Why every girl on the entire planet has a boyfriend

The problem isn't that every girl on the planet has a boyfriend. The problem is that all the girls that we see as desireable are taken.

Ok lets look at some hard numbers here on why every girl on the entire planet has a boyfriend. We are going to look at 20-24 year olds, because I am twenty four, and all the girls I am interested in fall into that range as well. In the United States 16.2 percent of 20-24 year old males are married. While 27.4 percent of 20-24 year old females are married. Why the skew, you might ask? Well men marry younger women, they always have, and they probably always will. Now lets add another number. In that age range there are 105 men for every 100 women.

Lets take a sample population of 1000 women aged 20-24. Now there will be 1050 men to go along with them, because that is the real life ratio. Now lets get all those pesky marriages out of the way. That leaves us with 736 women and 880 men. Those numbers don't sound too terribly bad, but they still don't look that great for the males.

But, how many of those people already have a boyfriend or girlfriend? This is difficult to determine, but by reading a lot of different surveys I was able to come up with these numbers. Roughly 57 percent of unmarried women, and 53 percent of unmarried men aged 20-24 have a boyfriend/girlfriend. Why the skew, you might ask? Well the older men are still going after the younger ones, just like before.

That leaves 316 single women and 414 single males. That is almost a four to three ratio. Now lets start getting perfectly honest about something. People are more likely to choose a mate that they find "desirable" in some way. This isn't your fault, this isn't my fault, but it is just the way it works. Now before you start blabbing about "that shouldn't matter, people should look beyond the surface", let me tell you that I agree with you one hundred percent. But that still doesn't change that fact that the population as a whole selects mates based largely on how "desirable" they are. Actually, they can't help it, its genetic anyway.

Remember that 1000 women we started with? Good. Now remember the 684 of them that are paired off somehow? Now realize that the 684 that are already gone represents a significant number of the "desirable" women. That is what men want, that is what they go after. So we have 316 women left for our 414 men to fight over. Sure, there are still some "desirable" ones in there, there always are. But unfortunately a lot of the most "desirable" women are already taken, while a large percentage of the "undesirable" women remain. But that isn't so terribly bad, after all that still means 75 percent of the men end up with a girl, if you pair everyone off. Right? Wrong! What you actually end up with is 414 men fighting over the one hundred most desirable females. That is of course, assuming you think highly of your fellow males, in real life it usually ends up being worse than that.

So no, not every girl on the entire planet has a boyfriend, but most of the ones you are interested in probably do.

The problem is that women don't divide men into fat/ok and ugly/ok groups, they split on emotional characteristics into looser/ok/gay so i won't even bother. Men often have no idea of what group they're in, but generally speaking people who describe the chances of their finding a mate in terms of statistics and logic don't get mistaken for gay.

As anyone who knows AI will tell you, knowledge representation is the key to understanding and solving any complex problem. In this particular problem the key is to not ask ``What are the physical characteristics of people in relationships?'' but instead to ask ``What are the emotional characteristics of people in relationships?'' ``How does he make her feel?'' and ``How does she make him feel?''

If you really want a partner and you're not a 7 foot bronzed god with more money than bill gates ask yourself these questions:

• How hard do you imagine bill gates (or any other rich executive type) finds to spend quality time with his wife and child(ren?) ?
• Do you want to have children? It's not important whether you want them or not, what is important is that you have thought about it and the consequences.
• When was the last time you specifically went out of your way to hold a social function that was suitable for both your single and coupled friends?
• ...

Question: In general, what is the key difference between someone you are 'close to' and someone you are 'with' or 'dating'?

Answer: Sex.

So why is it unreasonable that sexual attractiveness be the key factor in making decisions about whom to date? Prole suggested that 'a pretty face' is not that important but I think physical attractiveness is far more than that. Due, perhaps, to the influence of the aforementioned mags, physical beauty has had a bad rap in the past while. It has been strongly suggested that people shouldn't be credited simply because they were born beautiful.

But why not?

Physical beauty is captivating. It makes life more vivid. It accesses us primally and honestly. It is art in people. Why should someone who was born with the talent of being smart and witty be considered of more 'substance' than someone born with beauty?

People are great. They come in different shapes, sizes, volumes, densities. But to me it makes complete sense to choose beautiful people as sexual partners. People who are less attractive are great for dinner conversation and intimate fireside chats. But if they are not attractive sexually then why have sex with them?

Of course this is an oversimplification because sex is also about emotional closeness. But surely then, if there is no correlation between sexual attractiveness and intelligence, then they are just as likely to be smart/fun/deviant as anyone else? So "all else being equal" doesn't it make sense to target the most attractive people?