Happier Abroad Forum Community

Situation cld be even worse than the numbers show

Women consider themselves as 'single' even though they are having a few guys on the side at any one time, for women being single doesnt mean she is sex starved as its case with most men, in fact they r geting serviced by top tier guys while still single and looking

Doesn't that Statistics look funny to you? How the number changes so much from 30-40 group to 40-50 group? The only plausible explanation for 40+ group is WWII, where a lot more men died than women. But why would there be so many more men than women in younger generation? It just does not make any sense. In nature, the ratio between a male baby and a female baby is roughly 1:1. There is certainly no sex selection at birth at developed countries.

Banano wrote:Situation cld be even worse than the numbers show

Women consider themselves as 'single' even though they are having a few guys on the side at any one time, for women being single doesnt mean she is sex starved as its case with most men, in fact they r geting serviced by top tier guys while still single and looking

DCX_10 wrote:Doesn't that Statistics look funny to you? How the number changes so much from 30-40 group to 40-50 group? The only plausible explanation for 40+ group is WWII, where a lot more men died.

WW2? Hysterical! I'm in my 50s and don't recall fighting in WW2. You'd have to be mid 80s like my uncle to have fought in ww2 and late 60s to have even been Alive then.

Now Vietnam - that's a different story but less deaths could not have skewed the stats so much.

I do not know how old the data is nor the collection method. The data could easily come from 20+ years ago. In any case, it look highly suspicious. I don't see any plausible explanation for the data. Nor does the data matches science.

davewe wrote:

DCX_10 wrote:Doesn't that Statistics look funny to you? How the number changes so much from 30-40 group to 40-50 group? The only plausible explanation for 40+ group is WWII, where a lot more men died.

WW2? Hysterical! I'm in my 50s and don't recall fighting in WW2. You'd have to be mid 80s like my uncle to have fought in ww2 and late 60s to have even been Alive then.

Now Vietnam - that's a different story but less deaths could not have skewed the stats so much.

"This male surplus varies by age bracket. When Davis and van den Oever (1982) examined the ratio of single men to single women in nine developed countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary Japan, Norway, and Yugoslavia), they found male surpluses up to and into the early 30s:"

There you go. The data come from 30 years ago!!! So WWII would be relevant to be age group of 60-70 (and possibly age group 50-60) at the time?

DCX_10 wrote:I do not know how old the data is nor the collection method. The data could easily come from 20+ years ago. In any case, it look highly suspicious. I don't see any plausible explanation for the data. Nor does the data matches science.

davewe wrote:

DCX_10 wrote:Doesn't that Statistics look funny to you? How the number changes so much from 30-40 group to 40-50 group? The only plausible explanation for 40+ group is WWII, where a lot more men died.

WW2? Hysterical! I'm in my 50s and don't recall fighting in WW2. You'd have to be mid 80s like my uncle to have fought in ww2 and late 60s to have even been Alive then.

Now Vietnam - that's a different story but less deaths could not have skewed the stats so much.