3%
  6. through family 6.0%
  7. at work 8.5%
  8. at church 3.5%

The online bar is first in every column and drawn in the cool light. A couple can name more than one way, so a column does not add to 100%. 2 cells hold fewer than 60 couples and carry no share.

Where the numbers come from

Two surveys. Stanford's How Couples Meet and Stay Together study of 2009 and its 2017 to 2022 successor. Each asked a national sample of adults with a partner to say, in their own words, how the two of them met, and coders turned every answer into one or more of 35 ways of meeting. 6,204 people gave an answer that could be coded and a year they met in. Those are the lights at the top of this page, one each, and every number below them.

How to read a percentage. Of the couples who met in a period, the share whose account mentioned that way of meeting, weighted so the surveys stand for US adults. A couple can name more than one way (2.21 on average), so shares never add to 100. A period is the five years the couple first met in, labelled by its first year.

What is not drawn. Any group of fewer than 60 couples carries no percentage. The survey knows which state people grew up in; this page never names one.

What the surveys cannot see. Everyone who answered was alive to answer, so the earliest periods hold only the couples who met young enough to still be here. A month or a year recalled decades later is a memory.

Citations

Rosenfeld, Michael J., Reuben J. Thomas, and Sonia Hausen. 2023. How Couples Meet and Stay Together 2017-2020-2022 combined dataset. [Computer files]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries.

Rosenfeld, Michael J., Reuben J. Thomas, and Maja Falcon. 2018. How Couples Meet and Stay Together, Waves 1, 2, and 3: Public version 3.04 [Computer files]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries.