Imajerk17 Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Imajerk, are you talking to yourself? No Titania I'm talking to the voices inside my head! You gotta problem with that??
El Brujo Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 So I'm playing with The New, Interactive Singles Map. Or, Looking for Love in All the Statistically Wrong Places. The default age range is 18-64 and it shows a pretty even ratio of men and women. Though it looks horrible for men who want to date in California. What do you mean, looks horrible? I live here, and it IS horrible. I don't understand how there can be so many more single men then women in the west coast. Are people only having boys over here? The women are not interested in us guys. Does anybody have a clue what the data actually means? Yes, it means it's time to legalize human cloning so us guys out here in SoCal can adopt female clones as partners... then all the single women will learn how it feels to be utterly unwanted. 2
udolipixie Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Yes, it means it's time to legalize human cloning so us guys out here in SoCal can adopt female clones as partners... then all the single women will learn how it feels to be utterly unwanted. I doubt the single gals will learn how it feels to be utterly unwanted when you claim they aren't interested in us guys. Especially when they can likely adopt male clones as partners though legalizing human cloning doesn't necessarily that the clones would be up for adoption. Most likely there will be human rights activists and the government would deter that from happening.
Author somedude81 Posted May 7, 2012 Author Posted May 7, 2012 Interesting, that on a thread not too long ago, I was told LA was the worst place to go to meet a man, when the map says otherwise. I wonder who said that? I'm sure you'd do fine over here, just watch out for the players and you'll be OK. That's probably because most gals are dating someone older than them something it seems many young guys complain about until they get older. That data most likely means older guy are dating younger/much younger gals more than gals their own age. As for the birth ratio it seems to be pretty even though the death ratio ins't as guys tend to die sooner than gals. Yeah, I figured that it was because women were dating older guys. It seems the men tend to marry later in life and women earlier. Yes, it means it's time to legalize human cloning so us guys out here in SoCal can adopt female clones as partners... then all the single women will learn how it feels to be utterly unwanted. That would rock so hard. Make a clone of me, but turn the XY to an XX. A girl that likes everything I do, that's as attractive as be but in a feminine way and has a sex drive to match my own. That would be amazing.
Els Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Um, what is this supposed to prove? It isn't a myth that there are a significantly more couples in which the man is older than the woman, than the other way around. Heck, you guys were shouting this from the rooftop in the 'older men' thread. So.... yeah. There are probably more single men below 24, and more single women 24 and upwards.
Els Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Make a clone of me, but turn the XY to an XX. A girl that likes everything I do, that's as attractive as be but in a feminine way and has a sex drive to match my own. That would be amazing. Wouldn't work. If that girl was exactly like you mindset-wise, she'd probably be holding out for a slimmer guy who's at least 5'7" with a specific haircut. 1
Titania22 Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 No Titania I'm talking to the voices inside my head! You gotta problem with that?? No problem Imajerk, I was just getting clarification. Feel free to continue conversing with the voices in your head.
Author somedude81 Posted May 7, 2012 Author Posted May 7, 2012 Wouldn't work. If that girl was exactly like you mindset-wise, she'd probably be holding out for a slimmer guy who's at least 5'7" with a specific haircut. Going way off-topic. But wouldn't it make sense that if I wanted a girl who was roughly in equal in looks as myself, a clone would want the same? Or does the very fact that she's female make her shallow? 1
dasein Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 How can 80% of men under 25 be unmarried while only 70% of women are unmarried? Women are probably more likely than men are to answer a poll/census as "married" when merely cohabitating or engaged. It's impossible to truly tell how many of a certain age group are married in an area's current population. Public records don't do that, only surveys or census do, and those are notoriously unreliable. Census = very blunt instrument, despite certain political interests peddling them as gospel and massaging them towards desired results to feed the fish with. People in that age range are constantly moving here and there also making maps like that suspect at least where the young are concerned.
Els Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) Going way off-topic. But wouldn't it make sense that if I wanted a girl who was roughly in equal in looks as myself, a clone would want the same? Or does the very fact that she's female make her shallow? No, it makes both of you slightly delusional about what your 'equal' is, and also overly-fixated on that instead of getting to know and appreciating the non-physical good aspects of each other. I forgot to mention that you also would likely not be interested in her, or at least would not consider her your 'ideal'. Edited May 7, 2012 by Elswyth 2
El Brujo Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 That would rock so hard. Make a clone of me, but turn the XY to an XX. A girl that likes everything I do, that's as attractive as be but in a feminine way and has a sex drive to match my own. That would be amazing. Darn tootin'!
Imajerk17 Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 No problem Imajerk, I was just getting clarification. Feel free to continue conversing with the voices in your head. Thanks for understanding.
Imajerk17 Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Um, what is this supposed to prove? It isn't a myth that there are a significantly more couples in which the man is older than the woman, than the other way around. Heck, you guys were shouting this from the rooftop in the 'older men' thread. So.... yeah. There are probably more single men below 24, and more single women 24 and upwards. That's actually a really good point Elswyth. Maybe there are more single men aged 25--34 than single women, but some of those single men are pursuing women younger than 24. Yes some of the single women in the 25--34 age bucket are being pursued by men older than 34, but it might not be as many.
zengirl Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) The autours own notes state "Do single young girls exist? Not according to math! Fact: around 1/3 of 20-24 year old women are married. Only 70% are single!" Again, fact: Only 1/5 of men are married by age 24. 80% single! Well, 70% single is still quite a few. I can't access the site, so I'm not sure what the stats say or how they're broken down, etc, but a 10% gap between marriage in that age range seems likely to me. Women get married younger than men, typically. That also doesn't mean they're marrying 40 year olds. a 22 year old marrying a 27 year old would impact the math that way as well. That's certainly not an uncommon age differential. What are the actual stats for where you live in your age bracket or brackets? ETA: SD, a "clone" version of you, as in a woman who is equally picky about looks as you are, based on what you've said at least, would be looking for a man who is taller than you are, at the very least, or very facially attractive and/or rich to make up for his height differential. A clone version of you would be very shallow because YOU are very shallow. Now that may come from inexperience and not really knowing what mature adults look for, on a deeper level. Many young people are very shallow. But certainly a female equivalent of you (as attractive, with a similar level of ideals) would not look for a guy who looked like you. The top 2 things shallow guys look for are great boobs and thinness. The top 2 things shallow women look for are height and money. There are other things, but those correlate roughly, amongst the shallow. Edited May 7, 2012 by zengirl 1
Author somedude81 Posted May 7, 2012 Author Posted May 7, 2012 Well, 70% single is still quite a few. Yeah, having 70% single women is a lot. But when 80% of men in the same age range are single, that simply means that there is not enough single women to go around. 10% of guys are going to be left out in the cold. That basically makes it possible to say that every girl can be married or in a relationship, while a small but significant number of guys have to stay single. What are the actual stats for where you live in your age bracket or brackets?Age brackets 20-34 L.A/Long Beach/ Santa Ana: 65 extra single men per 1,000 people The numbers are worse all over California. San Jose has 102 extra single men per 1,000 people. -------------- BTW, can you and Elswyth please drop it with the shallow BS. This little crusade the two of you have against me has gone on long enough. Go find somebody else to attack about their preferences.
zengirl Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Yeah, having 70% single women is a lot. But when 80% of men in the same age range are single, that simply means that there is not enough single women to go around. 10% of guys are going to be left out in the cold. Plenty of people in that age range don't want to be married or even in a LTR. I really think there's still plenty to go around, and people aren't going to pair up 1-to-1. The numbers aren't that bleak, math-wise, especially since many women date older and men date younger. Besides, that cited bracket is not YOUR age bracket. What are the #s in your age bracket? Is it 65 extra single men in your age range or the whole range? How do the two female age ranges break down? 65 per 1000 is really not that big a disparity, and it will differ in different areas, etc. BTW, can you and Elswyth please drop it with the shallow BS. This little crusade the two of you have against me has gone on long enough. Go find somebody else to attack about their preferences. You're the one who brought it up. I actively try not to bring it up, but your assumption that someone else's shallowness is what's hindering you in dating is very frustrating. It's not a crusade, I'm just reacting to the things you say, like the clone assertion, which are really quite . . . frustrating sometimes. I'm not attacking your preferences --- I think anyone's preferences are fine. I am attacking when you attack other people's preferences, just because you don't fit them. Hypocrisy is not something I can ignore. 1
iris219 Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Age brackets 20-34 L.A/Long Beach/ Santa Ana: 65 extra single men per 1,000 people The numbers are worse all over California. San Jose has 102 extra single men per 1,000 people. Have you considered moving to the South after you graduate?
Els Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 BTW, can you and Elswyth please drop it with the shallow BS. This little crusade the two of you have against me has gone on long enough. Go find somebody else to attack about their preferences. So... responding with a logical stance to your 'clone' post is 'attacking you for your preferences'? I wrote a perfectly on-topic post above that, which you ignored in favour of insisting that your hypothetical 'clone' would absolutely want to date you and would be a wonderful partner. One does not need to be on a 'crusade' to respond to that . Nor does saying your clone would not date you and you would not date your clone, equate to 'attacking you for your preferences'. If you don't want people to state obvious responses, stop saying things that are literally begging for them. The 'well, fat women don't exist in my mind', 'OMG why are you people attacking me for my preferences?!?!?' victim mentality is getting old already. 1
Els Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 That's actually a really good point Elswyth. Maybe there are more single men aged 25--34 than single women, but some of those single men are pursuing women younger than 24. Yes some of the single women in the 25--34 age bucket are being pursued by men older than 34, but it might not be as many. Yeah, the stats are definitely an age thing. The 'men increase in value as they age, women decrease' antiquated mantra (that many people eschew, but evidently a small portion of the population still believes in) does no one any good, IMO - not men, and not women. Unfortunately, the very same men who themselves uphold this mantra and seek younger women, are often the ones screwed over by this phenomenon, they just don't realize it.
verhrzn Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Yeah, the stats are definitely an age thing. The 'men increase in value as they age, women decrease' antiquated mantra (that many people eschew, but evidently a small portion of the population still believes in) does no one any good, IMO - not men, and not women. Unfortunately, the very same men who themselves uphold this mantra and seek younger women, are often the ones screwed over by this phenomenon, they just don't realize it. How do you think they're screwed over? They seem perfectly pleased to me...
Els Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 How do you think they're screwed over? They seem perfectly pleased to me... Well, those who do succeed are pleased, but those who do not, because those women whom they desire are already coveted by guys in their age range or higher, are typically not pleased. Case in point: This thread.
Author somedude81 Posted May 7, 2012 Author Posted May 7, 2012 Plenty of people in that age range don't want to be married or even in a LTR. I really think there's still plenty to go around, and people aren't going to pair up 1-to-1. The numbers aren't that bleak, math-wise, especially since many women date older and men date younger. Besides, that cited bracket is not YOUR age bracket. What are the #s in your age bracket? If 20-35 isn't my age range then I don't know what is. You are right that not everybody is going to want to be married or in a LTR. I still don't think that the numbers are going to line up in my favor. As I've said a few times, I don't know any girls that are single and want to date. The girls that want to be in a relationship are, and the only ones who are left, don't. Is it 65 extra single men in your age range or the whole range? How do the two female age ranges break down? 65 per 1000 is really not that big a disparity, and it will differ in different areas, etc. Here is a screencap I took of the map. http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/6821/clipboard01vwn.jpg You're the one who brought it up. I actively try not to bring it up, but your assumption that someone else's shallowness is what's hindering you in dating is very frustrating. It's not a crusade, I'm just reacting to the things you say, like the clone assertion, which are really quite . . . frustrating sometimes. I'm not attacking your preferences --- I think anyone's preferences are fine. I am attacking when you attack other people's preferences, just because you don't fit them. Hypocrisy is not something I can ignore. Please just give it up. BTW, I don't attack other peoples preferences. Sure I'll point out how I feel offended or excluded, but it never goes beyond that. Honestly, from my end, it just seems like you and Elswyth are butthurt that I'm not attracted to women with small breasts. Both of you bring up that I like large breasts every chance the two of you can. It's obvious to me that both of you are insecure.
Els Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Uh, okay. So refuting your flawed 'clone logic' is not only a 'crusade to attack you for your preferences' now, but also 'insecurity'? Honest to god, SD, there is absolutely no reason for me to be insecure. We aren't defined by our partners, but since that is the yardstick that YOU do use, I'm with a guy who happens to be vastly superior to you in ways both superficial and non-superficial. Even if I ended up single, it would not matter to me whether you were attracted to women with small breasts or not. It's just frustrating to watch you consistently shoot yourself in the foot. Delusion is one of the greatest hindrances that we impose upon ourselves, and perhaps one day when you learn a little more about relationships, life, and social dynamics, you'll realize that. For now, carry on thinking, I suppose, that nothing is your fault, that women just have it so much better and have no trouble getting men, while ignoring everything else: Age, superficial equivalences, and your own non-physical shortcomings that you could actually be improving on. I'm certain it's helping you so far.
zengirl Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 If 20-35 isn't my age range then I don't know what is. Earlier, you cited a 20-24, so I thought you were adding brackets together. I now see, you're inputting different criteria. I was asking for the breakdown of the 2 brackets, for further analysis, if you were adding them together. A breakdown of the different age brackets tells a deeper statistical story. You are right that not everybody is going to want to be married or in a LTR. I still don't think that the numbers are going to line up in my favor. As I've said a few times, I don't know any girls that are single and want to date. The girls that want to be in a relationship are, and the only ones who are left, don't. Well, you can blame math, or you can get out there and try. 65 out of 1000 is less than 7% of men. So, perhaps, assuming there are equal amounts of women and men who want a R, and assuming no one dates someone outside of that age bracket, and assuming there are an equal amount of male and female homosexuals, 6.5% of the male population AT MOST would be left alone. Assume all of that is true -- it probably isn't. Assume people pair up based on value (they don't necessarily, but let's assume for a moment), would you place yourself at the LOWEST 6.5% of the male population in your age bracket? If you would, then I question many of the things you've previously said. If you would not, then the math is not against you. BTW, I don't attack other peoples preferences. Sure I'll point out how I feel offended or excluded, but it never goes beyond that. You call preferences that exclude you shallow.
Author somedude81 Posted May 7, 2012 Author Posted May 7, 2012 Uh, okay. So refuting your flawed 'clone logic' is not only a 'crusade to attack you for your preferences' now, but also 'insecurity'? Why do you even have to refute my clone logic in the first place? El Brujo: It would be cool to have a female clone of myself as a partner. SD81: That would be great. Having a girl that likes everything that I do and looks similar to me but in a girly way. Elswyth: That's not going to work because you are shallow. We were just joking around and you had to be all Negative Nancy on me. Frankly, I now see that the proper response would be have been, "Go away Elswyth." 2
Recommended Posts