I thought awhile back that I had said all I had to say on dating. However my last post was so popular (or at least controversial) that I have decided to say some more. So here goes.
In NYC it is commonly understood that the single women vastly outnumber single men.
“How can you be single, in this town where girls outnumber guys like 10-to-1?” some girl asked me a few months back, right after H. and I broke up.
“As a single guy you can do really well in this town if you don’t live with your parents, have a decent job and have your shit together,” my handsome friend B.W. told me a little while back. (Or some words to that effect)
My friend Tallman seems to be constantly fighting off the ladies, yet muses that he has attractive female friends who seem to go months or even years without being in relationships.
And I have to agree that it my sense also, that single girls outnumber guys in this town.
I wanted to do a blog post about this, and did some research awhile back, but there’s really only one problem with this theory: the numbers don’t really support it. I looked up census data, it seems to show that there are 9 men in NYC for every 10 women. Not exactly a breathtaking ratio. I thought maybe the big immigrant population here might sway things, but even if you just look at native-born Americans the ratio isn’t really that out of whack. (8.9 men per 10 women in nyc)
Tallman also posited that because maybe our generation was pretty small (our class of ’94 was the smallest in our college‘s history) and because men tend to date younger women, there might be even fewer guys for girls in their early 30s out there. However looking at this table of live births I’m not sure the data supports that.
My friend Michael Malice also researched this when he was working on some dating TV show, and told me he couldn’t find much evidence to support the notion that single women really outnumber men here.
Of course the census data doesn’t really tell you who’s really in the dating game. There aren’t numbers for single professionals, height-to-weight proportional, aged 25-34, living in Manhattan, good parts of Brooklyn, Astoria and Hoboken. But you just have to use what’s available.
(Before anyone says it, the number of married men here should equal the number of married women, right? This isn’t Utah. I’ll concede there are probably more gay men than lesbians here, though).
So what is it, an urban myth? Thinking about this a little more, it does seem like while I have attractive women friends who don’t have much luck dating, I also know girls who have more than their fair share of suitors. One of my female friends met three guys in one night last week. And of course I know guys who also have troubles with the ladies. Clubs without door policies often end up with more men than women, I think.
Sometimes it does seem like certain women are, uh, maybe a little more apt to voice their greivances on the NYC dating scene, while guys just deal. So maybe it is just a myth?
I am eager to hear from my commenters on this.
I think that’s still a very ratio for men. Sure, 8.9 to 10 doesn’t sound like much– but when you extrapolate it out, that’s 44.5 men for every 50 women. In other words, more than 10 percent of the female population won’t find a mate because there aren’t enough men. (You gotta love statistics.)
You also don’t address educational levels, which I think are the most important criteria out there. Far more women are receiving college degrees than men these days– and at the very least, women prefer a mate who has equal education, if not more (unlike men, who are often content dating bimbos). While I don’t have any numbers to back it up, I suspect that viewed through that lens, the female dating population far outnumbers the male.
themofo, both of your points said exactly what I was about to say, so I’ll just stick with “ditto”
I was surprised how many comments your previous post received, especially since it was based solely on your opinion about the ‘dregs of society’ or whatever phrase you used to describe women in their late thirties. It didn’t seem based on any kind of hard facts. I disagreed, and didn’t feel it warranted a comment. However, I’m fascinated by statistics, and I’m glad you brought in some data and left out the qualitative evaluation on this one.
I had a similar discussion with an acquaintance of mine a while back regarding how the 9-to-10 ratio didn’t fit the reputation that NYC had for girls outnumbering the boys. I’m not sure if the guy had numbers to back him up, but he’s been the only person I’ve known who actually may have been qualified to give an educated opinion on this, as he worked in statistics.
He did say just what you said – that the statistic doesn’t account for age ranges and single-ness of those numbers of women and men. Educational reasons aside, women are more likely to be drawn to large, urban, cosmopolitan centres, especially one that’s a fashion mecca like NYC. The single young man to single young woman ratio is actually much, much lower than 9:10. And even if it’s only 8:10 or 7:10, that’s actually, as themofo implies above, a very large amount of people in your daily encounters of meeting people.
Mofo, that’s a silly way of “extrapolat[ing] it out.” It would be better to think of it as far as, there are 89 native-born American men for every 100 native-born women. (Of course, lots of people enjoy dating foreigners…)
Skylight, c’mon, I wasn’t trying to insult women in their late 30s! As I said, the same exact things could be said about men of a similar age. I was just trying to figure out the dating market. And shouldn’t the “single-ness” of the figures account for itself? Putting gays aside, you’d expect for every man in a relationship there’d be a woman who is too.
Sempre, I agree that educational levels are an interesting issue nationally, but does that really apply to NYC? Do you really end up rejecting many men because they don’t have a good enough education?
First, I never said you insulted women in their 30s. I looked at your earlier post and you said: “more of the cool attractive single girls get “snapped up” in their 20s and you are mostly left with less desireable people.” Do you think that’s insulting? Because I never said any thing about it being insulting. I only said that I disagreed with it, which I do.
Your second response to my comment isn’t clear. Can you extrapolate a little? We were only talking about the ratio of single men to single women. I didn’t mention people in relationships and I’m wondering how that relates to what I wrote.
I don’t think it was insulting … okay yeah the “dregs” term maybe was a bit offensive, that’s why I changed it.
You did talk about the “single-ness” of the people in question, but maybe I misunderstood you? What did you mean by that?
Your point about age ranges is valid. I was able to use the Census website to find some of that data, however. Try this link.
In Manhattan according to the 2000 census there were 55,119 men and 65,555 women aged 20-24; 79,447 men and 88,116 women aged 25-29; 81,953 men and 81,636 women 30-34; and 71,510 men and 67,282 women aged 35-39
So that’s 84 men per 100 women aged 20-24; 90 men per 100 women aged 25-29; 100.4 men per 100 women aged 30-34; and 106.3 men per 100 women aged 35-39.
In Brooklyn the numbers are 94.4, 89.9, 90.2, and 88.6.
In all (in 2000) there were 374,803 women and 346,033 men aged 25-34 living in Manhattan and Brooklyn. (Sorry I can’t include 24-year-olds). So that’s 92.3 men per 100 women.
Okay, I am a geek – but not really wanting to leave my air-conditioned apartment today. I was able to use zip code data to just look at southern Manhattan. The most northern zips I used were 10024 (which which borders W 92nd St) and 10128 (East 96th). Didn’t include any Brooklyn or Queens zips, sorry, I couldn’t figure out which to use and it was getting complicated. Basically I included every valid zip 10001-10024 plus 10036, 10038, 10048 and 10128.
I found 101,518 men and 105,386 women aged 25-34 in those zips — or 96.3 men for every 100 women. Of course those are 2000 figures tho.
If anyone wants to look at the spreadsheet I used, it is here. It was pretty easy, I just downloaded it from the Census website.
To over-simplify my explanation, here’s what I meant by “single-ness”: If the census population of an area is 91 guys to 100 girls (9.1:10), and fifty men and fifty women are in couples, then the actual ratio of single men to single women is 41-50 (8.2:10), which is much higher than the original ratio. That’s all I meant.
Of course it’s much more complicated than that, when you factor in ages, social groups, personal preference, etc., then the numbers become much more complicated, and in our day-to-day meanderings, it really does seem that there are few available women. I wish I still had my statistician friend around, because when he explained it, it did make sense. In the end, the ratio highly favours men.
Interesting statistics, though, and I’ll be watching to see where the exploration leads.
Actually, I extrapolated it out that way because people don’t usually think in groups of 189, they think in groups of 100. Plus it very neatly sums up the point that even with a 10 percent surplus, while that seems small on a 9:10 scale, it’s actually quite large. Anyway, you can extrapolate it any way you want, it’s still a big surplus.
And yes, I do believe women consider educational level to be a primary factor in selecting a mate. I can’t believe any woman would say otherwise.
Ok, fair enough, both of you.
Well, I don’t know if the women look closely at educational level, but I sure as hell do. No way I’m going to have spent (mumble) years in college and got my Master’s just to wind up dating some bimbo who couldn’t even be bothered to finish a Bachelor’s degree. I want a woman with (or working on) a master’s, maybe even her doctorate; a woman who can set a benchmark or two for me to aspire to; a woman who is my equal or better intellectually. Come to think of it, that’s probably the top thing I look for in a mate, with “takes care of herself” and “isn’t a manic-depressive” in the next two places. Meh…don’t even get me started.
Of course you realize this would exclude the likes of Jessica Biel, Andie MacDowell, Gwyneth Paltrow, Rebecca Romijn, Cindy Crawford, Marisa Tomei, Claire Daines, Christina Applegate and Nicole Richie, right?
Along with, for men, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Paul Allen, Ted Turner, Ben Affleck, John Cusack, Matt Damon, Ethan Hawke, Peter Jennings and Brad Pitt?
Mofo makes a good point. 90 women to every 100 men is still tough.
Cris’ comment is also correct, as some people do consider intelligence an important criterion.
However, just as an aside, his comment and Derek’s follow-up speak to another issue, which is the reason that internet dating doesn’t always work. Sometimes you weed people out based on objective criteria that leave out a bigger picture. So if you put in that you want someone with at least a BA, you’d miss out on Bill Gates. Bill Gates is clearly intelligent and successful.
I don’t know that Cris would feel bad about missing out on Nicole Richie?!?
You should write something for the Daily News on this. Everyone would read it.
I had an interesting talk with Ali-Z about this blog post yesterday, I’m not sure I agreed with all her points, but she should write ’em down.
But all this talk about success and education levels — does that really matter? I mean, I know it would elsewhere in the country, but you kinda have to be doing at least decently well to afford New York. Of course there are women (and I’m sure men) who want someone with a high six-figure salary or something. But y’know what? I think they don’t have the right to complain very much.
I don’t know, maybe I’m the exception, I was dating a teacher (and awesome runner) earning about 30k last year. I guess if salary was that important to me I wouldn’t have become a journalist…
P.S. Or there is Alexis’s friend W., who supplements her income as a piano teacher by working in retail. I’m sorta miffed at her right now, but I def. tried to set her up with my friends, she’s pretty and thin and charming. Of course I’d love to date someone with a great job, but as long as they have stuff in their life they are passionate about … isn’t that enough?
P.P.S. Could part of this be that most women still prefer to date guys who are more successful career-wise than they are? But as women gain more and more equality those guys are increasingly hard to find. Just a thought.
I propose a study (someone else has to impliment it, though;)
Have a social event, where people register (say… a dating event).
Afterwards, ask the participants the ratio of men to women.
Then see if it is accurate, and if it is skewed by gender – do both men/women over/underestimate the same way, or does it differ.
If there is a difference, we can then try to figure out why.
How did the education-level ratio turn into something about jobs and money? “Success” doesn’t have to mean money. Of course, it does to some men and women. But who cares about superficial people. Meh.
>>but as long as they have stuff in their life they are passionate about … isn’t that enough?
Yes.
>>P.P.S. Could part of this be that most women still prefer to date guys who are more successful career-wise than they are?
Some do. Some don’t.
CL, I agree. But I could care less about whether someone has a degree, too. I just enjoy dating people who are well-read– read the newspaper, maybe the New Yorker, good nonfiction…
I was thinking about the 9 to 10 ratio and I just couldn’t figure out how the ratio could be so close and yet so not be what I experience. As Derek mentioned in his statement, it seems to me like more of an imbalance. But then I realized that the imbalance really only becomes noticeable at the margins.
I think Skylight got it right that what we see are the singles. I’d guess that 80% of the well educated men that I hang out with are in some form of committed relationship (and if anything, that percentage is low). Out of 90 guys that would mean a mate for 72 women. The result would mean 28 women out of a hundred still in the single scene chasing or being chased by 18 guys. Seen that way, the odds get a little tough.
Interestingly, I actually know a woman who left New York and went to Chicago mainly because of these odds. I don’t know if she thought it through all that clearly or if she had these numbers in front of her, but she did move for the reason that she figured that guys would be more plentiful in Chicago. And for the record, this is a good looking girl. Also a girl who has some interest in big game hunting (think good looking CEOs and bankers), so she makes life a little hard for herself by having very high standards.
Education level translated into success and money when we started shifting into the Information Economy 30 years ago.
Tallman– excellent points.
Tallman, if those guys are all in committed relationships, then that takes the women off the market, too. So why does that change the odds? Every guy in a relationship takes 1 woman off the market.
One thing that we didn’t mention is the number of single men who are gay. Probably more than gay women, I’d guess.
How did the girl who moved to Chicago do?
Yeah, excellent point Tallman. Caren look at it this way: 90 guys for every 100 women doesn’t sound that dramatic, but it’s at the margins where you see the effects. If 70 of those guys are in committed relationships with 70 women, that leaves just 20 guys left for the remaining 30 girls. I hadn’t thought of it like that … leave it to the math major.
(And if 80 of the guys are “coupled-up” that would mean just 10 guys per 20 women. Yikes! That’s what Tallman says when he talks about the margins I believe)
It’s interesting that there is this imbalance here to begin with. I know Skylight mentioned the fashion industry, but is that really that big? And isn’t Wall Street still predominantly men?
Interestingly in L.A. here are 99 men for every 100 women, according to that Census document. And both Phoenix and San Diego have more men than women.
I read somewhere theorizing that men move to cities for high-paying jobs, while women move both for the high-paying jobs and the chance to marry a man with a high-paying job. I don’t know if that’s true for very many women — but even if 1 in 10 did, that’d be enough to create an imbalance.
on the topic of education, i definately find it a huge turnoff when someone doesn’t have at least their college degree. i’m a teacher, education is a value to me. i’m currently “dating” someone who never finished college. there’s no future for me with someone like that. when enforcing the value of education within my children, i don’t want to have to explain that daddy never finished college.
I say as long as you can explain the Categorical Imperative it really doesn’t matter if you have a fancy-schmancy degree or not.
> Of course there are women (and I’m sure men) who want someone with a high six-figure salary or something. But y’know what? I think they don’t have the right to complain very much.
I agree. But I’m not quite sure how I feel about the degree. I do think that on a very basic level I prefer dating guys who finished college, but really it’s more about being educated and well-read. If they’re a few credits shy of a B.A., I don’t think I would drop them just for that reason. But education certainly doesn’t mean financial “success” and financial “success” certainly doesn’t mean smart. I also think career success is vastly different from a high salary. I’d rather date a teacher or an artist who loves what he does and makes it work in NY than some jackass investment banker who has a fat wallet (and no time to spend with me, for that matter).
> P.P.S. Could part of this be that most women still prefer to date guys who are more successful career-wise than they are?
Good thing I’m not “most women,” then. Perhaps it will increase my odds.
The smartest guy I know is a guy who never finished college. But I guess I would be suspicious of someone who never tried to go at all.
Well, there’s the publishing industry, and there are probably 5 women for every man in that industry.
Not only is the legend urban, but I don’t buy the numbers either. NYC a hot spot for single men? Ridiculous. Even if there were plenty of single women here – and there are not – try asking the Census how many of them are gold-digging nose-in-the-air shallow plastic ho’s. You want to understand NYC women? Look at what that filthy pig put her husband through, who had to blow up his building to avoid getting shaken down by the miserable wretch. ‘Nuff said.
Alex, if you have that attitude toward women, no wonder you have trouble dating! I do think this is a hot spot for single men, but obv. the quality women here have high expectations as far as appearance, fitness, personality, etc. As well they should!
Men who “have to” blow up their buildings are probably not that great a catch either. 😉
Maybe there can be a “jerk census” of single people. List women who only want rich, tall guys, and next to them, list guys who only want big-boobed, anorexic women. Send them all to the Hamptons.
Then, God help the rest of us to get through that maze so we can find people who have good personalities and treat us well — which is what ALL normal people honestly deserve in a realtionship (even though women are often told they’re too picky if they hold out for “nice.”)
C’mon, Derek. Women could care less about a guy’s personality, and appearance barely registers. You wanna know what women want? Ben Franklins. Either slipped in a G-string, or slipped in a pre-nup – it’s all the same. Marriage is only legalized prostitution, and as long as women are as obscenely materialistics as they are — in Blue States only, mind you (where else can you find women who abort their children in order to fit into a slimmer prom dress?) — then they get precisely the divorce rate they “richly” deserve.
Alex, you are sooo right – I mean, men who are musicians, journalists, teachers, rookie cops, firefighters, social workers, PR guys, gov’t employees – none of those men EVER have girlfriends. Nope.
Or….maybe it’s you, Alex! Maybe you’re just an asshole, and normal girls don’t date assholes. I bet you only chase materialistic women with hot bodies.
Yes, there are women who are just out for money. You know it, I know it. But why do guys like you always chase them, always go to their neighborhoods, always limit yourself to meeting girls in swanky bars? Do you ever go anywhere else to meet a girl? Think about it, Alex.
I’ve met guys like you, and you know what? You are always, without exception, chasing only materialistic, slim girls, and you are only able to meet women in expensive bars.
Let’s hear your requirements for a woman, by the way. Of course you don’t care about money. But you care about looks instead. Does that make you better? Be gone.
PS – Lots of time, guys with an attitude like Alex’s, which involves being frustrated at all women, are jerky and hard to deal with.
It is certainly impossible to be attracted to someone who is so angry and doesn’t take any personal responsibility whatsoever for his problems in dating.
I’ve been on a few dates with men who want to blame me for the antics of every crazy girl they ever dated. Those are NOT nice guys.
Alex, if you want a nice girl, calm down a little. No one wants to spend her entire first date trying to disprove your bizarre thoughts about her entire gender.
And as for your examples, “women” are too old to go to the prom. You have a very active imagination. Comparing all women to a girl who did that, is like comparing all men to OJ Simpson.
Alex, I’ve been holding back because I think the ignorance fueling your comments speaks for itself, but this time I can’t help it. Your comment about abortion is simply hateful and ugly. If you continue to take out your personal grievances against the women you’ve dated on the entire gender, you’ll never find a good woman. I’m surprised you can find any considering the venom you spew.
Personally I’d rather date someone with a degree (a BS is fine — not asking for a doctorate or anything) mainly because I want to date an equal. However, I’m aware that having a degree doesn’t guarantee that the lights are on. I think it would be hard to date someone who isn’t in the same income range for the same reason. I think that it would be hard to be a relationship where every night out is “on me.” I know there are men out there who have a lot to offer besides money and degrees but one of the significant causes of fighting in a relationship/marriage is money. So it can’t just be disregarded.
Ehh, Alex, I don’t make a big fat salary, but I have no complaints about the women and the dating scene here. Spent Tuesday night dancing on a table with four cuties at Nikki Beach. You really do need to be in decent shape though to have a shot at the quality women I think. I’m not talking about marathon-quality shape, but you can’t be overweight and trying to date attractive girls. Get thee to a gym, or be content dating overweight women or girls who want you for your wallet.
Oh, also, women are twice as likely to initiate a divorce than men.
Eh, I like guys with low incomes. I’ve found that often they have more creative jobs and more to talk about on dates, and more personality. (Derek, for example.) So, to each her/his own!
Derek, define “quality women”.
Oh, you know, smart attractive professional women with their heads on straight.
But “attractive” is subjective. As are most of the qualities you name. If you met a woman you clicked with instantly but she was overweight (even mildly), would you immediately eliminate her from consideration?
Y’know … I’m not out to make anyone feel bad about the choices they’ve made or who they are. But I am just not attracted to overweight people, and I don’t “click instantly” with girls I am not attracted to.
Of course everyone has some story of the ugly guy who gets the pretty girl… but I think that’s actually pretty rare, we remember it because we don’t see it much. I think people will have better luck being realistic and just trying to date people who are about as attractive as they are (so overweight men should stick to trying to pursue overweight women) — or actually going to the gym and putting in some hard work to improve their appearance.
You seem to put in a lot of hard work on your appearance, yet here you are playing Dr. Judy … or is it Dr. Ruth. Maybe Jerry Springer.
so on the topic of quizzes and choices, here’s one for you-what’s better-a woman who’s healthy, active and takes care of herself but due to being cursed by genetics, doesn’t have the “ideal” body type or a woman who has a “perfect size 0 body” who lives a pretty sedentary (sp?) lifestyle and is just lucky to look the way she does?
In the end all of us become withered and ugly.
Eh, T.A.B., when I go to the Upper West Side I see a lot of thin attractive women in their 40s and 50s. There’s a triathlete in my running club who is like 47 and hot. I think if you are active you can stay attractive longer. That’s the one thing I’ve noticed going to class reunions… it seems like the most important thing about looking good as you get older is keeping the pounds off. And if someone is carrying around “just a few extra pounds” in the prime of their life, how are they going to look in their 40s, particularly after they’ve maybe had a few kids?
Flygirl – Okay, I do see what you mean about these quizzes being bullshit. Hmm. Am I allowed to disagree with the premise somewhat? I am not sure I agree there is an “ideal” female body type, I appreciate a range of types. Okay the range that I appreciate does not go the full spectrum, but certainly more than just size zeros. We’re talking about like a lot of the runner girls I see in the park and at the club, who are certainly not overweight and have low body-fat ratios, but aren’t all slender and willowy either? If girl No. 1 was like that, I would def. pick her, it’d be great to have a running and hiking partner.
However if she was overweight I would have to pick girl No. 2. Which is not really “fair” because I know that sometimes it does just come down to genetics, some people with thyroid conditions and whatnot can’t help being overweight, but dems the breaks.
As far as looks are concerned, derek rose you gotta acknowledge one caveat. Overweight girls with cute faces. i was dating a girl who i knew had a beautiful face but was maybe 20 lbs overweight. i never pointed our conversation towards her body but instead started noticing little details as to why she was “soft” . She worked all day and didnt eat right. Obviously. So as a amateur gourmet myself I cooked her delicious meals specially lowfat derived concoctions( i loved she wasn’t picky) while counting fat/calories secretly. I took her to active vacations to Sf (walking and walking), skiiing, more ny walking(she wouldnt get out of the upp east) while discovering new and interesting places. She started to get interested in running at the beach with me. In as little as 4 months she became the most beautiful girl any of my friends knew. I have the pics to prove it. I discovered a hatchet face can work out and get a hot body but u can’t fix looking at that gremlin head every morning. Plus she had that “great personality” derived from her past looks, all of a sudden she lit up bars, restaurants like a shining gold. So hey, guys. instead of thinking that girl as a wierd shaped whatever due to fat, and only looking at the so called jessica alba bodies, think about this: why should that girl like YOU.
The depth of female analysis on here never fails to amaze me. Find the fat girls and secretly make them skinny. Hoo-yah! So by your logic why not take the hatchet faces and get them plastic surgery? Huh? Huh?
Eric m’boy even I cannot support you on this one. Going into a relationship thinking you can change someone is seldom successful and not really fair to them. You really have to accept or reject people the way they are.
I’m going to sound like a chick asking this, I know — but if this girl hadn’t lost the weight, would you have dumped her?
That’s a fair question.
One thing all you guys (and women too) sometimes have to acknowledge is that the people you may fall in love with will be people you never expected. By strictly chasing anorexic broads, you might never get to know an all consuming passionate love. I’m not say9ing you should date someone you are unattrated to – not at all. I’m saying tyhat some ofyou get so so so strict on certain ‘requirements’ as you get older, that you may miss someone wonderful, and you sound bitter and mean to boot.
Dating is hard, but being a complete jerk and mean to the entire opposite sex or making assumptions about why someone may be fat or some other problem is dishonest and something that is NEVER forgiveable. Aren’t many of you8r mothers overweight?
Sometimes people are a little overweight because they just dont’ have the metabolism that others do. Some people are depressed and eat more. If you don’t want to date them, ok, but don’t be a jerk about it. I think Eric’s point is that you can’t count all fat chicks out. That can be generalized. He met a girl with a GREAT personality. So all you guys who moan about girls being crazy, maybe open your minds up a little more. And if you can’t? That’s ok but for the love of God DON’T BE MEAN and don’t judge the nezxt girl you meet or the next girl who writes to you online by any othyer girl you’ e met or dated. Be kind – it’s easy…..
I don’t think there’s any reason to be mean, I agree. You don’t see me using words like “fatties” or generally even “fat chicks” or anything like that. On the other hand, just honestly discussing what you want in a partner can sort-of be offensive as well, but everyone has the right to be picky.
I don’t think it is really bad to have requirements, or even your requirements growing as your get older and learn more about yourself. For me it is really just a question of knowing who is right for me, whom I’d be able to commit to and be happy with. Yes some of my requirements are v. superficial but I make no bones about being a typical shallow guy. Plus I am a little paranoid about divorce, my parents divorced when I was in fifth grade.
There was this interesting Modern Love column in today’s Times by a black single mom in her 40s describing how she came to realize a white man wouldn’t be right for her. I’m the kid of an interracial couple, dating strictly within one’s race seems awful limiting to me, but it is hard to argue with her reasoning if you read it. She just knew herself.
I agree with what you say. No reason to be mean. If you aren’t attracted to fat people, don’t date them, but don’t spend all your time bitter about their existence when you have your own problems. I wish more guys on the internet understood that.