any women here who have never dated, never had a boyfriend?

Page 2 of 26 [ 416 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 26  Next

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

21 Aug 2016, 3:28 pm

Spiderpig wrote:
Chronos wrote:
As sex ratios are more or less equal, for every single man there is a single woman, and for every woman with a partner, there is a man with a partner.

You see more single men here than single women for two reasons.
1. This is an ASD oriented website and males are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an ASD than females, and males likely also outnumber females in actual prevalence of ASD.

2. Women are less likely to turn to online forums to vent about their single status.


Just because there are roughly as many single men as single women at any given time doesn’t mean the fractions of them who are chronically single are similar. The numbers add up, too, if almost all currently single women have been in relationships in the past and will get into them again, while a significant number of men have been always single and will remain so for life. It just means that, on average, men who do get relationships spend a slightly higher fraction of their lifetimes being in one than women do, making up for the non-negligible minority of men for whom that fraction is zero.


'In a relationship' doesn't directly map onto 'sexual partner', but looking at a 2011 CDC report:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

Of those heterosexuals aged 40-44, 1.3% of men and 0.4% of women have not had a sexual partner.

Like the bleach that kills 99% of germs but leaves MILLIONS of them still alive, we can say men are over three times as likely as women to be virgins, or that women are a whole one and nine thousandths times as likely as men to have a sexual partner, depending on the impression we are trying to give.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


whatamievendoing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2016
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,336
Location: Finland

21 Aug 2016, 4:15 pm

Spiderpig wrote:
It’s pretty simple. Males are biologically the expendable sex. In the ancestral environment, your tribe had no use for you if you couldn’t fight for it like every man was supposed to. Young children cry when someone hurts them to attract their parents’ attention so they protect them. Women are allowed to cry because their childbearing ability makes them inherently valuable to the tribe, so they’re protected, too. However, as a man, you’re supposed to be a protector yourself, not a liability. If you expect the tribe to spend resources protecting you instead, the tribe is better off getting rid of you. This means that, if someone hurts you, you’d better settle the conflict yourself, fighting to the death if necessary, so you won’t be caught alive without having destroyed the source of your grief.


That logic doesn't apply in the same way in this day and age, though, and trying to apply it in the same way to the modern age is, IMHO, an extremely flawed way of looking at it. Not to mention the double standard - if women can feel free to express their emotions openly, then why can't men?

Another thing I might add is that keeping your emotions bottled up can actually be more damaging than beneficial. Trust me, I'm speaking from personal experience on this one.


_________________
“They laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at them because they're all the same.”
― Kurt Cobain


hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,748
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

21 Aug 2016, 4:53 pm

OK let's phrase it this way. How many women on here have never had a plus one to take to any event where the invitation reads "your name plus one"?

I can put my hand up for that.



WantToHaveALife
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,214
Location: California, United States

21 Aug 2016, 10:26 pm

can anyone think of any women in their late 20's, 30's who has never had a boyfriend, never had a relationship before? i doubt it, but i can think of lots of guys like that



anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

22 Aug 2016, 12:34 am

it's socially encouraged for men to have more partners, and socially encouraged for women to have fewer partners

society, and math: men are more likely to be chronically single. it's true. i wouldn't automatically conclude that women are better off for it though. i do very much believe that a bad relationship is worse than being alone, and no conclusion can automatically be made about the quality of relationships in general, or about how much each gender generally benefits from relationships


_________________
404


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,669
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

22 Aug 2016, 1:16 am

whatamievendoing wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
It’s pretty simple. Males are biologically the expendable sex. In the ancestral environment, your tribe had no use for you if you couldn’t fight for it like every man was supposed to. Young children cry when someone hurts them to attract their parents’ attention so they protect them. Women are allowed to cry because their childbearing ability makes them inherently valuable to the tribe, so they’re protected, too. However, as a man, you’re supposed to be a protector yourself, not a liability. If you expect the tribe to spend resources protecting you instead, the tribe is better off getting rid of you. This means that, if someone hurts you, you’d better settle the conflict yourself, fighting to the death if necessary, so you won’t be caught alive without having destroyed the source of your grief.


That logic doesn't apply in the same way in this day and age, though, and trying to apply it in the same way to the modern age is, IMHO, an extremely flawed way of looking at it. Not to mention the double standard - if women can feel free to express their emotions openly, then why can't men?

Another thing I might add is that keeping your emotions bottled up can actually be more damaging than beneficial. Trust me, I'm speaking from personal experience on this one.


When some large enemy invades Finland (army's manpower not enough), who do you think will be summoned by your government to arms as reserve units?



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,669
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

22 Aug 2016, 1:41 am

anagram wrote:
it's socially encouraged for men to have more partners, and socially encouraged for women to have fewer partners

society, and math: men are more likely to be chronically single. it's true. i wouldn't automatically conclude that women are better off for it though. i do very much believe that a bad relationship is worse than being alone, and no conclusion can automatically be made about the quality of relationships in general, or about how much each gender generally benefits from relationships



And highly attractive men are way more likely to be promiscuous and playboys than attractive women and anyone else; so the involved women with a such man may think they're in relationship with him unknowingly of his other affairs.



anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

22 Aug 2016, 1:48 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
And highly attractive men are way more likely to be promiscuous and playboys than attractive women and anyone else; so the involved women with a such man may think they're in relationship with him unknowingly of his other affairs.

yep. assuming that that uneven social pressure still prevails (which i do think it does), and assuming that most people actually want to conform to it (a little more complicated, but i guess it's also true for the most part), odds are that relationships (or sexual involvement) will end up hurting women's self-esteem much more often than men's. "i was such a fool", while the man doesn't see anything wrong, or doesn't care (because it benefits him)


_________________
404


hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,748
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

22 Aug 2016, 2:07 am

WantToHaveALife wrote:
can anyone think of any women in their late 20's, 30's who has never had a boyfriend, never had a relationship before? i doubt it, but i can think of lots of guys like that


Yes. I'm female so I have female friends and know their circumstances. The men on here probably don't have a lot of female friends so won't actually know any women well enough to know their circumstances.

I only had one brief relationship at 17. I'm in my early 30s now, so I'd say I'm chronically single and I have friends in their mid 20s - early 50s who have never been in a relationship.

Also, threads like this turn into, well, what this thread has turned into and women can't be bothered participating. So you won't get many responses here. We feel like we have to justify our singleness to you and end up feeling like we must be really ugly or really horrible people because all the men on here start saying, but any woman can get a man.



anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

22 Aug 2016, 2:19 am

this is one of the things that confuse me the most about this site and a lot of the people who post here: statistics are statistics, probability is probability, and people are people, but even some people who should really know better don't seem to make that distinction, and it has to be restated again and again. and then people keep ignoring it anyway

these generalizations actually help you understand how society works in general, but, as true and valid as they may be, they don't help understand individual cases. especially when we're talking about people outside of the bell curve (aka everybody on this website). or, simply put: it explains other people, not anybody here


_________________
404


Last edited by anagram on 22 Aug 2016, 2:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sabreclaw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2015
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,971

22 Aug 2016, 2:23 am

I think simply being socially anxious hurts anybody's chance of getting a partner.



wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

22 Aug 2016, 2:25 am

(snip)

My eyes may be open but I'm not really awake right now.


_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War

(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)


Last edited by wilburforce on 22 Aug 2016, 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

22 Aug 2016, 2:32 am

i don't know if it's linked or something, but to me it already shows as l&d. i don't even click anything if i see it's in women's discussion


_________________
404


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,669
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

22 Aug 2016, 2:43 am

It is a L&D thread. :| Are my eyes playing tricks on me?



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,186
Location: Adelaide, Australia

22 Aug 2016, 2:47 am

I was reading this yesterday. It's been in L&D the whole time.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,748
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

22 Aug 2016, 3:30 am

anagram wrote:
this is one of the things that confuse me the most about this site and a lot of the people who post here: statistics are statistics, probability is probability, and people are people, but even some people who should really know better don't seem to make that distinction, and it has to be restated again and again. and then people keep ignoring it anyway

these generalizations actually help you understand how society works in general, but, as true and valid as they may be, they don't help understand individual cases. especially when we're talking about people outside of the bell curve (aka everybody on this website). or, simply put: it explains other people, not anybody here


Yes!

So often the case responses on threads are, but I read that "a study says"... "it's science you ignoramus!"

I've posted this before, but here it is again. Shark attacks go up when ice cream sales go up.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7592579.stm


Also, this John Oliver thing on scientific studies is good.


You can't just cherry pick the studies that suit your own hypothesis.