Why San Francisco's dating scene totally sucks

[Winston]

http://whytherearenogirls.blogspot.com/ ... ratio.html


#14 The Lop-Sided Gender Ratio

Not long ago an academic named Richard Florida made a small ruckus by scientifically proving that the San Francisco Bay Area (along with L.A.) was the best place in the country to be a single woman. He based his finding mostly on data that men here are rich (at least richer, on the mean, than men from any other major metropolitan area) and outnumber single women by about 65,000.

Florida didn't seem to correct for sexual orientation, the favorite straw-man of disgruntled spinsters, but even so the underlying data wasn't really controvertible. It wasn't even new. In 2004 the research firm Teasley published findings that ranked San Francisco as the best place to find a rich, single man in the United States, as measured by San Francisco’s single male "Golden Ratio" of 140%, and specifically accounting for the large percentage of gays (which according to the most reliable figures is considerably less than people tend to believe at about 15%). Similarly a 2004 article in the magazine San Francisco estimated that unmarried straight 20 to 44-year-old men in San Francisco (not including Silicon Valley or Man Jose) outnumbered their female counterparts by about 12,000.

Yet two anecdotal curiosities give us pause: first, an informal study of male opinion and the SF night-life scene describes a ratio that is FAR worse than even the data suggests. Second, and more puzzling, there is widely-shared belief among females that very few eligible/desirable men live in San Francisco.

A study published in in 2007 by two English psychologists (who are better known for a different study that showed the wealthier a man is, the more frequently his partner has orgasms may shed some light. The study looked at marriage patterns in the United States and an interesting trend appeared: unbalanced gender ratios did not seem to problematize proportionally. The research showed that as the sex ratio augmented in favor of women, at first, as you would expect, the women simply turned fussy and went for richer and more powerful men. But at a certain point a curious thing happened: the amount of socioeconomic status a guy needed to get girl increased way more than the math would predict. Specifically when the ratio was tilted in favor of women by 10%, low status men became not 1.1 times less likely to get a girl but 2.3 times less likely and high status men 1.3 times less likely.

In other words, increase the number of males in a system too much and the number of females interested in pairing up GOES DOWN, due to some mysterious psychological trigger. Women won't pick and choose, they won't choose at all. They abandon the enterprise. Romance dies. Society crumbles. Imagine a bar with 100 girls and 100 guys. The bouncer admits 10 more guys and competitively speaking it's as if, for the low status guys, 130 guys walked into the room (and for the high status guys, 30 guys). The bar might as well close for the night. That bar, friends, is San Francisco.

[jamesbond]

Heck the same can be said of New York city, Chicago and other big cities. Dating wise, America is paradise for women and hell for men! LOL

[jtest28]

Finally, someone other than me pointed out the psychological factor of a lopsided gender ratio!

The way I have been describing it, for those who are curios, is if you grabbed 100 young people off the street at random and put them in a big auditorium, you would have lets say 55% male and 45% female. Most people would say that gender ratio was about 50/50. But the singles ratio is WAY off! Let me explain, say 35 of those women started dating 35 of the men in that auditorium. You would have 10 women left and 20 men left. But now those 10 women see that there's twice as many single men as single women, so they get so much attention from the men, that they now don't even need a boyfriend. The remaining 10 women are now happy, as they have men fighting over them. So 100% of the women are either in a relationship, or know they could very easily get into one and are happy and feel wanted, and over 1/3rd, or 20 out of 55 men stay lonely and feel rejected ll the time.

[jamesbond]

Finally, someone other than me pointed out the psychological factor of a lopsided gender ratio!

The way I have been describing it, for those who are curios, is if you grabbed 100 young people off the street at random and put them in a big auditorium, you would have lets say 55% male and 45% female. Most people would say that gender ratio was about 50/50. But the singles ratio is WAY off! Let me explain, say 35 of those women started dating 35 of the men in that auditorium. You would have 10 women left and 20 men left. But now those 10 women see that there's twice as many single men as single women, so they get so much attention from the men, that they now don't even need a boyfriend. The remaining 10 women are now happy, as they have men fighting over them. So 100% of the women are either in a relationship, or know they could very easily get into one and are happy and feel wanted, and over 1/3rd, or 20 out of 55 men stay lonely and feel rejected ll the time.

Awesome jtest and 100% true! In the US single men outnumber single women by one million in the 20 to 34 age group! Also to add to single mens misery, get this; IN EVERY CITY IN THE US OF 50,000 PEOPLE OR MORE, SINGLE MEN OUTNUMBER SINGLE WOMEN IN THE 20 TO 39 AGE GROUP! Holy dog shit, what a horrible dating scene for men in America! It's only in the age group of single people 40 and up that single women start to outnumber single men in America. But who the hell wants to date women who are in their 40's or older? I am in my late 30's and I prefer women who are in their 20's. Add to this fact that America has the highest rate of overweight people in the world (50% of Americans are overweight) and you have a dating nightmare for men!

[hornyabc]

I live in the SF area so I can completely vouch for that article. Of course, I honestly think they wasted time in trying to prove it scientifically. Like it was mentioned, just ask any young single guy and they'll agree. Go to a club and you'll see exactly what happens. I do photography and have covered clubs and events while in college so I've been witnessing it first hand. I felt like I was a host of those animal documentaries observing their behaviors, and it doesn't take long before you see the pattern and that it completely sucks to be a single guy here.

[jamesbond]

In the US single men outnumber single women in every city of 50,000 people or more! Unbelieveable! That's why you never hear women in the US complain that they have a hard time meeting men. California is the worst state as far as the ratio goes for men. LA, San Deigo and San Francisco are horrible places to try to meet women. San Jose, California has the worst ratio of single men to single women in the US. For every 1000 single women in San Jose, there are 1109 single men!

Time to visit "male friendly" countries like Brazil, Mexico, eastern Europe, Russia and the Philippines.

[momopi]

I live in the SF area so I can completely vouch for that article. Of course, I honestly think they wasted time in trying to prove it scientifically. Like it was mentioned, just ask any young single guy and they'll agree. Go to a club and you'll see exactly what happens. I do photography and have covered clubs and events while in college so I've been witnessing it first hand. I felt like I was a host of those animal documentaries observing their behaviors, and it doesn't take long before you see the pattern and that it completely sucks to be a single guy here.

I'm visiting the bay area now and am curious about your opinions on my observations below.

* SF once had growing/thriving Asian community, but now they appear to be older empty nesters. I found a few young people at Japan Town SF and Oakland China Town, but they seem to be in the small minority.

* San Jose has a much larger growing Asian community between ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese. The Vietnamese have a fast growing commercial presence and I saw severall Vietanmese and Teochow dominated plazas with many young people. The Viet coffee houses are also popping up across SJ.

* Due to proximity to schools like Standford and UC Berkeley, the local CSUSJ is looked down on even by students attending it. I meet 3 girls attending CSUSJ yesterday and they all thought it was a medicore school.

* Castro district at night has a lot of older weird people.

* Real estate pricesin the bay area is whacked and difficult to make cash flow. To make $$, you have to buy in slum/low income areas where you make all cash bids with no contingencies (as is with no questions asked). The property is likely to have an illegal addition in the back, and after you buy it you make more illegal additions/modificatins add even more rental units. Then you rent to illegal Mexican immigrants and collect rent in cash every month in person. Do-able for the local slum-lord but impoissible for absentee land-lord.

* The restaurants at Oakland Chinatown looks authentic but doesn't taste that good. The food has no soul and the soup is lacking. I had way better soup noodle in SJ. For SF, Dim Sum @ Koi Palace, sushi at Sushi Bistro, and western foods at the Ferry Buidling.

* Heading up to Sacramento today, where people in bay area see as a depressed "has been" neighborhood. I've been asked to inspect a property in Rancho Cordova and hope it's not in some run down neighborhood, hehehe.

[Winston]

Momopi why are you in the Bay Area? Of course there's lots of asians there. Whites became a minority long ago there. It's like a desert there, no scenery and coupled with the lack of connectedness, it's a depressing place. At least in Utah or Colorado you have nature and scenery and so at least you feel at one with nature. But in the Bay Area, you don't feel at one with anything. lol

But of course the asians there are cliquey and not easy to meet unless you are introduced. You know that too.

Yeah the Bay Area does seem different than it was back in the 80's and 90's.

[firethrower1000]

Momopi why are you in the Bay Area? Of course there's lots of asians there. Whites became a minority long ago there. It's like a desert there, no scenery and coupled with the lack of connectedness, it's a depressing place. At least in Utah or Colorado you have nature and scenery and so at least you feel at one with nature. But in the Bay Area, you don't feel at one with anything. lol

But of course the asians there are cliquey and not easy to meet unless you are introduced. You know that too.

Yeah the Bay Area does seem different than it was back in the 80's and 90's.

the same can be said about Texas there is no real scenery there either...All you see is cars riding back and forth you dont see people walking in the street like in other american cities so i just dont know why you say that Texas is more social because when i was there it really wasnt social at all...Do you have any proof and substance to prove me wrong about Texas being more socially open than North america because if you do please do tell? by the way did you ever go to Texas?

[momopi]

San Jose is like one big suburb, so if you want scenery, you need to go to areas outside of it like Monterey Bay, Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, etc. I vacation up in St Helena & Calistoga every couple of years, and used to attend Northern CA Renaiisance Faire. Go around late March in Calistoga for flower viewing. Rent a cottage, get a massage & soap in hot spring spa. Eat at Tra Vigne (the restaurant, not the pizzeria) in St Helena and the French Laundry in Yountville.

If anyone is interested in living there for a few months, check the Culinary Institute of America @ Greystone in St. Helena for job openings. The Greystone location is pretty but not as big as the NY school (that one is a castle). I don't recommend working at the winery, because there's a large glut in the inventory right now and prices have started to fall. Not just in Napa, but elsewhere as well. I was at the wine country in Temecula few days ago and saw wines that used to sell for $18-20 going for $10 on sale.

[ladislav]

The demographics explain a lot of things that I noticed when I went to the US- the blasee, cloyed and smug expressions on the women's faces, the war-like attitude of men towards each other- they have to compete for scarce women and jobs and positions that will attract women. The way one American guy usually looks at another is politely but with mistrust and as a competitor. The only ones that have any camaraderie and smile at each other in earnest are the gays.

Now why is there such a ratio of men vs women? American women do not abort female feti as in China so what gives?

[MattHanson1990]

...

[Taco]

A study published in in 2007 by two English psychologists (who are better known for a different study that showed the wealthier a man is, the more frequently his partner has or****s may shed some light.

In other words, increase the number of males in a system too much and the number of females interested in pairing up GOES DOWN, due to some mysterious psychological trigger. Women won't pick and choose, they won't choose at all.

Interesting premise. It helps explain the behaviour of women in the Philippines where there is more women than men.

However, there seems to be more women than men on US college campuses now days but I seriously doubt these guys are getting a lot of female attention.

[RickyRetardo]

It's interesting how wealth factors into it.

Most men don't care that much how much money a woman makes when it comes to dating her, do they?

But most women do seem to care how much a man makes.

That alone would show that what men want in a woman and what women want in a man, generally speaking, are really different.

[Banano]

Interesting premise. It helps explain the behaviour of women in the Philippines where there is more women than men.

Sources plz