Obesity, sexlessness, and overall demographics

I think explored this previously, but I don’t remember which post it was.

NY did a piece a while back on how much of BMI was misleading.

For men:

  • 22% of men are normal or underweight
  • 12% of men are “healthy obese”
  • 6% of men are “skinny fat”
  • 60% of men are overweight or obese

For women,

  • 24% of women are normal weight or underweight
  • 3% of women are “healthy obese”
  • 15% of women are “skinny fat”
  • 58% are overweight or obese

Unfortunately, this is for the total population and not the 18-30 demographic that we are seeking to discuss.

Given the previous post on sexlessness, we have a couple charts and some data.

The obesity by age group by cohort in 2012 is:

  • 18-23: 14.4%
  • 24-27: 19.9%
  • 28-31: 23.6%

We probably will have expected this to rise maybe slightly since there is the overall trend of inflation toward 2018 and 2019. This also does not include all of the men and women that are overweight. The overweight range typically is in the 20-33% range, as age increases.

Now, we also have some data from the underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obesity analysis on marriage.

In summary, a general estimation if you’re obese you’re likely to have approximately  a 30-50% less likely chance to marry, and if you’re overweight or underweight you likely have approximately a 10-30% less likely chance to marry. If there was 10 normal weight people, then approximately about 6 obese people, 8 underweight, and 8 overweight people would marry.

Although marriage is not necessarily a decent predictor of sex, it gives us a general estimation of sex since most people who are married want to have sex.

In the 18-30 age range for men, based on a general estimation it’s likely that about:

  • 20% are obese
  • 20% are overweight
  • 50% are normal weight
  • 10% underweight (we’ll go with 10% just for estimation)

If we apply the “marriage criteria” to this general population distribution, we can get a rough estimate to how much of each of these populations are having sex.

Since 28% of men are not having sex, that means 72% in the past year are. The ratio is approximately 40% less for obese, and 20% less for underweight or overweight than normal weight. This yields approximately these relevant figures:

  • ~42 out of 50 normal weight men are having sex (42/50 = 84%)
  • ~10 out of 20 obese men are having sex (84%*.6=50.4%)
  • ~13 out of 20 overweight men are having sex (84%*.8=67.2%)
  • ~7 out of 10 underweight men are having sex (4%*.8=67.2%)

One would assume that most of the “overweight or obese” men having sex are going to be the ones that are “healthy obese” or have significant amounts of musculature on their frame. Since only 12% of men are healthy obese (and likely a higher percentage in the younger population than the older), we can likely assume that the actual figure of healthy obese men in 18-30 population is probably in the range of 13-17% of the population. This means that of the actual 23 overweight and obese men in the 18-30 population, the ones that are overweight or obese are not having sex while the healthy obese ones are. We can also assume that the skinny fat ones aren’t having sex while the more normal underweight ones are.

What is also surprising to me is that the majority of normal and underweight men are still having sex.

Also, going back to the IFStudies on involuntary vs voluntary celibacy:

About 8% of never-married young men living with their parents are involuntarily sexless, and another 7% are voluntarily so. Among men not living with their parents, it’s just 4% involuntarily sexless, and 2% voluntarily so.

Looking at sex in the last year instead of virginity, never married young men without their parents are about 17% sexless, versus nearly 30% among those who live with parents. Even when these variables are combined together, more education is associated with more sexlessness among both men who live with their parents and men who do not, and living with parents is associated with more sexlessness across all educational levels.

Also, 20/50-60 rule or so is more or less correct:

It turns out, the answer is no. And of course, it isn’t! Imagine how much sex those 20% of men would have to be having! A substantial share would need to be doing two-a-days on a regular basis to maintain that kind of share. In reality, according to the GSS, the top 20% of the most sexually active never-married young men have about 50-60% of the sex. It’s about the same for women, and these shares are basically stable over time. Measuring the number of partners instead of sexual frequency, the top 20% most promiscuous men account for about 60% of male sexual partnerings, and the trend is, again, quite stable over time.

In general, summing up all of the available data, it appears that approximately:

  • Top 20% is having 50-60% of sex or about 3:1 or 2.5:1 ratio
  • Middle 52% is having 40-50% of sex or about 1:1 ratio
  • ~15% are involuntarily celibate
  • ~13% are voluntarily celibate

Graphically, it looks like this:

  • Male 8-10s are having sex with all of the female 6-10s.
  • Top 20% of sexually active females (interspersed in female 6-9s most likely) are having sex with the male 8-10s.
  • Male 4-7s are having sex with female 4-7s in about 1:1 ratio.
  • Male and female 1-3s are half voluntarily celibate and half involuntarily celibate.

That concludes the data analysis. Make of it what you will.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Obesity, sexlessness, and overall demographics

  1. Novaseeker says:

    I see.

    So the 10% disparity in the Washington Post chart (28% sexlessness among men and 18% sexlessness among women) is attributable in part to obesity among men, in part to living with parents for men, and in part to the distribution issue (top men getting larger percentage of sex).

  2. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    When I was still internet dating, I got into a conversation with a woman about her son’s success with it. He had gone on two hundred first dates. It never got to a second with any of them. At the time, I chalked it up to living in the NYC metro area and I believed her when she told me there was nothing wrong with him. Since then, I have found this to be all too common and the usual suspects aren’t enough to counter the impression.

    One thing that I did give notice to was something I read in Reddit. A poster had stumbled into a thread of prepubescent girls discussing their preferences in characters in a cartoon drama. They were only interested in villains. There was no interest in the the good guys. I get the sinking feeling that if we drill down deep enough into female sexual attraction, we are not going to like what we see.

  3. seventiesjason says:

    so its hopeless for most men…….most don’t look like Calvin Klein models, most are not ever going to be chemical engineers for Dow Chemical. Just about no one is going to be an airline pilot or sugeon…..let alone a famous actor…..

    Living at home……pretty common in California…..and in any larger cosmo city fro that matter, including all the big cities in Texas (where every woman is evidently a virgin, and a devout Christian)……who at 22 with 30K in college debt even with an okay job and career track can pay for an apartment built in say 1968…..and pay over 3K a month? Even when I was starting out, I had to have four roommates in San Francisco in a Victorian row house….and I had a decent job.

    The answer here will be, “move to Bullfrog North Dakota, get a job on an oil rig make tons of money, save….and voila! women are gonna see that you are serious about marriage!”

    and for all the nonsense over and over and over decraying that “women don’t care about looks, well they do, but……not as much”

    There seems to be some serious disconnect when reality sets in….and we see this 80 / 20 or 70/30 play out.

    And by this posting, ity’s now “okay” as a Christian to be having prenmarital sex…….well, only if you are deemed “good looking enough”

    Going back further………none of the DIsciples were “rich merchants” and they were married. None were owning fleets of boats on the Sea of Galiee….Christ had no “comeliness, that we may be atrracted to Him” and I don’t remember Paul telling men to “do sit ups so thou will have a hot wife”

    SO what happens if you are young, can bench 200 reps at x amount of pound and at 40 you can no longer do this, and your wife divorces you? Will she be justified now because “as a man you are no longer in the top 10%”?

    For a worldview that was supposed to be for all………..its mirroring the world more and more

  4. Bruce says:

    Never understood why Pareto should be a natural fit to this phenomena. 20 to 50/60 seems about what I see.
    “Male 8-10s are having sex with all of the female 6-10s.”
    and
    “Male 4-7s are having sex with female 4-7s in about 1:1 ratio.”

    So I assume this means some of the “having sex males” (6-7s) are sharing the female 6-7s (essentially all female 6-7s are shared) with the male 8-10s. Or the 18-30 age group includes the female 6-7s who have been dumped by enough Chads that they are lowering their standards.
    The 20 to 50/60 is for 18-30 age range. It starts to shift in male favor after 30 although that’s still not a great story.

  5. theasdgamer says:

    Jason, it’s only hopeless for you, because you are so charming (“charming” means “you have given up”). The reality is that betas are still getting most sex. And airline pilots, engineers, etc are mostly beta. Your average alphas are your psychopaths, your men with natural charm, and your men with superior social skills that give them social dominance. Hollywood is irrelevant. Looks are irrelevant. Charm and social skills and confidence are relevant. The latest actor playing James Bond isn’t nearly as good looking as Tom Cruise, but he has magnetic presence. Charm. Even ugly men can cultivate charm and magnetic presence. Ugly men can dress well and cultivate a particular style. Ugly men can behave attractively by how they stand and carry themselves and speak. E.g., Charles Bronson and Bob Hope.

    Do you think that you are charming? If so, why? If not, why not? You realize that Jesus Christ was very charming, right? The life of the party? So why don’t you emulate Him?

  6. Novaseeker says:

    So I assume this means some of the “having sex males” (6-7s) are sharing the female 6-7s (essentially all female 6-7s are shared) with the male 8-10s. Or the 18-30 age group includes the female 6-7s who have been dumped by enough Chads that they are lowering their standards.

    It’s partially both, I think.

    A key point to remember is that 1-10 is a bell curve. There are a LOT more 6s than 8s, in each sex. So the number of male 8-10s is quite small (as it is for female 8-10s), whereas the number of female 6s-7s is a lot larger, especially at the level of 6, which is “cute” and only one bell curve deviation above the midpoint at 5. So you have a fairly small number of 8-10 men having quite a bit of sex with female 6s and 7s just because they are so numerous relative to female 8+. 80/20 was always a short hand, I think, with the main idea being that sex access for men to above average (i.e., 6+) women is highly concentrated.

    There is some debate about the usefulness of the 1-10 scale as well for most people living in most areas, as well. One can think of an objective/ideal 1-10 bell curve scale, and then there is the local market situation in terms of what the actual distribution in your local market is from the 1-10 scale (it almost never perfectly represents the national/global bell curve). From my perspective, where I live in DC, we have very, very few 8+ women here. There are some here, but remarkably few of them, even relative to their overall percentage in the population in general, which is small overall, apart from the local college student community, which is at an age range that exists prior to the geographic self-selection based on looks — that takes place after college generally. Here we have a remarkably fit population relative to many other places in the US, which as a practical matter means we have a lot of female 6s and 7s, but we don’t have very many 8+ at all (at those levels it gets to be much more about superior facial genetics plus fitness, and not just being cute and fit). So in a market like this one, 7s are most of the “top of the market” for men, and they act accordingly — in effect, they are “market-based” 8+ without being objective 8+ due to the lack of 8+ women here. So all of the conclusions about how 8+ women behave in general apply to 7s in the DC area, whereas the 6-7 group is pretty much just the 6s. It kind of works because we have such a high proportion of 6s and 7s compared to many places, but when you compare it to other places, it can get wonky.

    One of the places in the US I travel on business to quite a bit is Miami — at least a few times year sometimes more. Miami is a place that has probably 3-4 times as many 8+ women as DC does. But it also seems to have more 1-4s than DC does. To me, that market looks more like a “high low” market, where if you are a midrange kind of guy, you’re likely frozen out of a lot of the market given how top-heavy it is on the female side — when it’s top heavy on the female side, the top-side women don’t generally compromise “down”, but they get more competitive with each other for the top men in terms of their appearance and presentation, and share top men and so on. Hence in Miami there are also many more women with plastic surgery (even young women), much more sexy clothing (competitiveness) and overall open licentiousness than in DC, coupled with very ostentatious displays of wealth and status by men who go to South Florida specifically to access the (relatively) large number of 8+ women there.

    Just a reminder that the markets are local, and the characteristics of local markets, in terms of what parts of the overall national bell curve are present in what quantities in your own local market, has a dramatic impact on how that market works, and how women (and men) behave in it.

  7. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Seventiesjason,
    It’s Ok to be frustrated beyond tolerance in this sexual marketplace.

  8. @ fuzzie

    When I was still internet dating, I got into a conversation with a woman about her son’s success with it. He had gone on two hundred first dates. It never got to a second with any of them. At the time, I chalked it up to living in the NYC metro area and I believed her when she told me there was nothing wrong with him. Since then, I have found this to be all too common and the usual suspects aren’t enough to counter the impression.

    If he went on 200 first dates from internet dating, he at least has a good appearance and physical stats. If he can’t get a second date, that’s probably an in-person confidence or personality issue.

    My experience with online dating was: messaged about 150 women, 5 replies, 1 date. I did convert that single date into multiple dates.

    I don’t have great appearance or physical stats, so I’m not surprised at my results in that arena. That’s why I don’t recommend online dating unless you are conventionally attractive (e.g. tall and handsome).

  9. @ seventiesjason

    And by this posting, ity’s now “okay” as a Christian to be having prenmarital sex…….well, only if you are deemed “good looking enough”

    Going back further………none of the DIsciples were “rich merchants” and they were married. None were owning fleets of boats on the Sea of Galiee….Christ had no “comeliness, that we may be atrracted to Him” and I don’t remember Paul telling men to “do sit ups so thou will have a hot wife”

    SO what happens if you are young, can bench 200 reps at x amount of pound and at 40 you can no longer do this, and your wife divorces you? Will she be justified now because “as a man you are no longer in the top 10%”?

    For a worldview that was supposed to be for all………..its mirroring the world more and more

    I can see you’re not reading closely. Nowhere did I say that it is a good idea or permissible for Christians to have pre-marital sex. It’s still a sin and a bad idea for Christians.

    This post aimed to examine what is going on with sex in the US at the moment.

    If you’re so disillusioned, I suggest you stop reading and commenting. God never promises anyone a husband or wife in the Bible.

  10. @ Bruce

    So I assume this means some of the “having sex males” (6-7s) are sharing the female 6-7s (essentially all female 6-7s are shared) with the male 8-10s. Or the 18-30 age group includes the female 6-7s who have been dumped by enough Chads that they are lowering their standards.

    I would assume that the most promiscuous men and women are generally banging each other. So some percentage of male 8-10s and female 6-9s.

    Then promiscuous ones probably aren’t having sex so much with the other regular male 4-7s and female 4-7s so they’re probably somewhat non-overlapping.

    This also doesn’t include the approximate:

    1. 50% of women who get married by age 27 who are probably banging until marriage.
    2. The pre-marital sex -> marriage path that many men and women take. This one probably includes men and women in the 1:1 ratio group. The average age of marriage is about 29 and 27 for men and women, so about 30-40% or so of women are getting married on average in the 18-30 age.

  11. @ Nova

    Good points. Local market is definitely very important. You could be “average” in the overall market or even your cities market, but if you’re a leader or excellent in a hobby or church, you can easily shoot above your relative attractiveness level.

    I didn’t include the bell curve, but I tried to make it so that the approximate 1-10 scale was about right.

    In reality, the top 20% might be male 7-10s and the bottom 30% might be male 1-4s. I also remember from somewhere that it was the top ~10% of men having about 40% of the sex or so.

    This would yield something along the lines of:

    1. Male 9-10s – 10% having 40% of the sex or about 4:1 ratio
    2. Male 7-8s – 10% having 10-20% of the sex or about 1.5:1 ratio
    3. Male 5-6s – 50% having 40-50% or about 1:1 ratio
    4. Male 1-4s – about 15% incel and 14 volcel.

    It becomes even more top heavy.

    For Christian men, they should probably aim to be at least a male 5+ at minimum if not male 7+ if possible. You don’t need to have sex with lots of women (sin), but you just need 1 interested woman who is attractive to you with a strong faith and good character.

    Hard to do? Yes. Can be done for most men who are aware? Very likely.

  12. Joe2 says:

    “Just a reminder that the markets are local, and the characteristics of local markets, in terms of what parts of the overall national bell curve are present in what quantities in your own local market, has a dramatic impact on how that market works, and how women (and men) behave in it.”

    There is no disagreement that the markets are local. The behavior of the market is also heavily influenced by the ethnic and cultural (E&C) make-up of the market. What is the E&C make-up of the two markets you mentioned, Miami market vs the DC market? There may be a large number of women in the South Florida market who are considered 8+ by men of similar E&C background but may be rated much lower (1-4) by men of a different E&C background. Thus, the same women may have little sexual market value by men who consider their E&C background regardless of the overall open licentiousness of the market.

  13. Novaseeker says:

    Thus, the same women may have little sexual market value by men who consider their E&C background regardless of the overall open licentiousness of the market.

    In Miami? It’s all kinds — it’s not all, or even majority, Latin women in the 8+ category (although there are quite a few Latin women in the objectively lower categories, unfortunately). And in any case, from what I have observed with my own eyes there, it certainly isn’t the case that the Latin women who are 8+ there are not desired by (and not often with) white guys. If that’s what you were asking (kind of seems like it was). Are those a “different kind of white guy” than the white guys in, say, DC? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. More money in Miami, clearly, less of the kind of typical high educated DC beta professional type and more of the inherited money/rich entrepreneur type, really.

    The licentiousness part has to do with women behaving in certain ways to compete with other women — there, where there is a high concentration of women at the top level, there’s a lot of competition among them, so things like surgery and licentious behavior are deployed in order to compete.

  14. AngloSaxon says:

    Daniel Craig is a mangina in reality.

  15. seventiesjason says:

    Never heard of Daniel Craig.

    I have lived in California since the tender age of 23 when I was brought out here right before my birthday in 1994.

    Styles change, this state has changed….but the constant? 20% or thereabouts of the top men in looks pretty much have no problems or worries dating / sex / hooking-up / fathering children / divorce / and doing the same thing over and over again to about 60% of the women.

    The rest of the women (that 40%) still expect the top 20% guy to rescue them…and these women still freeze out 80% of the men; then demand the pastor, the pundit, the v-blog, the dating service again telling men “how” to be ultra-masculine, how date, how to be cocky-funny and perform a dancing monkey routine for a slice of attention.

    I would harbor a guess maybe 10% of women are Christian in word and deed in California……and they still expect the Christian movie star or pop star or if they are reformed (bad girl, and truly repentant at my age). These women marry that 1% of Christian man in the church who is above all else……………………………good looking

    Most men who are average end up marrying the first thing that gives them some attention, and they are dating way, way, way down looks wise, personality wise and attitude wise…..hence I don’t feel much for them when he gets taken to the cleaners.

    I really doubt this is much different in any larger urban area of the USA…sure, some nuances…..but I have family in Austin, Texas……my cousin can’t get a date to save his life with height, a good job and being able to speak two other foreign languages fluently…….

  16. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Deep Strength,
    On the face of it, online dating should work. That it doesn’t has little to do with men, but it does seem to be the last stop for a lot of men. There is a small consolation. In one of her videos from years ago, Karen Straughan remarked that women have always had reproductive access. It is beginning to look as if feminism is going to change that and women won’t be able to handle it. Hypergamy is a sword that has two edges and it cuts both ways.

  17. Novaseeker says:

    On the face of it, online dating should work. That it doesn’t has little to do with men,

    Yeah, the only way someone would think that way is if he doesn’t understand how women select men. You do, of course, and you’re quite correct in saying that it has little to do with men, but of course it takes two to tango.

    Apps are very hypergamous (due to endless supply of men) and very looks-driven (because … what else ya got? You swipe this way or that based mostly on a picture and that’s that). Of course that kind of setup is going to favor women overall by fueling their selectivity, and it’s going to be very harsh on men that aren’t good looking, because it’s all about photos and who looks the best. That’s just the nature of the beast with an app — there is no context, no banter, no charm, no nothing other than how attractive you are in photos. So, yes, apps are bad news for men who are not quite good looking, I fully agree with that.

  18. seventiesjason says:

    Adsgamer:

    Clears throat.

    The word “charming” doesn’t mean, nor has it ever meant “you have given up”

    Charming: noun. a power of pleasing or attracting, as through personality or beauty: charm of manner; the charm of a mountain lake. a trait or feature imparting this power. charms, attractiveness.

    You used the term “average alpha”

    And this person is a psychopath now? You are making zero sense.

    Jesus was not the life of the party. He has been called throughout the ages as “a man of sorrows” one who was “scorned” and a man who was crucified for zero wrongdoing. Even when he was at a “party” he never took credit for anything he did. The first miracle of turning water to wine, no one said “this life of the party here named Jesus did this for us”

    Even when at the home of a rich tax collector or pharaisee……..or anyone else of importance…he was humble, everything was a teaching moment, or a parable to what “His fathers house was, or how the Kingdom of God worked……..it is written. have you not read the scriptures? there was a king……..

    Never once was Jesus dancing with a lampshade on his head, nor was the life of the party…in fact, in most occasions….he was a curiosity, or something people aside from his disciples were a bit ‘warry” of. The pharaisees always had to have a conference…..or talk among themselves….and then send (push) one of them to try to catch in Him is contradiction….cheap flattery……and always with a malicious heart.

    Calmly and cooly answered, leaving them more puzzled and afraid of their power base (as most alphas are afraid of….losing that ‘control’) because under this, they were nothing. Sure, some were bright enough…and some may indeed have loved God……..

  19. theasdgamer says:

    The word “charming” doesn’t mean, nor has it ever meant “you have given up”

    A word means precisely what I want it to mean.

    You used the term “average alpha”

    As in, “not a Hollywood movie star”. No special status.

    And this person is a psychopath now? You are making zero sense.

    You have things bass-ackwards. Psychopaths are alphas.

    Jesus was not the life of the party.

    Let’s see what the Bible says.

    “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'”

    “Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him,”

    “On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.” So they took it. 9 When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.””

    Do you need me to unpack the scripture for you, or can you do it yourself?

    Oh, look, someone else has already done it for me!

    https://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/jesus-the-life-of-the-party-scott-chambers-sermon-on-jesus-life-135707

  20. seventiesjason says:

    asd you didn’t read one word of my above reply

  21. Joe2 says:

    And in any case, from what I have observed with my own eyes there, it certainly isn’t the case that the Latin women who are 8+ there are not desired by (and not often with) white guys. If that’s what you were asking (kind of seems like it was). Are those a “different kind of white guy” than the white guys in, say, DC?

    Are you saying that, in general, the majority of white guys whether in Miami or in DC would agree with you that the Latin women you observed with white guys rate an 8+ category?

  22. theasdgamer says:

    Apps are very hypergamous (due to endless supply of men) and very looks-driven (because … what else ya got?

    Preselection, in theory. Would this maybe be how something might happen?

    One girl looks at the profile and is hooked by “you have to have eyes as green as the sea” or some such rubbish. She dates the man and gives him a high grade. Maybe the girl tells her friends about him and her friends become curious and a few date him also. Repeat a few times. All of a sudden he has a high grade much better than his looks. Which doesn’t compute when girls see his pic and grade together. So they get curious and look deeper. And game comes into play. Maybe he gets dates with more attractive women.

    Is something like this possible?

  23. seventiesjason says:

    please tell us asd…you’re the expert here

  24. theasdgamer says:

    Jason, I’ve put in the effort to be around women and try to understand them. I don’t do online apps. But I am a little curious about them.

  25. Joe2 says:

    @Deep Strength

    My experience with online dating was: messaged about 150 women, 5 replies, 1 date. I did convert that single date into multiple dates.

    I’ve also used a dating app and had similar experiences. I found that the profiles and pictures of many, if not most, of the women are fake. I used Google image search and time after time the pictures turn out to be that of a porn star or appear elsewhere, such as on a site which has a photo shoot of a model. One image was actually of a woman who was reported missing several years ago.

    The profiles and images may have been put up the dating app operator to attract men, by someone trying to collect personal information or for any of many other reasons. Therefore, the lack of responses don’t have anything to do with you; they are just fake profiles.

  26. Most dating apps are functionally Astroturf. Most of the front-facing Internet is astroturf at this point, frankly.

  27. Novaseeker says:

    Joe —

    Actually, I’m pretty sure that the 8+ Latinas I am talking about in Miami would likely be considered 8+ by almost all men everywhere, whether they have a “thing” for Latin women or not. I say that because I certainly don’t have a thing for Latin women myself, for example, but I can tell an 8+ when I see one, regardless of her ethnicity. But in any case, even if you leave the Latin women aside (and as I say above, they’re only about 35-40% of the 8+ in Miami anyway, despite the demographics there), the number of white 8+ in Miami is about 3-4 times the number in DC easily. It’s just a place that has more hot women than average but, as I also said above, seems to have fewer 6s and 7s, per capita, than we do in DC, while more 3s and 4s. It’s a high/low market I think.

    ASD —

    Apps don’t really work that way. There isn’t a way to grade people publicly in them, and there isn’t a way to refer people in them. Undoubtedly some women do try to date guys that their friends are dating from apps, but the preselection aspect the way you describe it there isn’t facilitated by the apps.

    I think it’s hard to understand apps unless you have used one. A woman doesn’t even see the profile unless she scrolls to it after she has seen the pictures, and given the absolute torrential flood of swipes even halfway attractive women have to review, they don’t scroll to see the profile at all unless something in the picture — generally the first one — really grabs them. So most guys just don’t pass the photo test and never even get the profile viewed, period. Just how it works. The apps re very anonymous and isolated — for the most part girls swiping at pics alone to pass the time, and not aware of what their GFs are swiping on. They certainly do share profiles around (men do as well) to get second opinions from their BFFs and so on, but the apps don’t facilitate that and don’t generally let you search for specific people — it’s all automatching based on the apps matching criteria and the geographic radius and age range the user selects. So there may be some small amount of what you are talking about going on, but it it isn’t most of it — most of what happens on apps is individual girls selecting guys based on pics primarily, and then narrowing it down based on profile (to a small extent … not as important in apps as in traditional old online dating) and on text interactions prior to deciding to meet.

    There is some room for preselection in the pics you put up — i.e., put yourself up with pics of hot girls. But that can backfire, too. Many women are very skeptical of those and think they are staged (which they often are), and will just swipe past if they see them … and so it has nothing like the actual preselection effect in real life if a woman sees you successfully interacting with pretty girls in real life.

    Basically apps are not good for guys who aren’t quite good looking. Guys who have game/charm/other things going on in the real world will generally do much better approaching women in the real world than spending time on apps.

  28. @ Joe2

    The profiles and images may have been put up the dating app operator to attract men, by someone trying to collect personal information or for any of many other reasons. Therefore, the lack of responses don’t have anything to do with you; they are just fake profiles.

    That is certainly possible. Some sites, including the one I used, allow you to see if someone read your message.

    If I remember correctly, about 2/3 to 3/4 of the women actually read the message, so about 100-120ish were real by my estimation. The fake profiles generally don’t have anyone managing them after they’re put up, so I doubt the ones who read the message would be fake.

    This was like 5+ years ago though, so I’m sure MANY more fake profiles have been added since then though.

  29. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    In terms of fake profiles, the worst that I ever heard of was Ashley Madison, the cheating website. At the time they were hacked, for every ten thousand guys, there were only three real women. That was summer of 2015. I can’t understand how they are still in business.

    It’s good to bash online dating. It has discouraged a lot of men.

  30. Jason Piecuch says:

    Was on eharmony around 2001…….for a year or so. I can’t remember how many women I messaged…..it must have been at least 150, a few replies. No dates. One woman that replied I believe was actually *trying* to constructively criticize my profile. “don’t wear a shirt and tie, a polo would be better…..don’t write about what you want or what you are looking for, write about the girl who wants you!” Stuff like that……I had another pic on my profile of my cat sitting on my shoulder, she told me men who own a cat are a “major turn-off” for women……..she wished me “luck” and told me to “keep trying because there is someone perfect out there for everybody”

    I never replied back but was a little surprised at her critique….

    I joined “christian crush” in 2013? 2014? A large segment of the profilse were mostly from Colorado, every woman worked at “Focus On The Family” or the supporting Christian industries surrounding it in the greater Colorado Springs area. I messaged 100 women or thereabouts. One reply. No dates. Most of the women “I stand toe to toe with the man I choose” type of no-nonsense statements, the women my age “I rebelled, but God had a plan and I would not be the woman I am now in Jesus because of my past. It’s the past.”

    I noticed too most of the women had been on there YEARS. One woman thought I was a “cop” because I had one of my pictures wearing my Salvation Army uniform. Lots of girls with pictures of them with teddy bears, and kitsch……..the very attractive women on “christian crush” always…..ALWAYS had in their profile “married” as their status but said in their profile “just looking for friends”

    as if…………

    If people ask I just tell them to stay off dating sites, its just an ego stroke for women in general and most have no plans on marrying unless he is the guy that meets all of her 342 expectations……or you are just a very good looking guy or very photogenic

    I never have been on Tinder or related sites. I don’t ever plan to.

  31. Pingback: Nuances of marriage data: it’s really not that hard to get married | Christianity and masculinity

  32. Pingback: Obesity may explain a large percentage of the problems in marriage rate dips | Christianity and masculinity

  33. Pingback: Cheap sex leads to decreasing marriage rates or not? | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s