Els Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Really? Let me quote the genuine progression of the thread: SD: 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: 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: 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. SD: 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? YOU called yourself shallow, SD. If you had genuinely intended to 'joke around', you could have construed my post as such (hey, there was even a tongue-in-cheek smiley!), and laughed it off. Or you could even have ignored it in favour of my on-topic post. But you chose to pursue it, and insist upon it. You cannot blame people for the roads you choose to take, not IRL, and not in LS either (though the consequences in LS are possibly less severe). It takes two to tango.
Els Posted May 7, 2012 Posted May 7, 2012 Yes, because 'go away' is absolutely the best way for a 30-year-old man to handle conflict, differing opinions, or a challenge of his perspectives, is it not? It's a free forum, so I generally post where I please. I do apologize for assisting you in bringing the thread off-topic though, and my future posts will be on-topic.
AnObserver Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 Hi, Just a small detail that the original poster may have missed: Yes, that website shows that the male surplus disappears after 40 in the United States, BUT that picture includes the African-American population, in which a huge number of males are incarcerated or dead. The shortage of single men in the Black population distorts the real picture for all races. In reality, the situation for non-blacks is even worse than shown on that site. Among whites, the single-male surplus only disappears after 50, not 40. You can verify this from the Census 2010 data.
skippercollector Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 I've always been curious: What has the ratio been over the decades for the folks on the cusp between Baby Boomer and Generation X; that is, the group born between 1959-1969? Because from my personal experience, that demographic group has always been way more women than men. Is that information anywhere?
AnObserver Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) I've always been curious: What has the ratio been over the decades for the folks on the cusp between Baby Boomer and Generation X; that is, the group born between 1959-1969? Because from my personal experience, that demographic group has always been way more women than men. Is that information anywhere? The ratio within each particular generation is the same - around 1:1. But what matters is how many older men there are for younger women, which is the traditional marital pattern. Sometimes, the younger generation is smaller, which means there aren't enough brides for men, and vice versa. The group born in the '60s were POST-Baby Boom, so they were smaller than the baby boom. That means that men born in the '60s had a really tough time finding mates (presumably around 1990). The post-baby boom generation was smaller and there weren't enough young women for the slightly older men. Women born in the '60s had a lot of options in the late 80s/early 90s. Edited May 14, 2012 by AnObserver
Titania22 Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 Ok, well I dig a little google search (nothing is referenced btw, so don't jump on me). One article I found said that for every single man there are 3 single women in Sydney. And another article listed these cities are the best cities in the world for men. New York City, 1; Melbourne, 2; Tokyo, 3; Madrid, 4; London, 5; Cape Town, 6; Miami, 7;. Buenos Aires, 8; Sydney, 9; San Francisco, 10; Paris, 11; Los Angeles, 12; Hong Kong, 13; Tel Aviv, 14;. Barcelona, 15; Sao Paulo, 16; Berlin, 17; Lisbon, 18; Beirut, 19; Istanbul, 20; Shanghai, 21; Montreal, 22; Amsterdam, 23; Chicago, 24; Toronto, 25; Kyoto, 26; Bogota, 27; Rome, 28; Las Vegas, 29. Make of it what you will. Perhaps you could consider a mover somedude.
motive2002 Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 If the man/woman ratio statistic is not in your favor, you will have to rise up to display yourself as a exceptional specimen amongst your gender. I'm going to make up some numbers. Let's say of the many many men in your statistic, only 30% had enough balls to approach the women they found attractive. If you had the balls yourself.. BAM there goes 30% right there! Again I'm making this up just as an example. I know plenty of single men who almost never approach. You gotta stick your neck out and learn to handle rejection or you're not going to get anywhere. This is just simple action. I haven't even mentioned improving your status. That can't hurt either. BUT, whatever you do.. even if you had a ton of money and looked like Adonis, the chicks aren't really going to approach YOU. For whatever reason, call it evolution, society, traditions.. women don't want to be the ones to face rejection. They want the man to. Just the way it is. You can complain about it here.. be bitter and angry at your situation or you can take action. If you get rejected, so what. That's life.
Author somedude81 Posted May 14, 2012 Author Posted May 14, 2012 Ok, well I dig a little google search (nothing is referenced btw, so don't jump on me). One article I found said that for every single man there are 3 single women in Sydney. And another article listed these cities are the best cities in the world for men. New York City, 1; Melbourne, 2; Tokyo, 3; Madrid, 4; London, 5; Cape Town, 6; Miami, 7;. Buenos Aires, 8; Sydney, 9; San Francisco, 10; Paris, 11; Los Angeles, 12; Hong Kong, 13; Tel Aviv, 14;. Barcelona, 15; Sao Paulo, 16; Berlin, 17; Lisbon, 18; Beirut, 19; Istanbul, 20; Shanghai, 21; Montreal, 22; Amsterdam, 23; Chicago, 24; Toronto, 25; Kyoto, 26; Bogota, 27; Rome, 28; Las Vegas, 29. Make of it what you will. Perhaps you could consider a mover somedude. Before I move, I'd be interested in how old the single women are in a city. No point in moving if nobody under 40 is single.
EasyHeart Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 The ratio within each particular generation is the same - around 1:1. But what matters is how many older men there are for younger women, which is the traditional marital pattern. Sometimes, the younger generation is smaller, which means there aren't enough brides for men, and vice versa. The group born in the '60s were POST-Baby Boom, so they were smaller than the baby boom. That means that men born in the '60s had a really tough time finding mates (presumably around 1990). The post-baby boom generation was smaller and there weren't enough young women for the slightly older men. Women born in the '60s had a lot of options in the late 80s/early 90s.That's right. More generally: Rising birthrates => Surplus women Declining birthrates => Surplus men The steeper the curve, the bigger the surplus. With late Boomers/early Xers, the slope was pretty high so the difference in pretty discernible. Late Xer/early Millies had an increasing birthrate, but the increase is fairly small so it's less apparent. One article I found said that for every single man there are 3 single women in Sydney.AUSTRALIA, HERE I COME!!! And another article listed these cities are the best cities in the world for men. New York City, 1; Melbourne, 2; Tokyo, 3; Madrid, 4; London, 5; Cape Town, 6; Miami, 7;. Buenos Aires, 8; Sydney, 9; San Francisco, 10; Paris, 11; Los Angeles, 12; Hong Kong, 13; Tel Aviv, 14;. Barcelona, 15; Sao Paulo, 16; Berlin, 17; Lisbon, 18; Beirut, 19; Istanbul, 20; Shanghai, 21; Montreal, 22; Amsterdam, 23; Chicago, 24; Toronto, 25; Kyoto, 26; Bogota, 27; Rome, 28; Las Vegas, 29.NYC keeps popping up on all these lists, which seems counterintuitive (not that I know much about the city). When I think of NYC, I think of bankers and lawyers, which are still relatively male dominated. Why are there so many women in NYC? What's the attraction? I wonder, too, how homosexuality affects these statistics? I live in a gay part of a very gay city, so much of my day-to-day life is a sausage-fest of really good-looking men, but they aren't interested in women.
Oxy Moronovich Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 California is the state with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants. A report says 58% of illegal immigrants are male. So I'm thinking the illegal immigrants skew the figures in California: Illegal Immigrants (PPIC Publication) That also might be the case with some other states like in the Dakotas and Montana. I went to a wedding in Souix Falls, SD, taking place in an apple orchard. The guy who owned the orchard said over two dozen illegal immigrants worked there. Only 1/4 were female. There are a lot of blue collar jobs in rural areas in the praires that the men take but few jobs for women. That's why you'll be in a small town with a lot of illegal immigrants but it's mostly men and few women. Also, I wanna know if that chart includes the prison population. Since California has the highest prison population (obviously mostly men) are the charts including single men incarcerated? Plus, I think women are much less willing to be honest about their relationship status than men. Despite what women say about being proudly independent, it's a greater social stigma for women not to have a SO than it is for a man. Even other women view women without a SO other as being weird or undesirable. So I'm pretty sure some women are lying when they really don't have a man. Another thing, here's something I've never forgotten: I've known single guys who screw married women but always put single on their myspace profile. But I've also known single women who screwed married men but put "in a relationship" in their myspace profile. So this adds credit to my argument about women lying about their relationship status.
Dusk1983 Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 there is not enough single women to go around. 10% of guys are going to be left out in the cold. Dude, not everyone can find a partner! Basic maths! Chill out though, from a species evolutionary standpoint the folk 'left out in the cold' are just as important as those eating marshmallows by the fire.
Mrlonelyone Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 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. Psychologist even have a name for it, "Social Desirability Bias". Women are under TREMENDOUS pressure to get married get pregnant etc. TREMENDOUS pressure to have a boyfriend. Even more so than men. If you don't believe me consider this. In almost every culture a woman wears her married status on her body somewhere. In EuroAmerican culture that means a diamond and/or gold ring. People still give a unmarried woman the side eye. Then there is the simple fact that a woman can only have babies between the ages of around 14 to 44. After about 44 most women are in menopause. While men can have children until the day they die. In the old days they would call a woman not married by about 25 a "spinster" and feel pity for her. Bottom line, people lie on these things for deep seated psycho-social reasons.
grkBoy Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 Does anybody have a clue what the data actually means? 18-30: Women are not openly declaring they're single. They want to keep things "open" and hope the ideal dream man will just "come along" when she least expects it...but she's unfortunately constantly putting herself in places where "decent men" will never find her. She's either hiding in her clique of friends and never meeting anyone new, or she only hits up bars/clubs full of douchebags. 30-40: Now that their 20s didn't bring them a mate, the baby rabies and "single unmarried woman" stigma appears. Lord knows guys won't judge, but many women will look at the 30something "never married" woman and think she's a loser. Now she's declaring she's single and is trying OLD and other means to meet men in the hopes of a marriage and children before her late 30s. 40-50: This is a mixture of the 30-40 women who kept telling themselves "I don't need a man" combined with the desperate women who kept the bar too high and now are paying for it...and all the now newly divorced women. Since the bar scene is looking terrible to them (too many younger pieces of tail to compete with), they're all over trying to meet men...many often claiming they just want to make friends and meet new people (to ward off all the guys they think are "losers"). 1
Titania22 Posted May 15, 2012 Posted May 15, 2012 AUSTRALIA, HERE I COME!!! NYC keeps popping up on all these lists, which seems counterintuitive (not that I know much about the city). When I think of NYC, I think of bankers and lawyers, which are still relatively male dominated. Why are there so many women in NYC? What's the attraction? I wonder, too, how homosexuality affects these statistics? I live in a gay part of a very gay city, so much of my day-to-day life is a sausage-fest of really good-looking men, but they aren't interested in women. well in the article that said NYC is number 1, they mentioned that there are many more women than men, that they are drawn to NYC due to their careers, and the idea of it being a glamorous exciting place to live. They also said NYC had a very large proportion of gay males (but not as many as San Francisco). Welcome to Australia!
mesmerized Posted May 15, 2012 Posted May 15, 2012 18-30: Women are not openly declaring they're single. They want to keep things "open" and hope the ideal dream man will just "come along" when she least expects it...but she's unfortunately constantly putting herself in places where "decent men" will never find her. She's either hiding in her clique of friends and never meeting anyone new, or she only hits up bars/clubs full of douchebags. Story of my life lol Where else can she meet a guy? I can't really think of places to go to meet men. Anyways, I don't think I'm a loser for being single at all nor do I think most people think that way about me. I feel more like a loser for not making more money than for not having a bf
ascendotum Posted May 15, 2012 Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) Psychologist even have a name for it, "Social Desirability Bias". Women are under TREMENDOUS pressure to get married get pregnant etc. TREMENDOUS pressure to have a boyfriend. Even more so than men. ...... Bottom line, people lie on these things for deep seated psycho-social reasons. I believe this. The thing is with those stats, is the definition of 'single' on census night, not being married or simply not in a relationship or over 18 and living on your own? Also if this data is based on census data, is there really that much of an impetus to lie where you pretty much annoymous in the 310m data set. There lots of people who are not married but in long term defacto relationships, who are out of the equation for any single person. If you are a young person, that interactive map is much better at revealing the underlying picture, with some distortions noted. Edited May 15, 2012 by ascendotum
Recommended Posts