Sunday, January 25, 2009

All My Single Ladies

I found this incredibly depressing D.C. statistic today: "According to recent Census Bureau data, the District has the lowest ratio of single men to single women in the nation." The Washington Post piece I found it from is pretty funny (the transcript of a Q&A session with a D.C. dating guru) but needless to say, this morbid statistic definitely makes me sincerely doubt my mom's already-questionable October claim that DC is the best city in the nation for singles. Perhaps it only referred to single males?

Unfortunately, a Google search for "dating in DC," done solely for the purposes of this blog post & not because I've turned to Google to play matchmaker for me, turns up such awesome single specimens as this guy, formerly the owner of a blog called "DC Bachelor," who Obamicon'd himself with the phrase "Pickup Expert." Yeah, sometimes I'm glad to be flyin' solo.

Yeesh. Maybe I should get a couple of cats or something.



(To be fair, I went on a pseudo-date last night, & it went well. And he's nice. And single. So I shouldn't complain. But, you know, I will anyway. Carry on!)

36 comments:

Staschwa said...

Yeah I've heard KC is one of the worst dating cities in the nation too... you might want to Google that for accuracy though. Jealous of your pseudo-date! Is it pseudo because he didn't pay or what? I feel like I'm spelling pseudo wrong...

Jen said...

I'm glad you had a good pseudo date :) And hopefully all works out the way you want it to - whatever that way is. lol.

Anonymous said...

Don't fuss because you're a babe most guys would hiton you given half the chance forget the cats just get out there. You can be anywhere in the world and guys will make their moves on you.

wapotter.param.mobi {mobile web}

thehealthyfamily said...

Ooo, spill the beans on your pseudo-date because your pseudo-date is the most action I've seen in ages lol I think my area is ok for singles, but I don't want the guys that live in my area lol However, my mom has insisted that I get married in the next 3 years. Um, yeah, like that's gonna happen! lol

jlc said...

Hhaha I complain anyways alwaysssss. But glad you had a great pseudo date. :)


Oh and btw randomly came across ur blog via mascara. :)

[F]oxymoron said...

Statistics are like weeds... just get rid of 'em.

I'm more curious about that psuedo-date. Was the pseudo added to the date? Or the date added to the psuedo?

Btw, I dig the colors in this design. Very cool.

Wearing Mascara said...

Tell us about the date! :-)

I love your blog btw and our coincidences! That's crazy that we're both from Ohio.

xoxo

Anonymous said...

Wanna go out ?

The Pumpernickel said...

Oh man. Is it bad that I console myself by watching the "Single Ladies" video constantly?

Which reminds me, this needs to be seen by the world:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=47057081

f.B said...

yeah, it seems the odds are against single ladies in this city. but when i was single and in DC it's not like we (single guys) were hiding anywhere. actually, you probably could've convinced us that there were more of us than you. because we're idiots.

HomeImprovementNinja said...

Don't worry about the statistics. I remember one spring break I was in a club where there were 10 guys for every girl and I still picked up a hottie. The ratio doesn't matter, you only need one!

Frankly, Scarlett said...

THAT explains the horrific experience I had at Buffalo Billards on Saturday night!! Its so depressing! Is it even worth going out any more? Are we forever doomed to eHarmony or Match.com - so scary!!

Anonymous said...

Chances are that you are not looking to date a black guy from a DC hood, where 1 in 10 is in jail and a big % has HIV. This throws off overall census stats quite a bit. So I wouldn't worry too much about guy/girl ratios.

IMO, DC is a very good city to date. Tons of people come here every year. DC has a very transient population where young people come and work for a few years and then leave. This creates an environment where people are looking to meet other people, which is great for dating.

Desiree Aubigny said...

I have found dating in DC to be a trial at times, and I think this roosh dude proves just how awful it can be! Thanks for the link

johnny said...

as a single, employed, cute guy in DC, i don't believe the numbers either.

Hammer said...

It looks like I'm your first Roosh fan posting on this thread. Anyway, here's the deal:

Contrary to popular/societal belief, you don't always have to trick women into having sex with you to get laid without dating them. Despite the fact that any woman can go out any night and have sex with the first person she's interested in, women still remain completely sexually frustrated because of women like you who perpetuate this idea that sex is something that should only take place in the context of a relationship.

I personally prefer to be in a relationship with the right woman to being single, but I still love being single and have sexual needs to satisfy even when I'm single. If I don't think that a woman is relationship material I don't trick her into thinking that I do see her that way (e.g. I will cut off conversational threads that are too emotional or involve future plans). Then again, I've always found that my best relationships started passionately, not as friends.

Women have these needs too... As a man all you really have to do is convey that you're non-judgmental and understand that women have these urges, giving her permission to express that side of herself. For example, early on in an interaction I'll often tell a girl, "I can tell that you're the type of woman who gets really uninhibited and sexually aggressive around a guy that you like." I'll also throw in things that imply that I'm non-judgmental and not going to spread her business around town.

These are examples of truisms that are in fact true about everyone. Rather than tricking a girl, I'm actually liberating that side of her which she keeps hidden deep inside her 99% of the time. It won't work every time, but I'm screening for the girls who it will work for because those are the type of women who I like spending time with, long term or short term.

Prior to childbirth, every ounce of the human body and mind is designed to facilitate reproduction (or survival for the sake of reproducing). The fact that you insist on fighting that urge means that you're weak and care too much about what other people think.

Suburban Sweetheart said...

Your automatic assumptions about my sex life & my values -- &, I'd imagine, of those of any other female who thinks like I have professed to in this quick, two-paragraph, hardly-in-depth post -- are both presumptuous & false. Just because a person would prefer to be in an actual relationship doesn't mean he or she is suppressing any desires, sexual or otherwise; my post made no reference to "getting some" outside dating & focused only on actual relationships. I was ONLY referring to the dearth of DATE-worthy guys in DC, not making a public commentary on my sex life, which does & will remain private, not because I'm weak, embarrassed or "fighting that urge" but because frankly, it's no one's business but mine. And your comment only confirms this post -- that there are a great many unDATEable guys in this city.

Anonymous said...

Don't take it personally (I came here from dcblogs and don't know anything about this blog or you), but quite a few of the women that complain about 'date-worthy guys' have very high standards that don't align to what they have to offer.

IE, a ton of chubby glorified secretaries that live with 5 roomates in the hood want to be persued by Brad Pitt Gtown lawyers/lobyinsts. This is all nice and well, we all want the best, but they end up overlooking guys who may be more on their level.

Anonymous said...

I'm in the habit of reading Roosh now and then, and I've noticed he likes to start shit sometimes with other bloggers. Don't listen to the Roosh hate. He seems kind of thin-skinned for someone who's been around the blogosphere block. Either that or he hasn't had a blog war in a while and feels he could use the attention that comes from one.

Oh, and as a guy who grew up in a Great Lakes state and spent three years in DC, I can assure you that women from Big Ten country blow the East Coast out of the water in terms of attractiveness.

Anonymous said...

you look like you really ought "to get a couple of cats of something." you seem to be making the mistake of inflating your value in the sexual market. roissy-ism i know, but it's true nonetheless. time to lower your standards.

hammer86blog.com said...

I'm not in DC, and I think it's funny that you label me undateable without knowing anything about me, particularly given your rant about how little I know about your dating life.

Maybe it was presumptuous of me to make those statements about your sex life, but I don't think so; that seemed like a hypothetical denial rather than an actual one. If you really were happy with your sex life, you would not be so depressed about your dating life. Your needs would be satisfied so the lack of a boyfriend wouldn't be such a big deal.

When it comes down to it, the reason that you find there to be a dearth of dateable guys in DC is that you're not attracting the interesting, confident, high value men who have ass options (see anonymous' comment above about chubby glorified secretaries). Why would a guy who is smart, interesting, confident, good looking, and good with women go for a woman who's bitter about her faded looks, sexually reserved, and boring when he could have his choice of 20 women who are hotter, smarter, more interesting, less insecure, and better in bed?

Suburban Sweetheart said...

Dear Big Ten Anonymous: The Beach Boys sang it best - "Midwest farmers' daughters really make you feel all right." ;)

Dear "Get Some Cats" Anonymous: Lamenting a dating dearth is hardly inflating my own sexual value. Big words don't make you right.

Roosh fan: Are you done with your presumptions & insults yet or should I wait for another round before I respond?

hammer86blog.com said...

No, don't bother You're right, you should just get cats. I'll continue sleeping with hot fetish models to tide me over until I find my next columbia grad student girlfriend while you continue being bitter about all the good men being married or gay.

Anonymous said...

Hammer86blog, do you get this mad at everyone who writes two paragraphs of witty commentary? I'd hate to see what you say to people who write serious, in-depth complaints. I don't know how you find time to date all these hot fetish models when you're so busy insulting strangers. Hmmm, I guess not dating has its upsides, huh? We single folks have all the time in the world!

Sammi said...

Oh good lord, Kate. Good luck with the haters. Just look at it this way, if it's taken THIS long for people to pick on your blog, you must be doing something right. Don't take it personal, because you know the majority of people DO love you. :)

caiti said...

Can someone explain to me how a few lighthearted paragraphs about the male-to-female ratio in DC exploded into an argument about how all single women in search of a relationship are crazy and/or fat and/or cynical shut-ins with unrealistically high expectations?

I particularly like the bit about how they're all hoping to land a man who is "above their level" (physically, financially, or otherwise), and that single women need to lower our standards. I doubt very much that i'm alone on this, but the vast majority of the single women I know are intelligent, beautiful, funny, and driven. Why would they settle for anything less in a male companion? And that's even playing off of the assumption that that's what we value. "Datable" is different for everyone.

Well, at least we can take comfort in knowing that (apparently) it's 1850 and, if we're lucky enough, the right man will come along and free us of our prudish sensibilities, "allowing" us to express ourselves sexually. REALLY?

Frankly, I don't think anyone can argue that being single beats dating or hooking up with someone with an unwarranted sense of entitlement because women allow him to penetrate them occasionally (Hammer86blog, that means you).

roissy said...

much more flattering pic.

btw, the skewed female to male ratio in DC that's often cited by the press is a myth. most of those single women are older and out of the dating market, so they have no effect on the amount of male attention the typical young chick receives.

T. said...

Let me second the opinion that this is a much more flattering pic than the older Myspace Scene Queen emo-ish one you had up earlier.

Anonymous said...

You are definitely a beautiful girl, unlike what Roosh said on his blog.

The thing is - Roosh is Roosh. People love him because he pushes the envelope. Sure, he may objectify women with his words, but deep down, I think we all know that it's an act and just find his vagina-obsession to be adorable, like a mischevious little kid. It's entertainment. He's popular because of that.

caiti said...

RAGING antisemitism aside, I must have missed the part of the blog where she said she only dates jewish men.

I thought some of the people posting here were d-bags until this person graced us with this eloquent piece of literature. I guess I forgot that there are people who are this bigoted in the world.

Kate... I suppose you should be flattered that you have so many new readers recently. It is an audience, after all... I suppose you would have to expect that a portion of them would be nuts.

Anonymous said...

Clearly, this is a mostly female blog. Why else would so many posters see the harsh, brutal truth as an "insult"? Of all the female flaws, that one takes the cake for being the most intellectually hobbling to women. How can any new ideas be discussed if anyone who brings them up is immediately a "d-bag"? If you disagree with something, then explain why in a thoughtful way. Don't immediately label someone a bigot or a hater.

caiti said...

To anonymous poster above:

Personally, I find the post from "Exposing Jewish Hyperethnocentrism" outrageous. To put his blatant generalizations and stereotypes about Jews into perspective, I encourage you to read some of his comments to the more recent posts on this site. They get worse... even resorting to calling the blogger a "Jew slut" for no reason and writing "Your communist Jewish ancestors from Eastern Europe would be so proud of you and your people now...how you all prosper while so many millions/billions all over the world sink deeper in to Jew-debt-slavery!". Believe me, it saddens me that I am unable to consider him anything other than a bigot, and saddens me even more that people like this exist in 2009. It's one thing to disagree, but it is quite another to write a (completely unprovoked & off-topic) hateful tirade.

"Truths" about gender roles are subjective... but when your best retort is that you need to "continue sleeping with hot fetish models", and classify single women as hopeless complainers who need to be sexually liberated, women are generally going to react negatively. In my opinion, many of the (presumably) male commenters here have made arguments that have no merit in the context of this conversation, because they have made assumptions about the blogger's standards and dating/sexual habits, which she has never disclosed in this post. Their comments are based on a preconceived (and often incorrect) notion of what women want (and not what the blogger actually wants).

Anonymous said...

Caiti- I only wish to address one thing: "Truths" about gender roles are NOT subjective. Differences in roles and responsibilities between the sexes have existed for so many thousands of years that it is perfectly reasonable to assume (and modern science is increasingly verifying) there are organic differences in how men and women see and react to the world. I believe there will always be some differences in the way women and men view the world, and differences in the roles and responsibilities of each gender. Heterosexual people each seek out the opposite gender precisely because members of that gender are different in crucial ways. What a boring world it would be if we could even attain some measure of gender "equality" (even though we never will). Another little tidbit for thought - by no means is this little experiment in gender equality a guaranteed success in Western Culture, or anywhere for that matter. Just about every culture that has given it a try has seen its birth rate drop below replacement levels - not a recipe for societal longevity. Granting women the freedoms they now enjoy is a luxury humanity couldn't afford for most of its history, due to high mortality. In short, women were historically given fewer rights because their baby-making abilities were more important than anything else they could do - and many women obviously need to be forced to have kids, if the last 40 years of modern existence is an indication of anything. I'm saying all this to reinforce my point that it's utter folly to pursue a goal of absolute gender "equality", whatever anyone thinks that means. Response?

caiti said...

Yes, from a historical perspective, I completely understand where you're coming from with regard to traditional gender roles. And don't get me wrong- I doubt that our species will ever witness the day when the two genders are considered "equal". Physically and chemically, we are of course inherently different.

But, I think that gender roles have everything to do with context. Men have half of what we need to make a person. Women have the other half. Women give birth. The mechanics of it all is unchanging, but I think there is more to how we characterize male and female roles than just the physical capabilities. Attitudes about male-female roles both evolve over time and differ between cultures. Gender roles are traditionally shaped and reinforced by cultural expectations, but that does not mean that everyone adheres to those expectations.

To your point about women needing to bear children: in this country and at this moment in our existence, propagating the species isn't as important as it once was, as we aren't exactly facing extinction. That's not to say that if some pandemic occurred tomorrow (think 14th century, black plague-era Europe)that we wouldn't be under pressure to repopulate. But, it's my opinion that (reproduction aside) the relationship between men and women (as well as how we view each group) is constantly evolving, just like any other aspect of society is.

Richard said...

Ahh...blog wars!
I'm calling Roosh on this one, each to their own, but i think you're very cute!

Anonymous said...

caiti - Now that you've elaborated, I'll agree - I'd say that history supports your assertions. But to your comment on women needing to bear children, I'll retort that while humanity as a whole is growing, Western culture is shrinking, and I think that's sad. Radical environmentalists have managed to make people feel guilty about having children, thereby hastening the decline of our culture.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Real Time Web Analytics