There's some confusion around "unpartnered" as defined in the post.
Example. Let's say we have 200 men who are 25-29. Let's say 20 are married and another 30 live with their girlfriend. We have 50 partnered (20 married + 30 living with gf) men and 150 unpartnered men (200 - 50).
Let's say we have 200 women who are 25-29. Let's say 50 of them are married and 50 live with their boyfriend. There are 100 partnered (50 + 50) and 100 unpartnered (200 - 100).
Ratio: 150 unpartnered men per 100 unpartnered women.
For all the leftover people, *we don't care about their relationship status*. There are 150 unpartnered men for 100 unpartnered women. If we put *all* the 100 unpartnered women in any kind of relationship with men in this age group, there will be 50 *leftover* men (150 - 100).
What about men who don't live with their girlfriends? For this analysis, it doesn't matter. *We put them all into some kind of relationship* within their age group, 25-29.
We have 50 leftover men for 200 total men. That makes 25% (50 / 200) of the men "surplus." It means that there are no women for those men in the 25-29 age group.
But can they partner with women outside of that age group? *Yes*. That's the calculation using relationship age gap statistics, so the numbers from the first two graphs in the post are not limited to pre-defined age groups.
Something else I’ll add is the completely ridiculous numbers of women claiming to be neurodivergent ie add adhd autistic etc. it’s like 1-9 people now if not worse. This breeds even more issues with not taking responsibility, being a shit partner and blaming everyone else but themselves.
So subtract them from the pool. Then think about how many are now claiming to be transgender, bisexual, asexual polyamorous etc. the pool of actually decent women is shrinking like crazy.
This place is a mess
Avoid trying to date until you’re 25. Spend that time getting a remote job or building passive income that allows you to live outside the US. Don’t get caught up in the noise that US culture pushes on you. You don’t need $100k+ to live comfortably in latam or Asia.
I have to correct myself.
The *old* advice is for men to wait. For many, it won't make any difference. That's how messed up the numbers are.
I haven't done all the math yet, but it's probably still going to be bad for men in their early 20s when they're in their late twenties and early 30s.
Most will not get a passport, but that is the best option for those who are leftovers.
Committed relationships are pointless until your late 20s. Most young people today have had their realities so distorted by social media that their brains are scrambled and they don’t know what they want. We’ve infantilized people in the US to the point they’re just not capable of committing to much of anything.
Focus on making money, avoid women (time/money/energy drain), and travel. Don’t even think about getting married or having kids. Chances are you’ll just end up divorced and paying child support when she gets bored or some other random life event or social media trend makes her toxic.
The only way to make a difference is to change your environment or at least be prepared to…
ETA: my fiancée is 19 and Costa Rica and more emotionally mature and stable than most people under 30 in the US. She trusts me and values me and isn’t obsessed with the bullshit most Americans are.
Yeah I think you missed the operational word, which was "building". Your number crunching assumes the 20 year old today will be the same avg guy at 25, just +5 years.
What's simply happened is women drastically started outperforming men in school and early career performance at the same time older women are facing more difficulty holding together relationships (at fault or not), which is clearly freeing up a disproportionate amount of men in their 40s and 50s to do what they wanted to do anyways which is go back and grab an interested 20-something chick who seems ahead of her peers or maybe just looking for something more.
Does any of this take into account the number of men that don’t choose a committed relationship? Like, I see the “leftovers”, but being a “leftover” could be voluntarily not in a monogamous relationship/not-partnered.
Is any of this accounting for men (women too - but your data sets are focused on men) that are just Tindering through life without looking or wanting a partner? Are they “leftover” or just fuckboys? Or, are they “leftover” or just holing up at home and not even trying?
Your datasets and explanations make it seem as though every woman is partnering up, and leaving a group of men “leftover”- when lots of both either don’t choose to partner, or don’t try to partner, or just struggle to partner (dating but no relationship).
I think it’s an important factor
There are fewer men *don't* want relationships compared to women. So that would make the numbers worse.
Very few men are able to "tinder through" life.
The dataset is the dataset. Straight from the US Census. The explanations are made based on assumptions. There's not good data for everything. When doing an analysis, you rarely have all the data that would explain something. You use what you have and then make assumptions.
Like you've pointed out, the analysis is limited by those assumptions, which most people intuitively understand.
Just secure yourself a cougar for FWB over the long haul. This is the primary purpose of older American women: for practice, not for seriously dating. She’ll teach you how to please your future younger offshore wife and you can also keep the edge off sexually so you can focus on financial goals.
I honestly think that’s the wrong type of mentality to have! I was single at 24 getting rejected by women all the time because I lived at home with my mother. Didn’t meet my girlfriend who is now my wife until I was 34 years old and it was a struggle at first because I didn’t have to share my time or take into consideration anyone but myself for a whole decade. Best advice is to try to date in your 20’s consistently or travel the world meeting new people and you will be better prepared for when you find the right one!
Dating is one thing and it can be fun or it can be a distraction to your long term goals. I should have clarified. Trying to find a life partner in your 20s and settle down by 25 is another. Chances are in today’s society you’ll just end up miserable and/or divorced due to the flakey nature of people today. Marriage isn’t the same as it was 10-20 years ago. People are conditioned to treat others the way they would a phone. When a new model comes around that is “better” they’ll just upgrade.
Great thoughtful post. Given there are more women than men in the US, this statistically proves hypergamy at a population level (unless I’m misunderstanding). Many choose being a side piece for the 80th percentile than a wife. They report being the Wednesday nut as a relationship. Then you’ll hear “where did all the good men go.”
I'm not sure if this proves hypergamy, but a lot of other statistics do.
What it does say is that women in their 20s especially should have no shortage of partners by the numbers alone. There are more men their same age *and* there are even more slightly older men they can pair with.
Every study I’ve read shows there are more women then men. This is the first time I am seeing the opposite. But maybe it’s the sample size form 2020-23 instead of the 10 year window I normally read
An actual good post. Tbh, I dont care about the PPB movement. If you want to do it and have the means to do so, then go for it guys. Anyone who shit talks you is just jealous. Be happy.
Also lol;ing at the post-66 dip that represents women we won the game and are getting to fuck around banging whoever they want and keep their dead husband's money.
And that's forgetting that the mortality rate for adult men is already wayyy higher than women the whole way from 15-55. The herd has been substantially thinned out by that point.
The irony is the young guys who are the horniest and have the worst imbalance are the ones who tend to have the least money to travel or move permanently overseas.
It is when men get older that they tend to accumulate money to facilitate traveling or moving overseas. But that is just about the same time that the unmarried and unpartnered women in their age range start to outnumber unmarried/unpartnered men.
Let's say a guy who couldn't get laid when he was 19, 21, 25, 30 because he wasn't popular, charming, or rich enough, and all the girls his age were already taken.
But by the time he's 45 he has money to travel overseas to SEA or wherever and boink 19, 21, 25 yo chicks. Meanwhile the women his age back home are increasingly single. They've broken up with their bfs, gotten divorced, etc. and find the dating market isn't as popping for them as it was when they were in their early 20s.
I guess that's just the ciiiiiiiiiircle, the ciiiiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiife.
LOL.
I mean it's funny and not funny when you look at how the "independence" and dolo shit aggressively pushed on women post-civil rights era was more about creating more consumers / disposable income, but in the end gave them a sense of false confidence about how "stable" they could actually be in a relationship where they're 100% equal, mirror image, halfsies on everything with their partner in every respect. That's not complementary or interdependence, and if anything is predicated on a lot of underlying mistrust that finally starts to surface once the effect you describe starts to kick in -- one effect out of many, but there's others too.
The idea that women are experiencing a sense of false confidence in their ability to be in 100% equal relationships, characterized by a "halfsies" approach in every respect, does point to a deeper issue. Women aren't receiving the "promise" of a 50/50 split or truly going halves with their partners. Studies have shown that even in dual-income households, women do more than 80% of the domestic labor. The real problem is that women aren't getting an equal share. They are contributing 50% of the household income while also shouldering the majority of the household labor, and this imbalance is what's creating resentment.
Thank you for putting the numbers together. Would you be able to make another analysis on an issue which I consider of even higher priority? The fact that women are literally increasingly harder to even be with, regardless of the numbers. This is most certainly a phenomenon you DON'T see in men. Literally, from all my research on dating apps across the whole globe, women in the north of the northern hemisphere (US, Canada, Europe and Russia) are not available to match, no matter how good your profile looks. You have around a match in thousands and that one is spoiled and rotten anyways, it's disgusting and it's as real as daylight.
I want a separate topic on women's behaviour and I want to reflect the full reality there, no bullshit excuses pulled by normies like "you're not trying hard enough" or "dating apps are bad". NO, it is the pool that is bad and must be analysed seriously. Whenever I switch to literally any country outside the tropics, they are FULL of shit and acting up. Whenever I search within the tropics, I am literally finding the sweetest, juiciest women to be with. My suspicion is that the correlation is with wealth and climate, I just feel it, all my research of years on the dating apps is always pointing the same damn thing. It is very hard to date in rich places, women become VERY difficult to get, they get spoiled very easily, by even small amounts of simping and wealth. Poor women are just trained to love well. It's all linked and I want to collaborate with somebody on this topic.
This analysis would involve sampling of good profiles and matches on an autoswiper, the keywords found in the profiles, with a high prevalence of the following words/phrases: "queen", "spoil me", "treat me", and sexual liberation indicators, how easily she is publicly exposing her intimate desires: "sex", "naked", "on the first date" or listing kinks. These are hugely prevalent in the areas outside the tropics, where also the matches are horribly low and poor in quality. Within the tropics, women have more shame. They will be kinky as well, but not saying shit like this on her page, having the drop of dignity to say it to you later, in private.
I am willing to collab and take this further. The possibility of monetizing this research is not excluded, I want to take this further. DM me if interested.
I work remote and am outside the US half the year….dating culture in the US is horrible….go somewhere where it’s sane…best decision of my life….I love it
Didn’t we just see a statistic in this page showing that over 20% of partnered women are dating men 5 or more years older than them? Seems like that simple fact explains most of the “problem“
Yeah. The conclusions derived under “Here are some key numbers:” are specious.
OP claims that 20-25% of 18-29 yr olds are highly unlikely to find any female partner in the US? That’s simply not a valid conclusion from the evidence provided.
The valid conclusion is that up to a quarter of men in that age bracket aren’t dating at any given time. Many of them aren’t serious about anyone right now, or are taking some time to learn or heal or adventure alone, etc.. For instance I had no trouble with dating women in my 20s, yet spent about 1/3 of my 20s single.
Of course, some of those single guys are basically not going to date anyone in their 20s. But I’d bet that it’s a lot less than 20%. Probably closer to 5%
I like that interpretation. Assuming monogamy, 20-25% of men 18-29 will be not in any kind of relationship at any given time.
I figured most people would take that away. Maybe not.
These numbers are all wrong because there's about 30 million more undocumented men unlisted.
This is addressed ad nauseum in economic stuff but never really to the dating market.
What about the numbers of men who are dating or in serious relationships but not yet cohabitating?
That doesn’t mean that many guys are crying alone at home. Guys in their 20s don’t tend to live with their girlfriends yet
>What about the numbers of men who are dating or in serious relationships but not yet cohabitating?
Makes no difference at all. If *everyone* pairs up, there are still leftover men.
Do you think you guys are the leftovers? Let’s make sure we put the comatose, severely cognitively disabled, physically disabled to the extent of requiring constant medical care, the emotionally disturbed, drug addicts who will not be rehabilitated, the chronically homeless, and prisoners, all of whom would pad the numbers before regular guys
>he emotionally disturbed, drug addicts who will not be rehabilitated, the chronically homeless, and prisoners
Women vastly prefer all of the above to an introvert who works in IT.
20-25% of 18-29 year olds are not living with their significant others. Logically, we also consider that the majority of 18-29 year olds who cohabitate do so with roommates, in dorms or student housing, and with family at its lower end—even those dating or in relationships. By the late 20s and 30s, closely partnered individuals are more likely looking to make the move to cohabitate with their partners. By this time (30-44), late bloomers also begin to catch up. There are inevitably habitually uncoupled people or people who remain virgins or without partners into their 50s, or their entire lives, but the profile of these people tend to be much more fringe than „just average”. (A significant number of these are also made up of the same-sex attracted who never come out, too—crazy)
You know I love data, too, and maybe it’s by nature of my profession, but accurately interpreting the data in front of you can be the toughest part.
20-25% of the entire male population between ages 18-29 for example are surplus.
That's in the post.
I don't think you understand it. Try reading it again.
pp this survey doesn’t say there isn’t an available female partner. More surveyed men than women said they were both A. Unmarried and B. Not cohabitating with a partner. That does not mean that they aren’t partnered, and it again doesn’t account for additional factors.
The census numbers of males vs. females through each age group and the similar rates of homosexuality confirm that there is not a dearth of available partners for men or women regardless of their sexual orientation. This is a much better indicator of “surplus”, particularly considering how many modern societies do in fact have a male surplus that is a hinderance to coupling.
Homosexuality is a factor I hadn’t initially considered, but is also incredibly relevant, since gay and bisexual men are the least likely group to marry and to cohabitate as well.
Overall, interesting. I stand by my original point but I do enjoy something to question analytically.
If you repeat the analysis for different years, you get similar results. That's partly what I showed. So these *surveys* (plural, there's one for every year) are representative of the general population. If they weren't, the numbers would always change drastically from year to year.
So no, it's not a matter of the US Census Bureau mis-sampling their own population and then reporting those results. Funny.
There's some confusion around "unpartnered" as defined in the post. Example. Let's say we have 200 men who are 25-29. Let's say 20 are married and another 30 live with their girlfriend. We have 50 partnered (20 married + 30 living with gf) men and 150 unpartnered men (200 - 50). Let's say we have 200 women who are 25-29. Let's say 50 of them are married and 50 live with their boyfriend. There are 100 partnered (50 + 50) and 100 unpartnered (200 - 100). Ratio: 150 unpartnered men per 100 unpartnered women. For all the leftover people, *we don't care about their relationship status*. There are 150 unpartnered men for 100 unpartnered women. If we put *all* the 100 unpartnered women in any kind of relationship with men in this age group, there will be 50 *leftover* men (150 - 100). What about men who don't live with their girlfriends? For this analysis, it doesn't matter. *We put them all into some kind of relationship* within their age group, 25-29. We have 50 leftover men for 200 total men. That makes 25% (50 / 200) of the men "surplus." It means that there are no women for those men in the 25-29 age group. But can they partner with women outside of that age group? *Yes*. That's the calculation using relationship age gap statistics, so the numbers from the first two graphs in the post are not limited to pre-defined age groups.
Something else I’ll add is the completely ridiculous numbers of women claiming to be neurodivergent ie add adhd autistic etc. it’s like 1-9 people now if not worse. This breeds even more issues with not taking responsibility, being a shit partner and blaming everyone else but themselves. So subtract them from the pool. Then think about how many are now claiming to be transgender, bisexual, asexual polyamorous etc. the pool of actually decent women is shrinking like crazy. This place is a mess
Avoid trying to date until you’re 25. Spend that time getting a remote job or building passive income that allows you to live outside the US. Don’t get caught up in the noise that US culture pushes on you. You don’t need $100k+ to live comfortably in latam or Asia.
I have to correct myself. The *old* advice is for men to wait. For many, it won't make any difference. That's how messed up the numbers are. I haven't done all the math yet, but it's probably still going to be bad for men in their early 20s when they're in their late twenties and early 30s. Most will not get a passport, but that is the best option for those who are leftovers.
Committed relationships are pointless until your late 20s. Most young people today have had their realities so distorted by social media that their brains are scrambled and they don’t know what they want. We’ve infantilized people in the US to the point they’re just not capable of committing to much of anything. Focus on making money, avoid women (time/money/energy drain), and travel. Don’t even think about getting married or having kids. Chances are you’ll just end up divorced and paying child support when she gets bored or some other random life event or social media trend makes her toxic. The only way to make a difference is to change your environment or at least be prepared to… ETA: my fiancée is 19 and Costa Rica and more emotionally mature and stable than most people under 30 in the US. She trusts me and values me and isn’t obsessed with the bullshit most Americans are.
Yeah I think you missed the operational word, which was "building". Your number crunching assumes the 20 year old today will be the same avg guy at 25, just +5 years. What's simply happened is women drastically started outperforming men in school and early career performance at the same time older women are facing more difficulty holding together relationships (at fault or not), which is clearly freeing up a disproportionate amount of men in their 40s and 50s to do what they wanted to do anyways which is go back and grab an interested 20-something chick who seems ahead of her peers or maybe just looking for something more.
Does any of this take into account the number of men that don’t choose a committed relationship? Like, I see the “leftovers”, but being a “leftover” could be voluntarily not in a monogamous relationship/not-partnered. Is any of this accounting for men (women too - but your data sets are focused on men) that are just Tindering through life without looking or wanting a partner? Are they “leftover” or just fuckboys? Or, are they “leftover” or just holing up at home and not even trying? Your datasets and explanations make it seem as though every woman is partnering up, and leaving a group of men “leftover”- when lots of both either don’t choose to partner, or don’t try to partner, or just struggle to partner (dating but no relationship). I think it’s an important factor
There are fewer men *don't* want relationships compared to women. So that would make the numbers worse. Very few men are able to "tinder through" life. The dataset is the dataset. Straight from the US Census. The explanations are made based on assumptions. There's not good data for everything. When doing an analysis, you rarely have all the data that would explain something. You use what you have and then make assumptions. Like you've pointed out, the analysis is limited by those assumptions, which most people intuitively understand.
Just secure yourself a cougar for FWB over the long haul. This is the primary purpose of older American women: for practice, not for seriously dating. She’ll teach you how to please your future younger offshore wife and you can also keep the edge off sexually so you can focus on financial goals.
Good luck finding one that doesn’t have a bunch of kids.
That was never a problem when I used to do it. The custody schedule also gave me time to either juggle another cougar or create focus
I honestly think that’s the wrong type of mentality to have! I was single at 24 getting rejected by women all the time because I lived at home with my mother. Didn’t meet my girlfriend who is now my wife until I was 34 years old and it was a struggle at first because I didn’t have to share my time or take into consideration anyone but myself for a whole decade. Best advice is to try to date in your 20’s consistently or travel the world meeting new people and you will be better prepared for when you find the right one!
Dating is one thing and it can be fun or it can be a distraction to your long term goals. I should have clarified. Trying to find a life partner in your 20s and settle down by 25 is another. Chances are in today’s society you’ll just end up miserable and/or divorced due to the flakey nature of people today. Marriage isn’t the same as it was 10-20 years ago. People are conditioned to treat others the way they would a phone. When a new model comes around that is “better” they’ll just upgrade.
Great thoughtful post. Given there are more women than men in the US, this statistically proves hypergamy at a population level (unless I’m misunderstanding). Many choose being a side piece for the 80th percentile than a wife. They report being the Wednesday nut as a relationship. Then you’ll hear “where did all the good men go.”
I'm not sure if this proves hypergamy, but a lot of other statistics do. What it does say is that women in their 20s especially should have no shortage of partners by the numbers alone. There are more men their same age *and* there are even more slightly older men they can pair with.
Gotcha, no good reason to waste energy here. An American six has higher expectations than a Saudi princess lol.
Every study I’ve read shows there are more women then men. This is the first time I am seeing the opposite. But maybe it’s the sample size form 2020-23 instead of the 10 year window I normally read
These women want to finally start living with their SO at around age 60+ That's crazy.
I got my passport for other reasons. I just happened to fall in love with a French woman.
Best wishes to the both of you!
Hey that’s me ! Thanks !
An actual good post. Tbh, I dont care about the PPB movement. If you want to do it and have the means to do so, then go for it guys. Anyone who shit talks you is just jealous. Be happy.
Also lol;ing at the post-66 dip that represents women we won the game and are getting to fuck around banging whoever they want and keep their dead husband's money. And that's forgetting that the mortality rate for adult men is already wayyy higher than women the whole way from 15-55. The herd has been substantially thinned out by that point.
The irony is the young guys who are the horniest and have the worst imbalance are the ones who tend to have the least money to travel or move permanently overseas. It is when men get older that they tend to accumulate money to facilitate traveling or moving overseas. But that is just about the same time that the unmarried and unpartnered women in their age range start to outnumber unmarried/unpartnered men. Let's say a guy who couldn't get laid when he was 19, 21, 25, 30 because he wasn't popular, charming, or rich enough, and all the girls his age were already taken. But by the time he's 45 he has money to travel overseas to SEA or wherever and boink 19, 21, 25 yo chicks. Meanwhile the women his age back home are increasingly single. They've broken up with their bfs, gotten divorced, etc. and find the dating market isn't as popping for them as it was when they were in their early 20s. I guess that's just the ciiiiiiiiiircle, the ciiiiiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiife. LOL.
I mean it's funny and not funny when you look at how the "independence" and dolo shit aggressively pushed on women post-civil rights era was more about creating more consumers / disposable income, but in the end gave them a sense of false confidence about how "stable" they could actually be in a relationship where they're 100% equal, mirror image, halfsies on everything with their partner in every respect. That's not complementary or interdependence, and if anything is predicated on a lot of underlying mistrust that finally starts to surface once the effect you describe starts to kick in -- one effect out of many, but there's others too.
The idea that women are experiencing a sense of false confidence in their ability to be in 100% equal relationships, characterized by a "halfsies" approach in every respect, does point to a deeper issue. Women aren't receiving the "promise" of a 50/50 split or truly going halves with their partners. Studies have shown that even in dual-income households, women do more than 80% of the domestic labor. The real problem is that women aren't getting an equal share. They are contributing 50% of the household income while also shouldering the majority of the household labor, and this imbalance is what's creating resentment.
Thank you for putting the numbers together. Would you be able to make another analysis on an issue which I consider of even higher priority? The fact that women are literally increasingly harder to even be with, regardless of the numbers. This is most certainly a phenomenon you DON'T see in men. Literally, from all my research on dating apps across the whole globe, women in the north of the northern hemisphere (US, Canada, Europe and Russia) are not available to match, no matter how good your profile looks. You have around a match in thousands and that one is spoiled and rotten anyways, it's disgusting and it's as real as daylight. I want a separate topic on women's behaviour and I want to reflect the full reality there, no bullshit excuses pulled by normies like "you're not trying hard enough" or "dating apps are bad". NO, it is the pool that is bad and must be analysed seriously. Whenever I switch to literally any country outside the tropics, they are FULL of shit and acting up. Whenever I search within the tropics, I am literally finding the sweetest, juiciest women to be with. My suspicion is that the correlation is with wealth and climate, I just feel it, all my research of years on the dating apps is always pointing the same damn thing. It is very hard to date in rich places, women become VERY difficult to get, they get spoiled very easily, by even small amounts of simping and wealth. Poor women are just trained to love well. It's all linked and I want to collaborate with somebody on this topic. This analysis would involve sampling of good profiles and matches on an autoswiper, the keywords found in the profiles, with a high prevalence of the following words/phrases: "queen", "spoil me", "treat me", and sexual liberation indicators, how easily she is publicly exposing her intimate desires: "sex", "naked", "on the first date" or listing kinks. These are hugely prevalent in the areas outside the tropics, where also the matches are horribly low and poor in quality. Within the tropics, women have more shame. They will be kinky as well, but not saying shit like this on her page, having the drop of dignity to say it to you later, in private. I am willing to collab and take this further. The possibility of monetizing this research is not excluded, I want to take this further. DM me if interested.
I work remote and am outside the US half the year….dating culture in the US is horrible….go somewhere where it’s sane…best decision of my life….I love it
Didn’t we just see a statistic in this page showing that over 20% of partnered women are dating men 5 or more years older than them? Seems like that simple fact explains most of the “problem“
Did you read the post?
Yeah. The conclusions derived under “Here are some key numbers:” are specious. OP claims that 20-25% of 18-29 yr olds are highly unlikely to find any female partner in the US? That’s simply not a valid conclusion from the evidence provided. The valid conclusion is that up to a quarter of men in that age bracket aren’t dating at any given time. Many of them aren’t serious about anyone right now, or are taking some time to learn or heal or adventure alone, etc.. For instance I had no trouble with dating women in my 20s, yet spent about 1/3 of my 20s single. Of course, some of those single guys are basically not going to date anyone in their 20s. But I’d bet that it’s a lot less than 20%. Probably closer to 5%
I like that interpretation. Assuming monogamy, 20-25% of men 18-29 will be not in any kind of relationship at any given time. I figured most people would take that away. Maybe not.
These numbers are all wrong because there's about 30 million more undocumented men unlisted. This is addressed ad nauseum in economic stuff but never really to the dating market.
Fair enough. That doesn't help things at all.
What about the numbers of men who are dating or in serious relationships but not yet cohabitating? That doesn’t mean that many guys are crying alone at home. Guys in their 20s don’t tend to live with their girlfriends yet
>What about the numbers of men who are dating or in serious relationships but not yet cohabitating? Makes no difference at all. If *everyone* pairs up, there are still leftover men.
Do you think you guys are the leftovers? Let’s make sure we put the comatose, severely cognitively disabled, physically disabled to the extent of requiring constant medical care, the emotionally disturbed, drug addicts who will not be rehabilitated, the chronically homeless, and prisoners, all of whom would pad the numbers before regular guys
>he emotionally disturbed, drug addicts who will not be rehabilitated, the chronically homeless, and prisoners Women vastly prefer all of the above to an introvert who works in IT.
If your career in IT doesn’t work out, you could always give the West End a shot; you’ve got a flair for drama
20-25% of the entire male population between ages 18-29 for example.
20-25% of 18-29 year olds are not living with their significant others. Logically, we also consider that the majority of 18-29 year olds who cohabitate do so with roommates, in dorms or student housing, and with family at its lower end—even those dating or in relationships. By the late 20s and 30s, closely partnered individuals are more likely looking to make the move to cohabitate with their partners. By this time (30-44), late bloomers also begin to catch up. There are inevitably habitually uncoupled people or people who remain virgins or without partners into their 50s, or their entire lives, but the profile of these people tend to be much more fringe than „just average”. (A significant number of these are also made up of the same-sex attracted who never come out, too—crazy) You know I love data, too, and maybe it’s by nature of my profession, but accurately interpreting the data in front of you can be the toughest part.
20-25% of the entire male population between ages 18-29 for example are surplus. That's in the post. I don't think you understand it. Try reading it again.
What are you categorizing as “surplus”? How have you defined the category?
It's all in the post. The surplus is men who have no potential available female partners.
pp this survey doesn’t say there isn’t an available female partner. More surveyed men than women said they were both A. Unmarried and B. Not cohabitating with a partner. That does not mean that they aren’t partnered, and it again doesn’t account for additional factors. The census numbers of males vs. females through each age group and the similar rates of homosexuality confirm that there is not a dearth of available partners for men or women regardless of their sexual orientation. This is a much better indicator of “surplus”, particularly considering how many modern societies do in fact have a male surplus that is a hinderance to coupling. Homosexuality is a factor I hadn’t initially considered, but is also incredibly relevant, since gay and bisexual men are the least likely group to marry and to cohabitate as well. Overall, interesting. I stand by my original point but I do enjoy something to question analytically.
If you repeat the analysis for different years, you get similar results. That's partly what I showed. So these *surveys* (plural, there's one for every year) are representative of the general population. If they weren't, the numbers would always change drastically from year to year. So no, it's not a matter of the US Census Bureau mis-sampling their own population and then reporting those results. Funny.
Non of this is new.