Bill Cammack

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my blog via RSS feed or by eMail. Thanks for visiting! ~Bill

A couple of my wildly popular posts are “Women’s Guide to NYC Dating” and “Do Women Outnumber Men in NYC?”. Once again, we have challengers to my eye-witness, on-the-ground, in-the-trenches observation that there are literally HOARDS of women ambling around aimlessly in the streets of New York City with nothing better to do with their lives than eat Haagen-Dazs and order Netflix.

I received two comments recently that I’d like to address at the same time, because they’re on the same topic. They’re both saying that the number of single women has been inflated, but one comment brings up the issue of the AGE of the single women in NYC and the other brings up the QUALITY of the single women in NYC.

I’ll start with age, then get to quality:

ManAboutTown: “Surplus women? What’s the average “age” of those extra women? 70 something? Due to more male children being born and men dying younger there’s actually a shortage of women in the younger age groups and shortage of men in older age groups. So unless you’ve got a granny fetish those extra women don’t mean much. Aggregate numbers are meaningless unless you do an age breakdown.”

Of course, ManAboutTown is right that they didn’t bother to break the list down by ages. He’s probably also right that a high percentage of the reported 210,820 extra single females in NYC are too old for a guy to want to kick it to…. whatever that means for each individual. For some guys, 35 is too old. For some guys, 55 is too old. Either way, he has good points about this.

So, let’s knock off 110,820 women from that survey result because they’re “overage”… “over-age”? “over age”?. :) Let’s say there are only 100,000 extra single females in NYC. That’s a SURPLUS, by the way… Meaning that for every single guy in NYC, there’s a single gal… PLUS 100,000 MORE CHICKS!!!

But wait! There’s more!… He’s also saying that more male children are being born, but they’re dying faster/sooner. He’s saying that until whatever that death age is, men outnumber women the entire time…. So, let’s split the difference. I’ll give away that last 100,000 and we’ll delete the “overpopulation of males” bonus and make it even.

So let’s say there’s one single girl for every one single guy in NYC…. Now, on to the quality issues:

Jett: “There may be statistically more women…but, they tend to be fat and butt ugly. What you should do is compare the amount of horny males to actual, good looking, available women. Then, you’ll realize that men clearly out number this group. This city tends to attract very LARGE females. They think that because the buildings are so big that maybe their 250 lb. bodies won’t appear quite so out of place. Also, there are a lot of uneducated males in this city. So, basically you have a very large category of sub human animal species. You’d have to incorporate that into your statistical bin as well. In the end there are very FEW intelligent, good looking males & females. The rest are simply a cess pool of humanity called “New York City”. Oh, you think I’m wrong about this? Ever been to jury duty? How about the INS building? You can look back a million years into some of those faces.”

Now… Hidden within the jokes, Jett makes two contradictory points as far as this discussion’s concerned… one about the women and one about the men in NYC. Let’s keep ManAboutTown’s age issues in mind and go over Jett’s points about the women:

Jett: “There may be statistically more women…but, they tend to be fat and butt ugly.”

ok… So working from our compromise, where I tossed out 210,820 females already because they were too old and made the ratio 1:1… NOW, we seem to have a problem. :) According to Jett, a high percentage of the females in NYC are “fat and butt ugly”. I guess he actually meant fat OR butt ugly, but anyway…

The problem with Jett’s gripe is…

NOBODY. PROMISED. YOU. HAWT. WOMEN!!!

Similar to the lack of distinction between older women and younger women, there was no distinction made between whether the women were GOOD LOOKING or not. First of all, that’s a SUBJECTIVE issue, not OBJECTIVE. You can’t get *everyone* to agree on which chicks are good looking and which are not.

For instance, white guys IN GENERAL enjoy chicks with flat asses. Meanwhile, black guys IN GENERAL do *NOT* enjoy chicks with flat asses, so if the dude doing the survey had been white and had said there are 85,000 good-looking women in NYC, that would have been based on his personal flat-assed bias. This information would do the average black guy NO. GOOD. WHATSOEVER.

So, sorry. You don’t get to complain that the women in the survey were fat or ugly or fat AND ugly. Nothing. You don’t get to complain about that because the survey was the number of FEMALES vs the number of MALES. Period.

Jett: “What you should do is compare the amount of horny males to actual, good looking, available women. Then, you’ll realize that men clearly out number this group.”

You’re right. The number of MEN IN GENERAL vastly outnumber the amount of GOOD-LOOKING, “AVAILABLE”, NON-OLD females in this town. Unfortunately, your point *ASSUMES* that guys only have sex with ATTRACTIVE women, and that’s just not true. As a matter of fact, since YOU brought up horny guys, the hornier guys get, the LESS ATTRACTIVE the girls are that they’d be willing to screw. Let’s not forget the world-famous BEER GOGGLES to boot.

Unattractive women are also EASIER to bag. Have you ever seen a chick that’s BUSTED and STUCK UP at the same time? I have. It’s not a pretty sight haha :D Anyway… Sorry… You don’t get to diminish the female population to ONLY the attractive chicks because this was not a SURVEY about attractive chicks.

So now, here’s the part where Jett jacks both his AND ManAboutTown’s arguments up:

Jett: “Also, there are a lot of uneducated males in this city. So, basically you have a very large category of sub human animal species. You’d have to incorporate that into your statistical bin as well. In the end there are very FEW intelligent, good looking males & females. The rest are simply a cess pool of humanity called “New York City”. Oh, you think I’m wrong about this? Ever been to jury duty? How about the INS building? You can look back a million years into some of those faces.”

Thank you very much. Now… If we stipulate to this section as I have all the other sections, what you’re saying is that EVEN IF I subtract 210,820 females for being too old to kick it to and then subtract a percentage for being too ugly to kick it to and then subtract a percentage for being to fat to kick it to….. NOW, you’ve diminished the viable male population as well.

So now, it’s not finding an attractive, “available” girl for “the amount of horny males”, but rather finding one for “the amount of horny males who DESERVE an attractive girl”. If we agree that there are so many dregs of humanity that live here, we also have to agree that LET THEM EAT CAKE, or in other words, why waste the attractive chicks on them, right?

While we’re at it, you didn’t mention mental state. There are CRAZY chicks and CRAZY dudes in this town, like mentally unfit to be in a “relationship”. The reason you didn’t bring this up is that you don’t CARE if a chick is crazy, so long as she’s attractive. You ALSO didn’t bring up that there are a lot of BROKE chicks in this town… Except you don’t CARE if a chick earns minimum wage OR LESS, so long as she’s attractive.

So you see what’s happening here, right? As the two of youse attempt to diminish the number of viable females in this town by talking about how old, fat and ugly they are, you’re SIMULTANEOULSLY DIMINISHING THE NUMBER OF VIABLE MALES, based on deservedness. Understand? The base number of males that they calculated the extra 210,820 females from was STACKED with this “very large category of sub human animal species”.

So NOW, we finally get down to the Nitty-Gritty… which is the demarcation between the HAVES and the HAVE-NOTS.

Do you know who complains that there aren’t enough attractive women in New York City?… That’s right. The guys that can’t GET THEM. It’s the HAVE-NOTS who are making all the noise about this survey and that survey is incorrect.

Go down to the village on just about any night of the week, and definitely a weekend night and you’ll see more attractive females than you can keep track of. Hang out on 42nd street and 5th avenue where all the executive secretaries have to walk to get lunch in their high heels and minis and THEN tell me how there aren’t attractive women in this town.

Why IN THE WORLD would you even be CONCERNED about what the ratio of gals to guys is ANYWHERE, if you know that wherever you go, you’re going to pull chicks? Don’t worry about the ratio… Step YOUR game up! Get YOUR self-esteem up! Apparently, there are a whole hell of a lot of dregs of humanity in this town that are sporting fine women on their arms, so go get YOURS! Don’t worry about how many EXTRA chicks there are. Worry about how you’re going to get ONE out of the literally MILLIONS of chicks surrounding you on any given day.

Why none of this matters

There are at least three reasons why none of this “ratio” stuff matters:

1) Women Lie – There was no incentive for any of those women to tell the survey-takers the truth about their relationship status. Some women are EMBARRASSED that they’re not in a relationship, so they’re prone to LIE and say that they are, when they’re really not. This means the number of “available” women is even higher than you think it is.

2) “Relationships” break up every single day – Out of the women that reported themselves as being in a relationship, A BUNCH OF THEM are currently broken up from their exes. The “available” population is not static, but rather dynamic. On top of that, we have a ton of tourists in this town. On top of that women are moving here for work OR moving from area to area within NYC, so you will be exposed to way more than the female population that was counted at the time of that survey.

3) You’ve both neglected to factor in “Hoes” – “Hoes” pick up the slack for females that don’t want to give it up. One chick that’s willing to bang the whole posse or team cancels out the number of women that would have been necessary to service all those guys one-on-one.

Since neither of y’all’s gripes about females mentioned intelligence, education, sanity, earning potential, fertility, religion or genuine willingness to give it up, you’re obviously only worried about whether you get to screw a sexy chick or not. That’s not actually a function of the entire female population. That’s a function of the willingness of each female within the population that YOU find attractive that’s willing to give it up to you, your boy, your cousin and the next man. See… “Available” doesn’t mean “available for YOU to lock down”… It simply means that she’s currently unrestricted from doing exactly what she wants to do, right now…

The Facts Remain…

Utilizing Jett & ManAboutTown’s concepts to describe the scene, the fact remains that there are more attractive women & girls in this town than there are guys that know what to do with them. Regardless of the actual numbers, there just simply aren’t enough “deserving” guys to lock every single attractive woman down and then KEEP HER in that relationship.

Therefore, whether you get on with an attractive chick or not comes down to YOU. Even if there WERE an extra, VIABLE, “available” 210,820 females in this town, that doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get your hands on ONE of them. :) Not one.

Meanwhile… If what you say is true, women have an even TOUGHER time getting a date in this town than it appeared when I first wrote “Women’s Guide to NYC Dating”. According to y’all, there’s a HIGH-PERCENTAGE CHANCE that any given chick will be too old, too fat or too ugly to be considered for sex. And, of course, if she’s not on the consideration list for sex, she’s CERTAINLY not on the list for dating, a “relationship” or anything else.

At least the “actual, good looking, available women” can look forwad to servicing “the amount of horny males” that clearly outnumber them. :D

~Bill

DatingGenius Category: billcammack.com/category/datinggenius
Subscribe to DG!: feeds.feedburner.com/BillCammackDatingGenius
 

Related Posts

• Do Women Outnumber Men in NYC?
• That’s OK… My Dog Doesn’t Speak EITHER!
• Disposable Pleasures vs Meaningful Pursuits
• Dating is like Asians on Television
• World In My Eyes (Happy New Year!!!)