Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're the one claiming 20% so burden of proof is on you. Marital status has nothing to do with reproduction. Again, demanding sources when we're not in class points to you being unable to refute anything.
You specifically stated "the top 20-25%."
No, demanding sources (I requested, actually) does not point to my being able to refute anything, LOL. What an odd thing to say.
I did refute, and I gave my source: marriage statistics. Unless you're saying married people don't have sex? As a general or at least sizeable enough to entirely skew stats rule?
The claim is that most women have sex from among only a comparatively small pool of men. Some have just made this claim in a very vague way, some have given a specific percentage. Yours was 20-25%. My reply is that if at least half (currently 51% IIRC) of adult U.S. males are currently married then obviously, only 25% of adult males at a maximum (your proposed maximum) being sexually active males must be incorrect. Are you able to reconcile these two conflicting ideas? Or rather, one is an idea (yours), mine is a verifiable statistic (mine).
No, demanding sources (I requested, actually) does not point to my being able to refute anything, LOL. What an odd thing to say.
I did refute, and I gave my source: marriage statistics. Unless you're saying married people don't have sex? As a general or at least sizeable enough to entirely skew stats rule?
The claim is that most women have sex from among only a comparatively small pool of men. Some have just made this claim in a very vague way, some have given a specific percentage. Yours was 20-25%. My reply is that if at least half (currently 51% IIRC) of adult U.S. males are currently married then obviously, only 25% of adult males at a maximum (your proposed maximum) being sexually active males must be incorrect. Are you able to reconcile these two conflicting ideas? Or rather, one is an idea (yours), mine is a verifiable statistic (mine).
Your rebuttal was unsuccessful once you compared marriage to sex. They have nothing to do with each other. I'll give you another chance to successfully refute that 80/20 or something similar does not exist.
Statistics can be manipulated rather easily. Your rebuttal was unsuccessful once you compared marriage to sex. They have nothing to do with each other. I'll give you another chance to successfully refute that 80/20 or something similar does not exist.
Oh, I see. Then this statistic was manipulated? Can you support that the stat must be thrown out because in your opinion it may have been manipulated? What can you support it with, besides your opinion?
"Marriage and sex have nothing to do with one another": can you support that?
As for the last sentence, I already have. With real data. Can you refute that data with anything more solid than "Well, I'll bet somebody manipulated data"?
Pretty much it comes down to if your're a man you have to do the approaching or shut up. Since the women here explained that most women want men to approach and that most men want to approach, it's a waste of time for men to wait for women to approach. We are not needed and women will do fine without us, did I get it right?
Women do approach, but only the upper tier of men.
Oh, I see. Then this statistic was manipulated? Can you support that the stat must be thrown out because in your opinion it may have been manipulated?
"Marriage and sex have nothing to do with one another": can you support that?
As for the last sentence, I already have. With real data. Can you refute that data with anything more solid than "Well, I'll bet somebody manipulated data"?
I'll give you another chance here; good luck.
You haven't refuted anything. If your answer is going to be "can you support that", then you have nothing to add. You have not used any real data. You seem to think that marriage statistics prove your point. They don't. People getting married has nothing to do with who the most attractive men are. People sleep around and never marry. That would mean they're unattractive going by your logic. Still waiting for a successful rebuttal.
You haven't refuted anything. If your answer is going to be "can you support that", then you have nothing to add. You have not used any real data. You seem to think that marriage statistics prove your point. They don't. People getting married has nothing to do with who the most attractive men are. People sleep around and never marry. That would mean they're unattractive going by your logic. Still waiting for a successful rebuttal.
The data are real.
Generally, people who marry have sex with one another - let's go ultra conservative (and frankly a bit silly, but whatever floats your boat) and say a minimum of once. You claim this is untrue and that "marriage and sex have nothing to do with one another"; please support the claim.
You claim marriage stats are "not real"; please support that they are not real - I.e. are they literally lies? Were they obtained using inaccurate methods? Are they part of a conspiracy? Did someone type the data in wrong? What?
Until you can given some support to your frankly unbelievable (marriage and sex having no connection, manipulation of data) and so far, entirely opinion based claims, then you have no argument, I am sorry. I can't help you further until you want to be logical, and accurate.
Generally, people who marry have sex with one another - let's go ultra conservative (and frankly a bit silly, but whatever floats your boat) and say a minimum of once. You claim this is untrue and that "marriage and sex have nothing to do with one another"; please support the claim.
You claim marriage stats are "not real"; please support that they are not real - I.e. are they literally lies? We're they obtained using inaccurate methods? Are they part of a conspiracy? What?
Until you can given some support to your frankly unbelievable (marriage and sex having no connection, manipulation of data) then you have no argument, I am sorry. I can't help you further until you want to be logical, and accurate.
Now you're claiming marriage and sex with one another, which I made no mention of. My argument still has not been refuted. You have given no proof debunking the claim the majority of women flocking towards the top tier of men. Marriage has nothing to do with who the most attractive men are and that is a poor attempt at trying to refute the claim. I have yet to be proven wrong. You can throw whatever stats you want. My claim has not been refuted.
The majority of women flocking to the top tier of men is basic biology. Refute that. I don't want to hear about marriage, dating, or any of that. The majority of women flock to the top men. Whether it's 80/20 or whatever percent you want to use. I openly challenge anyone to prove that statement is wrong.
You're tripping over yourself, yes, you just specifically said marriage and sex have nothing to do wiith one another, LOL, scroll up, and now you're saying you made no mention of it...?
I am kind of speechless at this point, are two different people using your account or something...? Because now you literally aren't making sense, particularly with this exact comment.
I just don't know how to help you any more at this point, I can only shake my head...good luck, I guess. Truly and really, good luck.
Isn't the gender ratio among the population fairly close to 1:1?
If it is, shouldn't the number of women finding someone be roughly equivalent to the number of men doing the same? Or are there just a vast amount of same-sex female partnerships skewing the numbers?
I'm not going to say I've got some numbers on how many more/less/equal there of men and women in the US, I don't. But I can tell you pretty clearly that if the 1:1 ratio were true, a lot of it depends on location.
I know where I live, there are not very many single available women. There's some, I can't say that there aren't or else dating websites wouldn't have women available in my general area. That being said, I can go from OKcupid and POF and find many of the same people and profiles on both sites. Pages of the same people, I would say. That whole "There's someone for everyone" phrase might apply if everyone was willing to put up with everyone elses baggage. I mean I might connect with someone with 6 kids and disabled, but there's no way in hell I'm dating her. Which there is a lot of truth in that last sentence that happened to me.
Societal norms determine attractiveness. Sure, some aspects can be subjective, but most are not.
There is such a thing as universal attractiveness and it's very real.
Of course, I understand universal attractiveness, but that's just not how it plays out in real life. Sit down on a random bench and do some people-watching; you'll observe people at all different levels of attractiveness (or non-attractiveness) coupled up, as well as less conventionally attractive people paired with conventionally attractive people. Looks are only one part of the equation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
