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.
Now the map below only shows midsized - large cities but it shows that in the majority of the country men are at a disadvantage in the dating world, at least based on options(the more options you have the more picky you tend to be), it's one of the reasons why someone can have no troubles dating and then move somewhere else and becomes lonely and can't get past a 2nd date, or the opposite people who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a fist full of hundred dollar bill's moves to another city and all of a sudden has a full dance card.
Mod cut: Copyrighted image. Here's a link: http://djsaan.homestead.com/Gender_Imbalance_Map.jpg
Now there are also other factors, like local politics, local culture, like a neohippy stoner dude will do okay in Denver, Seattle, Portland or Austin even though men outnumber women in those places, because that's a big chunk of the local culture and that culture leans female.
Something similar has been posted here before. I would exercise caution in reaching conclusions from these overall data, to the extent that age and race matter to you in a partner.
Well it's not that simple the west (especially LA) has such an abundance of beautiful women that some woman who has been viewed as a 9 or 10 all her life can move there and all of a sudden be viewed as a 6 or 7, I've known some really good looking women who have moved there and had their self esteem shattered, especially the ones that grew up usually being the prettiest girl in the room 80% of the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffle
Something similar has been posted here before. I would exercise caution in reaching conclusions from these overall data, to the extent that age and race matter to you in a partner.
I'm African American and have only dated 4 African American women in the last 35 years(last one almost 20 years ago) and I grew up on military bases and then the suburbs so those stat's don't really apply to me. Race is not a factor for me in dating as I have dated all races and many ethnic groups mostly white, Asian and Latina. also those stat's are misleading as those factors have more to do with economics than race, if you separated the groups by income the ratios would balance out. in poor communities(even white ones) there is usually a handful of guys getting all the girls so STD's spread faster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don_Draper
Yep, been saying this for years. I gotta move back east.
Northern Ohio is best especially in midsized large cities like Akron, as your dating pool will be largest.
I'm African American and have only dated 4 African American women in the last 35 years(last one almost 20 years ago) and I grew up on military bases and then the suburbs so those stat's don't really apply to me. Race is not a factor for me in dating as I have dated all races and many ethnic groups mostly white, Asian and Latina. also those stat's are misleading as those factors have more to do with economics than race, if you separated the groups by income the ratios would balance out. in poor communities(even white ones) there is usually a handful of guys getting all the girls so STD's spread faster
To be clear, I didn't post that study as an endorsement of the public health conclusions. It just includes a nice visual (Figure 3) demonstrating the distribution of county adult sex ratios by race, which is an important contributing factor to the results in your OP.
To be clear, I didn't post that study as an endorsement of the public health conclusions. It just includes a nice visual (Figure 3) demonstrating the distribution of county adult sex ratios by race, which is an important contributing factor to the results in your OP.
That's only a contributing factor if someone is racist in their dating practices lol and that is becoming less and less of a problem.
Similar to the map in the OP but takes into account population size.
The most skewed metro for single men is Bakersfield, CA with 106 unmatched men, meaning 447 women to every 553 men, or 19% of men exceeding equal ratio. The most skewed for single women is Jackson, MS with 78 unmatched women, meaning 539 women to every 461 men, or 14% of women exceeding equal ratio.
I don't agree with the idea of a dating market where everyone has similar enough preferences to assign values, but just for illustrative purposes: a guy at the 50th percentile of men in Bakersfield would match with a gal at the 36th percentile of women. A guy at the 50th percentile of men in Jackson would match with a gal at the 57th percentile of women. So in this quantitative fantasy, moving would allow this guy to date two steps higher on a scale of ten (a 6 instead of a 4).
These figures are for the full 18-64 age range. Feel free to recalculate for a narrower range (but you might want to check the base ACS data, because margin of error will come into play).
My point isn't that the above calculation is valid (I don't think it is). Just giving a sense for the actual impact. This is the biggest possible change from a move, and IMO it's not that significant except for the bottom 19% who are unable to find a match at all.
So tired of seeing those maps. If West coast urban areas are so bro-dominant, why are average and attractive 20- and 30-something women gong dateless in Seattle, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and other similar locales?
Check out Santa Fe, NM, guys--that little red speck in upper-middle New Mexico! Also the Upper midwest: Michigan!
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.