Pharyngula

Posted by: iGollum | June 19, 2007 11:08 AM

Would be interesting to see if there are any local correlations with lifestyle parameters like education, occupation and sexual orientation...

Posted by: Roy | June 19, 2007 11:12 AM

Okay, I'll say it. I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

Posted by: synthesist | June 19, 2007 11:17 AM

.... I don't care what the explanation is, I've got my bags packed, all I need now is an airline ticket - by the way what sort of weather do they have in Philadelphia ?

Posted by: Rey Fox | June 19, 2007 11:19 AM

Probably because the men move west to enjoy the outdoor recreation, while women just want to stay inside and powder their noses and buy shoes or whatever it is they do.

Posted by: Teresa | June 19, 2007 11:21 AM

The Mississippi River vwas designed by God to keep us apart to prevent fornicatin'

Posted by: ajay | June 19, 2007 11:23 AM

Prevailing winds. The prevailing winds blow (very roughly) southwest-to-northeast. Women, being on average slightly lighter than men, tend to be swept further downwind.
This, incidentally, is why the few remaining women in the western and southwestern states tend to be very large. Their lighter, more aerodynamic sisters are long gone.

Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 19, 2007 11:25 AM

I think my presence in Boston is making women swear off men forever.

That has to be it.

I mean, correlation equals causation, right?

Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | June 19, 2007 11:39 AM

Maybe a lot of women who wsih to make carreers think the best place to do so is in the east near new ork and the like. The male dominance in the west might be because of the ironically seen was of los angeles. (Hot, lots of bikinis). The small male bump (no pun intended) in florida probably are old guys who's wives have died.

Maybe a corresponing birth rate statictic would shed further light on the situation.

Posted by: Coragyps | June 19, 2007 11:41 AM

Age related? Women outlive men by quite a big margin, so the norm should be to have more women in towns with old-ish populations. But the east/west divide is still a bit puzzling.

Posted by: Carlie | June 19, 2007 11:46 AM

Great. There's a big blue dot smack dab on top of my hometown of Austin

Hm, tonight's my last night near Austin on a research trip. Perhaps I need to go into town and hit the bars...

(married! kidding dear, if you see this)

Posted by: gwangung | June 19, 2007 11:47 AM

Uh, am I the only one noticing that by and large the big blue dots are in cities with exceptionally large gay male populations? seattle, san francisco, LA, houston...

hmmmm. Perhaps demographers need to think more carefully about how they define "single".

Or get gay marriage legalized to take care of this artifact...

Posted by: Jon Eccles | June 19, 2007 12:16 PM

It's a shame that the map shows the number differential rather than by percentage. That could be a simple explanation for many of the larger dots - they represent an unremarkable statistical tendency, in an area with lots of people. The famously male state of Alaska, on the other hand, looks more balanced than it actually is.

Posted by: Foxy | June 19, 2007 12:20 PM

The same sort of thing occurred in Africa. Going by the historical record then, clearly the gender divide is caused by the Europeans and English taking the men away to work in the fields, and the Chinese and the Russians taking away the women as harem girls and household slaves.

Only Texas comes out on top. Which is just the way we like it.

Posted by: Roy S | June 19, 2007 12:24 PM

The map would be more interesting if they scaled the dots relative to the total local population. Tens of thousands of excess single men in LA isn't necessarily as big a problem as a lower surplus in a smaller city. Looking at relative numbers would make it more obvious that the single men in Austin are screwed. Or not.

(yes, I'm a bitter single male in Austin)

(who got his last girlfriend by convincing her to move here from another state, appropriately enough...)

Posted by: Talapus | June 19, 2007 12:36 PM

I'm going to take a stab:
1) Predominance of women in aging populations, especially on the East Coast, noted by one of the commenters above
2) Relative willingness/propensity of men to relocate for employment (I'm going to get into trouble for this one.)
3) Prevalence of technology and new construction jobs in the larger blue dot cities, most of which seem to be relatively strong economic growth areas compared with the red dot locations.

I haven't seen the original article, but if you expand the map to read the fine print, these numbers appear to be absolute, not relative to population, so I'm not sure how meaningful they really are: 40,000 spare single males is only 0.33% out of a population of 12 million(? more?) in the Los Angeles conurbation.

Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | June 19, 2007 12:40 PM

Well, you know the old saying: "Men are from Nebraska. Women are from Delaware."

Posted by: uncle frogy | June 19, 2007 12:50 PM

I think Reason is looking in the right direction along with age disparity.
more construction & gardening much less manufacturing in the west more work for males, many rental houses in my area are filled with single young men leaving the sex life aside who came here to work in mostly the construction industry.
how do the sats. break down with regards to other criteria, age, education, work life, imagration and migration statis. otherwise the stats are kind of a fun opener for humor but not a lot of usefull information, which is the point of the post right.

Posted by: alfred | June 19, 2007 1:08 PM

I'M WILLING TO BET...

That the reason why more single men are on the west coast is due to job market demands.

There are probably more men who hold applicable degrees to the tech sector and related fields that California would provide that the east coast does not.

Posted by: Mark T. | June 19, 2007 1:10 PM

"The Mississippi River vwas designed by God to keep us apart to prevent fornicatin'"

Just like Conway Twitty and Loretta Lynn sang about, right?

Posted by: KevinD | June 19, 2007 1:21 PM

I think that the blue dominance in large western cities has been explained (lots of jobs in male-dominated fields like construction). It's still not clear to me why major urban areas east of the Mississipi should have more single women.

If you squint and look at the smaller population centers you will note that they don't seem to follow the same pattern. For example, here in central Illinois we have two little red dots and two little blue dots. This clearly supports the migration hypothesis (people do tend to migrate to big cities much more than to smaller communities) as an explanation for the urban east/west divide.

Posted by: Brian X | June 19, 2007 1:27 PM

I'd be interested to know if some of the red dots (at least the one around Boston) correlate with a particular area being a college town, since it's known that there are more women in higher ed than men. I know when I went to Boston College, the f/m ratio was around 55/45, and I don't know if it's changed much, but I doubt that's terribly non-representative.

Posted by: Thomas Robey | June 19, 2007 1:35 PM

A very detailed explanation of this phenomenon is offered in the February (Valentines Day) issue of National Geographic.

Posted by: MyaR | June 19, 2007 1:43 PM

Hmph. Largest female plurality area. No wonder I'm not meeting anyone. (Even if it is 185K from a population of what? 16 million? I wonder what it is for NYC itself.)

Posted by: RLaing | June 19, 2007 2:13 PM

Obviously, single men and single women are trying to get as far away from each other as they can. Perhaps, if you're single past a certain point in your life, there's a reason for it.

Posted by: Melusine | June 19, 2007 2:30 PM

A few years ago a magazine had an article on how Brazoria County (near Houston) had one of the largest single male populations in the country. It was because of the prisons - there are a bunch of them surrounding Houston. They said single, not single and available. Also, I don't know how those coming from Mexico affect the demographics, but I suspect they do, for California as well.

Posted by: Cyrus | June 19, 2007 2:38 PM

I like how many people are chiming in to say "my love life sucks, (despite/because) of what this map shows." And, well, I have to say the same thing. The only dots in New England are red, and the only dot not counting Boston itself is just a few miles north of me, and yet here I am, single.

Posted by: Jonathan Lubin | June 19, 2007 2:43 PM

Easy to explain the excess of men in LA: guys come up from Mexico to work, leaving their family behind. As a New Yorker, I can't imagine any reason for the excess of women in the East generally.

Posted by: Brandon | June 19, 2007 3:13 PM

There's a huge red dot right on top of my hometown.

...I know what I'm doing this summer.

Posted by: Rey Fox | June 19, 2007 3:31 PM

But, Kseniya, we set our clocks, and thus live our lives, to offset the difference. At best, the sun can be said to rise later in any area that's on the western edge of a time zone. Like Boise. If you travel to northern Idaho, where they live by Pacific time, the sunsets are about an hour earlier by their clocks than they are in Boise. I like it the Boise way. At this time of year, the sunset is still visible at 10 PM.

But you can also get this sort of effect in places like Indiana and even the central panhandle of Florida.

I didn't really think there was much difference in sleeping in patterns between men and women anyway. *shrug*

Posted by: VWXYNot? | June 19, 2007 3:55 PM

Someone should link that map to Expedia to help people plan their holidays. There seems to be enough demand just on this thread.

I don't seem to know any single people at all any more - maybe that's why Canada has apparently ceased to exist?

Posted by: John Bode | June 19, 2007 4:06 PM

Places like Houston are easy enough to explain -- big oil town, not many women are roughnecks.

Places like Austin and San Antonio are a little more puzzling, but someone else mentioned the possibility of counting migrant/undocumented workers, and that makes a little sense. Austin's been growing like a tick, meaning lots of construction, meaning lots of jobs for carpenters, masons, landscapers, etc., drawing them from nearby areas. That's probably not enough to account for the discrepancy, though.

Posted by: notthedroids | June 19, 2007 4:36 PM

A friend remarked that the map should be, of course, *pink* and blue.

Posted by: Jessica Guilford | June 19, 2007 4:51 PM

I was being too flip, probably, in suggesting that gay men are the only reason why the Bay Area would come up skewed to males, and I apologize for that. Though, for chrissakes, it's not like I meant it as though it were a bad thing.

I would be pretty damned surprised if the number of lesbians in the Bay Area were greater than or equal to the number of gay men. Gay men being more common to begin with.

Posted by: Kseniya | June 19, 2007 5:03 PM

Rey, your eminently reasonable and brazenly insightful analysis has knocked the wind completely out from under my deliberately inane theory! Whatever shall I do?!?

:-)

Posted by: Rey Fox | June 19, 2007 5:12 PM

Well, for starters, you could fetch me a Coke.

Posted by: JImC | June 19, 2007 5:25 PM

The chart doesn't say whether it defines "single" and "unmarried" as synonymous, which they aren't

Unmarried means single and fair game to me:-)

Posted by: LC | June 19, 2007 5:49 PM

Just another thank you for a couple of very big laughs - and a few smaller chuckles.

Posted by: Jeb, FCD | June 19, 2007 6:45 PM

I nominate Comments 1 & 10 for Mollies!

Posted by: False Prophet | June 19, 2007 6:54 PM

The "Duckman" animated series had an episode where the United States was divided in half between the sexes:

"The East, known for its culture, was given to the women. The West, known for its cattle, was given to the men."

Posted by: Ken Mareld | June 19, 2007 7:37 PM

Didn't somebody once say "Go west young man!"
Sam Clemens or PT Barnum. Census figures have probably
always shown this. I was offered a job in Alaska when I was single. Ugh, too many men, too few women. Santa Barbara was the place I chose to be. In the 70's a gold mine. Little makeup allowed prediction of what she looked like in the morning. I'm sorry if that sounds sexist but I always believed in WYSIWYG. I'm now in Washington state where pasty pale is back in vogue. I love it. I am now (rare in America) color blind as to race or ethnicity. When people complain about the browning of America I say Yahooo!

Posted by: kellbelle1020 | June 19, 2007 8:01 PM

Hmmm. I seem to have the opposite problem than most - I get more male attention than I'd like here in Chicago as it is. Maybe I should re-think my plan to move to Seattle...

Posted by: Keith Douglas | June 19, 2007 8:12 PM

Assuming that the eass/west distinction is significant (statistically) to any reasonable degree, I'd go with the immigration hypothesis. But that's what it is - a hypothesis.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 19, 2007 8:57 PM

For the record: Greeley's "west" was upstate New York.

Posted by: Leni | June 19, 2007 9:42 PM

ROFL at the unoficial Alaska state motto. That's hilarious.

I think it's a combination of the effect of women fleeing nerds and men fleeing from Sarah Jessica Parker.

Posted by: llewelly | June 19, 2007 10:12 PM

That big dot over Rochester, Minnesota is the Mayo Clinic. That means that there is a large collection of educated single women with high-income potential just waiting to be found. It's only about 85 miles south of Minneapolis.

Posted by: lawl | June 19, 2007 10:43 PM

Yes, at Caltech we said "the odds are good" etc about the guys (I never knew it had anything to do with Alaska). The ratio is down to 3:1 or better now, but still not great. The guys had another saying though- the odds are bad and the goods are worse. Made us women feel really loved.

Posted by: speedgraphic | June 20, 2007 12:14 AM

Why not try reading the actual National Geographic article for the most valid hypotheses about why this is the case?

The smart money is on the fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are male (and primary breadwinners for families residing in Mexico and beyond) and make their homes in the western states.

Posted by: Pymgy Loris | June 20, 2007 12:57 AM

@ speedgraphic,

ummm, because it's more fun to speculate about the reasons and make up funny explanations? Anyhow, I used to live under the red dot in St. Louis, but I never noticed a plethora of single women. That may be because I was on the lookout for single men though. :)

Posted by: OR | June 20, 2007 1:57 AM

Surfers on the west, women in finance on the east.

Posted by: eugene_X | June 20, 2007 2:09 AM

Well, as a single Seattleite male, I am finding this thoroughly depressing.

But I have to echo the sentiment of the poster above, that although some of the Western surplus male population may have something to do with the tech field, a larger factor is probably the presence of so many migrant workers in areas of the West, doing agriculture and construction work. There seems to be well-known pattern of young unmarried Mexican men coming up here to make some cash and build a nest egg.

Posted by: eugene | June 20, 2007 4:21 AM

Simple enough.. uptight women in the east coast can only be compared to geeks in the west coast. For eastern women no one is good enough; for the western boys, life in virtual reality and slavedom under tech companies are the reason. They all want to catch the next google and become millionaire! For Texas, everyone native is married by 21... who the heck is going to pick up the upsurge of men due to oil industry boom and war? So, they stay single. For east coast gals, west coast boys are too sensitive for their taste... so, they try to avoid moving west or move west only when they are married... wow... I am impressed by my own logic! Now it is time to provide a solution: guys in the west coast, it is time to declare your undying love for ps3, x-box and c++. They are your ideal mate... resposive and easy to score! Gals in New York, Boston... there is really no perfect man... read the statistics... you will only find single women around you... so quit searching or become... People in Florida, you should not check single when you are 80!

Posted by: Nance Confer | June 20, 2007 8:09 AM

It's because we have meetings. Geesh. You'd think the word would have gotten out by now.

We have meetings and decide what we want to do with our lives and then, when/if we need/want one of you, we let you know.

Nance

Posted by: kerry | June 20, 2007 10:15 AM

speaking from the inside (san francisco resident/gay), i think my crowd accounts for at least some of the split. it might also be interesting to consider how institutions of higher learning are focused east v west. we do not have large numbers of smaller liberal arts colleges out here.

Posted by: Greg Laden | June 20, 2007 6:40 PM

What I find interesting is that almost every explanation offered has to do with migration (or the effects of wind, etc.). AT this scale, I would think a very large number of people are pretty much where they were born. At the very least, one should consider the indigenous birth factors.

Clearly, the eastern half of the country has a lower condition and the western half a higher condition, thus Trivers-Willard causes more male births in the West and more female births in the East.

Posted by: ReRe | June 27, 2007 3:52 PM

I have to get the heck out of Philly and get over to LA!! ASAP!!

Posted by: ben | June 28, 2007 2:38 PM

posted: non-douchey single male on east coast who prefers salt water to styling gel. willing to travel. haha. i think the lack of blue dots on the e.c. is b/c we're a bit harder to find. and then once we are found, we can't seem to stay single. it's rough over here in charleston...sike. keep masturbating west coast. i'm sure that stripper at the club really did like you more than everyone else and wasn't just saying that for a benjamin...or a george in your case. wanker.

Posted by: Raymond A. Orr | July 3, 2007 9:03 PM

Here is a link showing hundreds of correlations with male/female ratios by state:

http://www.orderfromrandomness.com/usa360/?chart=mfmratio+aveelevate+srtclass=0

The ratio is greater in states with higher elevations and less rain. States with greater numbers of men also have higher suicide rates and for some reason, the women in those states tend to breastfeed their children more.

Posted by: DrFrank | July 20, 2007 9:54 AM

I'd be intrigued to get a similar plot for the UK - we're much tinier, so it'd be interesting to see if we have a vaguely comparable phenomenon.

Plus, I need to meet more single women.

Posted by: AKALucifer | September 5, 2008 3:39 PM

If you lay this over a map with the pH of rainwater across America you get an interesting correlation.

Posted by: Patricia | January 8, 2009 2:30 AM

There ARE lots of single guys here in the Bay Area. It's nice!!!

Posted by: Nom d'un chien | February 25, 2009 11:39 AM

So we'd better go to the east coast (I speak for us, men).

Posted by: Too Many Lesbos in NYC | August 22, 2009 4:01 PM

The single women in the NYC tri-state area are overwhelmingly gay. Don't come out here looking for straight single females. The gay women in NYC have stranded the straight guys with their reprobated decision making.

Posted by: Lee | December 29, 2010 10:00 PM

I am an older gentleman living in Texas at this time. I've found that about 99% of the 'women' out here in Dallas are married or boyfriended. This was the same in Florida and Ohio. It's the same from coast to coast. To find an unattached 'woman'(one worth having anyway), you must watch for any recent deaths, and move in on that widow within 5 nanoseconds, or you will be too late! You might want to move overseas, as a LOT of American 'women' are outside the country(Out of town). You will even find them in the furthest reaches of the world; especially around five-star hotels. If you lonely, forsaken guys want a real change, go visit the Ukraine for two weeks. You won't want to come back here. Or go to Costa Rica for two weeks. You will be amazed how easy it is for a man to hook up. And there are literally hundreds of millions of women over-seas who are looking for a decent American man to date and court. But when you find one that you want to marry, be sure not to bring her here. Everybody will be trying to get into her panties. Keep your wife over there, away from this feminist Sodon and Gomhorrah. And while you're at it, when you run into one of those ubiquitous American 'women' in say Costa Rica, tell her to go to Hell for me, will ya? Tell her I send a warm Hello to her husband or boyfriend in the U.S. Get the picture? Get out of the U.S. There are no women worth having in the social cesspit called the dating game in the U.S.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 29, 2010 10:10 PM

Lee,

Damn, boy, you're just a misogynistic asshole.

Why did you put scare quotes around women? Are you saying 'women' aren't women? Are 'women' not female enough for you? Or do they commit the sin of seeing you as a misogynistic asshole? If you don't want to be recognized as a misogynistic asshole, you need to stop being one.

BTW, those women in Ukraine and Costa Rica are only interested in you for your money. They also think you're a misogynistic asshole.

Posted by: Monkey Genes | December 29, 2010 10:19 PM

#129: Give him a break, my chimpy brother: poor old Lee has spent so much time looking for love in Thailand and Brazil that he now believes real women have breasts filled with silicon and a penis. Hence his hatred of American "women".

Posted by: Seattleguy | March 20, 2011 1:54 AM

Just to be clear, there are tons of great women in Seattle who have reasonable, obtainable, expectations. However, most of them are married, and those that are single and searching with this disposition aren't single for long. A guy very quickly (and smartly) makes a firm commitment to a women like that in massively disproportionate Seattle. Just based on the numbers, there are tens of thousands of eligible single men here that will live the life of a MONK due to the imbalance. Most of the tech guys here understand math and probabilities.
To give equal time, American women are probably the most sought after women in the world.
But American men, make NO mistake - the world considers you the most DESIRABLE males on earth. There are many reasons for this. Word is out about us. Compared to men in MOST other countries we are known to be: far more fair towards women, unselfish lovers, great providers, often cook and clean ourselves (unheard of but for a few nations), slower to anger, plus our physical appearance happen to be "in" right now. We are far from perfect, but we stack up EXTREMELY well compared to most of the men in the world. Case in point: how many American women have you ever seen taking A foreign husband?? In many many countries, US guys (probably Hollywoods influence here) are considered better looking by default than the native guys. Its insane!! We are given the benefit of the doubt on every front! But unless you have traveled outside of North-west Europe, Canada, Aussie, you'd have no idea that we are placed on this pedestal. Don't take my word for it - just talk to ANY male who's been there, or read any blog. I'm not saying its right, this is just the reality of how we're perceived - this is just how it IS! Be curious, take 10 minutes to investigate. Don't be locked into these borders! You have a passport, and being a US citizen, you can travel ANYWHERE in the world. Take a 2 week, well-planned trip somewhere that is NOT Western Euro / Canada / Australia. The world for the American guy is unlike anything you've ever experience within these borders (unless you're part of the 5% of super suave guys here). Your mind will be BLOWN by how popular you are.

Posted by: Kseniya | March 20, 2011 2:02 AM

There are no women worth having in the social cesspit called the dating game in the U.S.

LoL?

~ single; украинка-американка

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 20, 2011 2:40 AM

Seattleguy:

If you leave the US to find a bride you are a MISOGYNIST.

You certainly aren't going very far to show differently, Cupcake. By the way, if you expect anyone to have an actual discussion with you, learn to control that capslock twitch you have - there are better ways to emphasize, you know. Basic html, figure it out. Hint: look under the comment box, genius.

Posted by: Seattleguy | March 20, 2011 3:23 AM

Okay, to clarify to some of the peanut gallery (which is basically what the internet it, myself included :-) ). I should have said this in my original comment and I mean this with all sincerity:
American men AND women, when looking for a spouse, consider looking outside the borders! The US is a small percentage of the worlds population. Don't limit your search to only 4% of the world. Don't be afraid to move to another country for long stretches if that suites you, or indefinitely if you can find a remote job or something. I can only speak from the male perspective (the only one I have): when I dated outside the US, treating a woman with the same exact respect I gave to US women was met with extreme delight. Chivalrous acts here (holding doors, being very respectful, always getting the bill, treating a woman as a 100% equal) tend to be taken for granted here (Seattle). But outside of this country the reaction tends to be amazingly well received. Take your American sensibilities and sense of fairness with you, and it is usually *greatly* appreciated. Its just how it is. Its incredible really.
And to the local gals (US), by all means, go out into the world when looking for a spouse, or even when just looking for a boyfriend. I'm sure there are tons of great guys outside the US.
I am citizen of the world. I love America and am grateful I was born here, but don't be afraid of the rest of the world (with a few exceptions).

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | March 20, 2011 9:09 PM

2 minor corrections

My understanding is that the swedish have the best understanding of equal rights, so I would recommend them :D

Also, I'm not dating a USAnian; specifically, she's Danish. I don't see anything wrong with looking outside one country if it's possible. The problem isn't that; it's that you proposed to abuse your socio-economic status. And given that you named the wealthier countries specifically, I sincerely doubt that was intended as advice for both genders. It read more like "OMG women in the USA, Canada, and Europe are so spoiled they won't accept my Nice Guy(tm) self, so I'm going to go find someone who doesn't know any better!"

In fact, I suspect that it was intended that way, and you're just trying a transparent dodge to only be seen as classist and racist, and not /also/ misogynist.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 20, 2011 9:20 PM

Yep, Seattleguy is a misogynist.

Posted by: Seattleguy | March 22, 2011 12:12 AM

Holy cow, this site does work. But I noticed that the same pool of 6 or 8 people are doing all the commenting, indicating that probably that same number are reading this, lol.

Hey, I learned some new terms on here, that's for sure :-P (Terms that about .0001% of our population uses thankfully)

Like I said earlier, Wimmin and Men, go out into the world to live if you like. You're choice should never be limited by the fact that you make more than someone else. That is a pretty crazy premise, one that just about every country in the world rejects. The less advantaged a country is, the more they need your tourist dollars. This is simply how income gets redistributed from the super rich countries (US, Can, Aus, W. Euro) to poorer places whose main export is fruit. Roughly 3 billion people (according the World Bank or IMF, I forget which) live on less than $2 a day. What country doesn't want a law-abiding, well educated, money spending, long-term tourist?

Getting a high paying (near 6 figs) job is a snap for me actually, not bragging. I'm a tech geek in Seattle and the market here is literally blowing up. A 30 second peek at Monster or Craigslist for Seattle programming jobs will bare that out. I put in the ridiculous amounts of time to get good at programming - it wasn't an accident.

And so because I make 6 figs when I could have been a barista making super-low 5 figs, I now have to date within my socio-economic range?! And please explain the ratios that we're allowed to date within. Less than 1% of planet earth makes 6 figs. I guess I totally screwed myself with all my 2:00am coding sessions and zero fun on weekends that sometimes spanned months with no reprieve (didn't ever skip the gym though :-)).

And what about dating up?! Please explain that one! I hear all about how you cant see someone with less. What are the rules for someone making $10 a day dating someone making $100 a day? Or $200 more a day more?? Please do tell, we're all dying to hear it.

I am telling all Americans the exact same thing: go out in the world to find your significant other, if you want to. And live there for years on end if you like. However, in places like the Can, Europe, Japan, Aus, its basically impossible to live there more than 90 days out of 365 (visa limits you know). Non-first-world countries tend to be far more receptive to long, legal stays. Not only that, but if you go to the first world, in my experience, I was unremarkable. Yes, I got some random attention. But it was nothing like going to places other than those - nothing :-P It was probably how a runway model feels in Italy - just incredible, too much in some cases. The polar opposite of here. I can totally understand how women in Seattle feel now. I got cat-called constantly, in say, a random farmers market. Clerks at the hardware store telling how attractive my eyes were, the girl-next-door-type trying to make eye contact with me on a side street at midnight (warmer cultures tend to stay up later, ala Spain as you world travelers know). Absolutely unfathomable here in Seatown. Part of the reason women were totally unafraid of an obvious American guy at midnight walking on a dark street, is because I'm a tourist. And tourists have to go through customs, interpol scan checks, etc. So I am known to be safer on average than a local, because tourists are vetted at the border.

Yes, go to Sweden or wherever you like. Even though I lived in Europe for years, I never got there - super expensive. For me, I can see just as interesting things elsewhere for about one fifth the cost, literally. My goal is to make money here fast, spend as little of it here as humanly possible, and live somewhere else for a few years at a time. Better yet, I will be off-shoring myself with my job, the best combo ever! I will take a huge pay-cut to do so (down to $20 an hour), so there goes the socio-economic exploitation theory :-P But in most places, $40k a year is plenty to live on. Especially with no gas bill, car payment, car insurance, hardly a phone bill, etc. BTW, my lifestyle over there is exactly the same except for: no car, rarely use the cell (Skype baby), and the gym is "no frills". (My carbon footprint is tiny there compared to here). I'm just in a way funner, way cheaper, way sunnier local. When I'm there, I'm friggin' lovin' life and the local economy loves me redistributing my income. Gee golly whiz, where's the harm in that? Where is the humanity?!? Oh sorry, I meant "huminity" ;-)

Posted by: scornucopia | March 22, 2011 1:30 AM

Uh, yes, remaining single if you are so pathetic as to be unable to attract an equal is superior to abusing your socioeconomic status to find a plaything.

I agree with the substantive point that exploitation is wrong. My difficulty is with the implication that “unable to attract an equal” = “pathetic”. People can be equals in one sense and not another, and some people, including myself, find themselves in a situation where their chronological, socioeconomic, and intellectual peers fall into disjoint sets for all practical purposes, which makes attracting anyone extraordinarily difficult. To term that “pathetic” is unfair.

Posted by: Seattleguy | March 22, 2011 4:50 AM

Every single guy living in a west coast city definitely noticed how huge those blue dots are. Outside of Olympia WA and Sacramento, a few hundred thousand guys are totally screwed. They would need to go thousands of miles east for a blue dot, where their chances level out to find anyone. I love this whole notion of just "buck up and try harder" - meaning "work harder to out-complete the other thousands of hopelessly single guys". It’s a statistical fact that if tens of thousands of these west coast guys don't do something fairly drastic, they will simply live their entire lives single and alone. But much of the essence of what is being said on this thread is, "buck up, try harder, out-compete".

Guess what. I've found a 100% workaround for that conundrum. It burns some folk’s biscuits that I would offshore myself and find the gal of my dreams there. It really burns biscuits when I say that an American guys dating options in these other democracies are off the freakin' charts. BTW, it would very likely be the same for US gals in those exact same places – off-the-charts options. Nothing I've said on here is untrue or even exaggerated. And that is validated by some of the amazingly shrill responses. If what I was saying wasn't a fact, I would be laughed off this thread and dismissed. But it is reality, and hence the lashings :-P No worries on lashings - I'm a good sport :-)

In spite of the personal attacks, one thing remains true, whether it’s approved of or not. Let the beatings begin for stating the truth: for a myriad of reasons, real or perceived, Hollywood or otherwise, US men are the most sought after men on earth. Maybe the W. Euros are more-so, but whatever. Even if we're the second most, you'd never be able to tell :-P The same can said for US women - earths most sought after, right or wrong.

As far as the economic exploitation: you can be a 30 year old barista here (Seattle), working your arse off 60 hours a week, and you're dating odds are on life support. You're competing against a ton of guys who are your age, look similarly, but are rolling 90k MS / Boeing gigs. Overseas, no one seems to gives a rip what / where you work in the US. You just tell everyone that you were a barista, and your popularity takes a 5% hit. Baristas will get cat called there, just the same as the 100k geek. Nobody knows what your net worth nor do they really seem to care. Just being American automatically puts you in near-rock-star status. It’s really crazy and completely undeserved, but it’s just how it is. Anyone who has visited there will confirm.

Last thought: to be clear, when I said that we Americans are absolutely the heaviest and have one of the highest divorce rates anywhere, that is gender neutral - equally applying to both. All the more reason for local women to keep international options open I would think.

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | March 22, 2011 12:19 PM

Because you really just want to abuse your wealth

Or, more to the point, women who lack his "wealth" in places where their ability to fight back would be basically nil. Nothing creepy about that at all! #147 has him nicely pegged.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 22, 2011 12:37 PM

But American men, make NO mistake - the world considers you the most DESIRABLE males on earth. There are many reasons for this. Word is out about us. Compared to men in MOST other countries we are known to be: far more fair towards women, unselfish lovers, great providers, often cook and clean ourselves (unheard of but for a few nations), slower to anger, plus our physical appearance happen to be "in" right now. We are far from perfect, but we stack up EXTREMELY well compared to most of the men in the world.

I've found "Fat slobby white guy" doesn't necessarily make people goo goo in Japan.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 23, 2011 7:28 PM

I have tons more to say (not rebuttal, just info), but this venue is too small. Adieu.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 23, 2011 8:28 PM

@Nigel and Nerd

Now now it's not personal. We're just not poor and desolate enough.

Posted by: Seattleguy | June 11, 2011 8:44 PM

Moving to DC actually. But only after about a 2 year stay abroad - that is when the money I've piled up will run out. DC is the third largest tech center in our country, and the only one by far with a fantastic ratio. Also, many of the tech jobs there specify "US Citizen Only" (unlike lame Seattle and SF). Its a dream come true! Suddenly I'm a huge fan of government waste, bloat, and stupid projects (which is what most of these "Citizen Only" tech jobs are it seems). My $90,000 tech gig and being absolutely inundated with dating options - I didn't think those two things would ever co-exist!! I only wish I would have researched this sooner! The entire DC area is just jam-packed with giant red dots on the Singles Map.

My only quandary is: as the tech market is ridiculously hot in the US, do I just keep piling up the cash while in DC, or do I make the 2 year move abroad and just hope that DC continues to have these jobs? We are almost certainly headed for a double dip recession, so the smart money says to work (and date my *ss off) in DC for another year and pile up the reserves. By the way, I spend almost zero non-essential dollars while in the US: shop at Costco, never ever eat out, buy all clothes at outlet malls (for half the price), never miss a workout at my super cheap gym, zero trips inside the US unless they are absolutely critical, compare prices of everything at the supermarket, never miss work unless its paid. This prudence has saved me about a thousand a year! That's not much in the US, but that is a round-trip plane ticket to a number of insanely fun locations.

Sharing an apt in the US on tech wages means that I can easily save enough for 2 months abroad for every month worked here. Dang, with that powerful DC combo (amazing ratio + incredible job market), its very tempting to delay the inevitable. Pretty sure I wont have much trouble dating in DC while sharing a house / apt. In Seattle that one is extremely difficult to pull off :-P The ultimate excuse for having a roommate is: "I'm saving for the down payment of my dream home". Actually this excuse works for being frugal in all things, not just for cheap living arrangements. Always be in house-buying mode, and you will never get sucked into: ridiculous vacations, expensive meals, events you don't want to go to, etc. Its the ultimate opt-out-card, while you watch your money pile up for that long overdue 3 year vacation.