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.
Pretty sure they are either married or in school mostly. I don't think too many traditional people live in the Austin area unless they are married. Maybe worth a try. You can meet girls in the Hill Country perhaps and at the colleges, too. If you really would prefer to live in Austin. As with any city best place to find them is church.
Meet girls in the Hill Country? What do you mean by that?
The Hill Country is rural and suburbs. You can meet married women I guess
Hi everybody, I am a man who is a recent college grad.I am looking for different places that may have better dating scenes than Midland, Texas which is where i live now.I'm self-employed so jobs would not be a concern.I am a conservative Christian and I am looking for a like-minded individual.So which metro out of Dallas/Fort Worth,Houston,San Antonio and Austin would be best for me as far as dating and finding a like-minded group of friends?I do not have apartment budget set yet.Thanks in advance.
With more than 7% of Austin metro made up of college students, I would guess it to have the highest percentage of single people and and the highest percentage of people younger than age 30/35, and since many big events and simple day to day things to do in Austin metro are geared towards young people, I think it's no contest that the Austin metro would have the best dating scene of all the big metros in Texas.
With more than 7% of Austin metro made up of college students, I would guess it to have the highest percentage of single people and and the highest percentage of people younger than age 30/35, and since many big events and simple day to day things to do in Austin metro are geared towards young people, I think it's no contest that the Austin metro would have the best dating scene of all the big metros in Texas.
I think you really need to travel out of your Austin/Hill Country bubble sometime. You thought the Rust Belt was only in ugly areas of the country on one thread, which is laughably absurd and painfully obvious you haven't spent time there. Back on topic -- there's a major size difference between DFW/Houston and Austin. Unless you're counting specific outdoor options, there's hardly anything in Austin that isn't also available to a single person in Dallas or Houston.
For certain demographic groups (black, LGBT, Korean, Indian, etc), Dallas & Houston steamrolls Austin for those singles. Yuppies? Dallas. I do give Downtown Austin credit for having really great cohesive social infrastructure; however, there's been massive improvement in Dallas with the the increasing urbanization in Central Dallas (particularly Deep Ellum & Uptown).
I think you really need to travel out of your Austin/Hill Country bubble sometime. You thought the Rust Belt was only in ugly areas of the country on one thread, which is laughably absurd and painfully obvious you haven't spent time there. Back on topic -- there's a major size difference between DFW/Houston and Austin. Unless you're counting specific outdoor options, there's hardly anything in Austin that isn't also available to a single person in Dallas or Houston.
For certain demographic groups (black, LGBT, Korean, Indian, etc), Dallas & Houston steamrolls Austin for those singles. Yuppies? Dallas. I do give Downtown Austin credit for having really great cohesive social infrastructure; however, there's been massive improvement in Dallas with the the increasing urbanization in Central Dallas (particularly Deep Ellum & Uptown).
You twist my words around and take them out of context. The thread topic is which Texas metro has the best dating scene. I never said things available in Austin are not available in Dallas or Houston.
Austin metro has between 150,000 and 200,000 college students in a metro of approxinately 2.2 million. Compare those stats to DFW and Houston metro. The point I was making, Austin metro has the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of college students of the Big 4 Texas Metros. Actually, Austin has the 6th or 7th highest percentage of college students of all the major metros in the entire United States. Austin also has the youngest average age of it's residents of the Big 4 metros.
So with many big events in Austin nearly every week and nightly entertainment every night in Austin all geared towards a younger, mostly single crowd with money to spend. One of the Downtown Austin zip codes has more bars and restaraunts than any other zip code in the nation. I believe that is in actual numbers and not per capita, but it might be per capita. Either way, that little tid-bit of Austint trivia right there is enough to let the average thinking person know that section of the city is going to be a popular hang out for young college age singles. With a high rate of young singles in a party town like Austin, it is bound to be one of the best places for young and/or singles to meet other young and/or singles in the entire nation. Besides bars and restaraunts there are lakes and parks near Austin that's popular party places that young singles flock to. I'd guess 10's of thousands of young singles from Dallas and Houston go for a week end get away to Austin nearly every weekend of the year.
Not that Houston and DFW don't have a strong young and single scene, but I don't believe it's near as prominent as the Austin scene. Austin's young and single scene is well known throughout the nation, where as the DFW and Houston young and single scene, is not so well-known as much.
What I was saying about the RustBelt is it's probably a good thing that it was located where it was located because that part of the country has one of the least attractive landscapes in the country. I never called the Rust Belt landscape ugly because the word "ugly" is not a part of my vocabulary, but let's face facts, people never moved there for the scenic beauty or the climate. They went for the jobs. And just for the record; I was pretty much raised in Muncie, Indiana, an actual Rust Belt town, from the time I was 8 or 9 until I was almost 21 years old. I'm 64 now.
Last edited by Ivory Lee Spurlock; 10-30-2018 at 12:23 PM..
Regardless of the city that you choose, do not depend on your church for any sort of meaningful dating outcomes. In 2012, Stanford University researchers released a study about how heterosexual couples met. This study examines how heterosexual couples met based upon the year the relationship was formed. It is a longitudinal study that has been periodically updated over time. It examines relationships formed between 1940 and 2009. Essentially no one meets their romantic partner at church anymore. My sense is that this study will get an update in the next 2-3 years.
I guess I'm a no one. And my parents. And my brother. And many friends. But none of us were going to church for the same reason one goes to a single's bar.
I guess I'm a no one. And my parents. And my brother. And many friends. But none of us were going to church for the same reason one goes to a single's bar.
When a large set of data points is examined, every individual data point is less important. People and behaviors are the key data points here.
It's a shame that the range of the data of year relationship was formed only goes through 2009. Nevertheless, there are some clear trends that exist.
If you look at the trend line of people meeting through friends, it peaked in the 1980s and entered a long term decline phase from relationships that formed from the early 1990s through 2009. As of 2009, meeting through friends was the most common means of forming a relationship but the long term trend would indicate that meeting through friends would probably no longer be number 1 sometime between 2015-2019 (now). This is where updated data would be very useful.
Online took off in the 1990s but was leveling off and declining as of 2009. Apps entered the market after 2009. No one knows if dating sites/apps are producing sustainable relationships. My hypothesis is no. As of 2009, there was about 15 years of data on dating sites. Right now, there's pushing 25 years of data. I don't see online growing any further.
Bar/restaurant (and I think other public place falls into this) experiences a resurgence from the late 1990s through 2009. If that trend continues, bar/restaurant/other public places is slated to replace friends as the number 1 way a relationship forms as of the 2015-2019 time period.
Church/church related activities had a gradual fall off for 1980-1999 relationship formation, but look at 2000-2009. There was an acceleration in the decline of relationship formation in that era. By 2009, it was only 2-3%. I doubt that percentage has picked up 2010-present.
You twist my words around and take them out of context. The thread topic is which Texas metro has the best dating scene. I never said things available in Austin are not available in Dallas or Houston.
Austin metro has between 150,000 and 200,000 college students in a metro of approxinately 2.2 million. Compare those stats to DFW and Houston metro. The point I was making, Austin metro has the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of college students of the Big 4 Texas Metros. Actually, Austin has the 6th or 7th highest percentage of college students of all the major metros in the entire United States. Austin also has the youngest average age of it's residents of the Big 4 metros.
So with many big events in Austin nearly every week and nightly entertainment every night in Austin all geared towards a younger, mostly single crowd with money to spend. One of the Downtown Austin zip codes has more bars and restaraunts than any other zip code in the nation. I believe that is in actual numbers and not per capita, but it might be per capita. Either way, that little tid-bit of Austint trivia right there is enough to let the average thinking person know that section of the city is going to be a popular hang out for young college age singles. With a high rate of young singles in a party town like Austin, it is bound to be one of the best places for young and/or singles to meet other young and/or singles in the entire nation. Besides bars and restaraunts there are lakes and parks near Austin that's popular party places that young singles flock to. I'd guess 10's of thousands of young singles from Dallas and Houston go for a week end get away to Austin nearly every weekend of the year.
Not that Houston and DFW don't have a strong young and single scene, but I don't believe it's near as prominent as the Austin scene. Austin's young and single scene is well known throughout the nation, where as the DFW and Houston young and single scene, is not so well-known as much.
What I was saying about the RustBelt is it's probably a good thing that it was located where it was located because that part of the country has one of the least attractive landscapes in the country. I never called the Rust Belt landscape ugly because the word "ugly" is not a part of my vocabulary, but let's face facts, people never moved there for the scenic beauty or the climate. They went for the jobs. And just for the record; I was pretty much raised in Muncie, Indiana, an actual Rust Belt town, from the time I was 8 or 9 until I was almost 21 years old. I'm 64 now.
A. We're comparing metros of about 7 million each (or 14 million combined) to a metro of only about 2.2 million. No one in their right mind would claim that the latter has more of a singles scene or offers more for singles than the former. It's not apples to apples. For a city/metro of its size, Austin does stand out as a young/singles destination. But I repeat: for a city/metro of its size. So compared to Austin's peers, it does extremely well (peers being places like Charlotte, Nashville, Kansas City, etc.). DFW & Houston may indeed be considered "average" for cities/metros of their own size (Peers being DC/NOVA, Philly, etc.), so they don't necessarily stand out. But again: for cities/metros of their size. That's one way for Austin to be "perceived" as a better place for singles, but again, we're comparing a metro of 7 million vs. 2 million. That's a huge size difference, so there's no way the latter offers more than the former.
B.Another issue that skews perception is social infrastructure. Downtown Austin contains the vast majority of the city's nightlife, various nightlife scenes, and hotels. It makes it very easy for a visitor to get a feel for it; however, it distorts how many singles actually are in the city/metro. The most concentrated/walkable nightlife districts in Dallas are not in Downtown, but near it. They're split between Deep Ellum, Uptown, and Oak Lawn (LGBT). You can easily experience all 3 areas in 1 night or stick to one area and still have a lot to walk to. Then there's some smaller but still significant ones in parts of Downtown, Knox-Henderson, etc. They all have entertainment throughout the week and in some parks, free concerts and events. We also have our party lakes as well (admittedly, Lake Travis is nicer than Lake Lewisville, but my point still stands). There's literally no reason to have to travel from Dallas to Austin in order to experience vibrant nightlife. In fact, I have several friends in Austin that come up to visit Dallas. But I can see if you're from out-of-town and unfamiliar with how Dallas "flows," then it's easy to draw conclusions like that.
C. Young/single doesn't always mean "college student." Thousands graduate at age 22/23 every year and begin their working careers. So in massively growing areas like Dallas with several corporate relocations, it does draw in singles in the age 23-30 age bracket. I know several singles in that age bracket who picked Dallas over Austin not simply for job opportunity, but because it is indeed bigger and has more singles.
D Indiana is only one slice of the Rust Belt. I grew up in the Rust Belt as well (PA) and am quite familiar with it. Places like WV, PA, Upstate NY, etc. are way more scenic than the Hill Country, yet are littered with depressed, Rust Belt cities & town. So your theory doesn't really hold....
E.You're 64! I hate to point that out, but I'm not sure you would be the best guide for young singles....
When a large set of data points is examined, every individual data point is less important. People and behaviors are the key data points here.
It's a shame that the range of the data of year relationship was formed only goes through 2009. Nevertheless, there are some clear trends that exist.
If you look at the trend line of people meeting through friends, it peaked in the 1980s and entered a long term decline phase from relationships that formed from the early 1990s through 2009. As of 2009, meeting through friends was the most common means of forming a relationship but the long term trend would indicate that meeting through friends would probably no longer be number 1 sometime between 2015-2019 (now). This is where updated data would be very useful.
Online took off in the 1990s but was leveling off and declining as of 2009. Apps entered the market after 2009. No one knows if dating sites/apps are producing sustainable relationships. My hypothesis is no. As of 2009, there was about 15 years of data on dating sites. Right now, there's pushing 25 years of data. I don't see online growing any further.
Bar/restaurant (and I think other public place falls into this) experiences a resurgence from the late 1990s through 2009. If that trend continues, bar/restaurant/other public places is slated to replace friends as the number 1 way a relationship forms as of the 2015-2019 time period.
Church/church related activities had a gradual fall off for 1980-1999 relationship formation, but look at 2000-2009. There was an acceleration in the decline of relationship formation in that era. By 2009, it was only 2-3%. I doubt that percentage has picked up 2010-present.
It was the use of the term "virtually no one" that led to my comment. 2 to 3% of a country of 325 million plus is hardly no one. That church attendance is declining with millenials it's no surprise. That someone in this age category is within that smaller subset, seems more likely that he will find someone of like minded interests in the church than a singles bar.
It was the use of the term "virtually no one" that led to my comment. 2 to 3% of a country of 325 million plus is hardly no one. That church attendance is declining with millenials it's no surprise. That someone in this age category is within that smaller subset, seems more likely that he will find someone of like minded interests in the church than a singles bar.
OP has a very tall order ahead of him, no matter whether he stays in Midland, or departs for any of the cities being discussed here. He's a late Millennial if using the Pew definition of 1981-1996 birth years. If he dates someone his age or younger, he's dating the end of the Millennial cohort and the early part of Generation Z. Millennials were never a big church attending population, even when the older part of Millennials is considered (the 1980s births). Generation Z is a little bit different than Millennials, and those differences are still emerging.
It's not 2-3% and its not 325 million either. First, not all 300+ million people are in a relationship. However, the majority of people at any given time are in some sort of romantic relationship. It's 2-3% of X number of people forming relationships in 2009 that were still in existence in 2011-12, when the research was conducted.
OP has a very tall order ahead of him, no matter whether he stays in Midland, or departs for any of the cities being discussed here. He's a late Millennial if using the Pew definition of 1981-1996 birth years. If he dates someone his age or younger, he's dating the end of the Millennial cohort and the early part of Generation Z. Millennials were never a big church attending population, even when the older part of Millennials is considered (the 1980s births). Generation Z is a little bit different than Millennials, and those differences are still emerging.
It's not 2-3% and its not 325 million either. First, not all 300+ million people are in a relationship. However, the majority of people at any given time are in some sort of romantic relationship. It's 2-3% of X number of people forming relationships in 2009 that were still in existence in 2011-12, when the research was conducted.
If he or she is a good church going Christian, he/she is only going to marry only one person. There are still plenty of fish in the pool even when subdivided into all your graphs and statistical constructs. Just how many persons does a twenty something late millennial evangelical Texan moving from a red area to potentially four or five much redder urban areas need to date to increase their statistical odds of finding a compatible life partner according to your data?
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.
