Of course, women (and men) dating each other aside, women as a whole go on the same number of dates as men; however, this does not imply that the same number of women go on a nonzero (or non-low) number of dates as men. This would imply that a small fraction of men are dating a large fraction of women.
If it’s because the “small fraction of men” is just really talented at getting dates, the effect would diminish, because they just don’t have the time to be in ten times as many long-term committed relationships as anyone else.
But the same effect occurs, as an earlier post points out, in any subgroup in which there is a majority of men and a minority of women. Then, if all the women are out on a date, only a fraction of the men are, by virtue of the pigeonhole principle. In this case, I don’t think anything changes if we look at longer-term relationships.
Of course, women (and men) dating each other aside, women as a whole go on the same number of dates as men; however, this does not imply that the same number of women go on a nonzero (or non-low) number of dates as men. This would imply that a small fraction of men are dating a large fraction of women.
Hmm. It’d be my guess that this effect diminishes as the number of dates/length of relationship increases; what do you think?
Depends on the cause.
If it’s because the “small fraction of men” is just really talented at getting dates, the effect would diminish, because they just don’t have the time to be in ten times as many long-term committed relationships as anyone else.
But the same effect occurs, as an earlier post points out, in any subgroup in which there is a majority of men and a minority of women. Then, if all the women are out on a date, only a fraction of the men are, by virtue of the pigeonhole principle. In this case, I don’t think anything changes if we look at longer-term relationships.