[peterthephoenix]

Apparently this list was put out by Men's Health.

http://www.winggirlmethod.com/best-worst...ble-women/

But when I saw this:

Quote:

Most Eligible Women:

1. Washington, DC A+
2. Portland, ME A+
3. Boston, MA A

I puked in my mouth. Half of this forum has topics about running away from D.C.

[Christian McQueen]

If I'm not mistaken, Winggirlmethod is advice from a chick...? It's been said a thousand times on this forum: Do not take game advice from a chick. Period.

My Top 3 Picks:

-Los Angeles in sheer quantity of available attractive women.
-Las Vegas because fly girls from all over the world visit and the slogan "What Happens In Vegas Stays In Vegas". If a guy can't get laid in Vegas, there's no hope for him.
-Miami for my type: models

[teh_skeeze]

Jersey City over Miami. I DON'T THINK SO.

I also find it odd that they list Jersey City and Newark (two fairly shitty cities) but not Hoboken (NYC lite).

[scorpio]

The Worst

Cities:

Salt Lake City, UT - Mormon.
San Jose - Too many nerdy guys chasing too few girls. It's actually a cakewalk if you're attractive though.
Boston, San Francisco, Seattle - Like DC, too many overeducated womyn.

The worst thing about these regions:
New England - Unattractive women; tight-knit culture
Pacific Northwest - Attractive girls are off the market by 23 or so, if not younger. Tons of leftover single moms w/ drama.

[Timoteo]

(Study: ratio of single women to single men, the percentage of college-educated women, the percentage of gainfully employed single women (all from the Census), and the number who work out)

By this criteria, maybe Vegas doesn't make the most-eligible list based on who LIVES there, not by who flies in to party.

[Sparks123]

The criteria used to make this list is horrendous. "Ratio of single women to single men," but that doesn't mention that a 45-year old spinster counts the same as 20-year old. The percentage of college-educated women? Other than maybe they're a little sluttier, what's the advantage to that?

The number I would most be interested in seeing what US cities have the highest percentage of unmarried women under 30. The obesity rate for women under 30 would also be useful.

[el mechanico]

Cleveland..Way under rated. Nice cute friendly girls everywhere. Tampa bay has sluts but no real LTR stuff

[alphamale87]

(03-19-2012 09:00 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Cleveland..Way under rated. Nice cute friendly girls everywhere. Tampa bay has sluts but no real LTR stuff

Ohio? You've got to be kidding me. But you're spot on about Tampa Bay, so many sluts showing every inch of skin they possibly can.

My top 3 based on experience:
1) LA
2) Miami
3) NYC

[speakeasy]

(03-19-2012 08:54 PM)Sparks123 Wrote:  

The criteria used to make this list is horrendous. "Ratio of single women to single men," but that doesn't mention that a 45-year old spinster counts the same as 20-year old. The percentage of college-educated women? Other than maybe they're a little sluttier, what's the advantage to that?

The number I would most be interested in seeing what US cities have the highest percentage of unmarried women under 30. The obesity rate for women under 30 would also be useful.

I agree totally. These surveys don't mean very much as we need more precise data sets. Number of women under 30, male/female ratio for younger people, obesity rates, and a score for the general attractiveness of the local population.

I think some of you guys are overhyping LA a bit. The general attractiveness of the women isn't much above average unless you are at one of the clubs in Hollywood that the hotties congregate. On top of that there are way more guys than women. It's not like Russia where there's lots of hotties and there are literally an oversupply of them relative to men. The top tier women here are pretty hard to get at unless you are paying bottle service at Playhouse or Drais and all that shit or connected to a social network with many hot girls.

Not long ago I was driving around with someone visiting LA for the first time. She said she was a bit surprised how "average" looking the population was(at least the people out and about during the day), she was expecting a bunch of Kim Kardashians everywhere given the hype.

[Sparks123]

(03-19-2012 09:51 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 08:54 PM)Sparks123 Wrote:  

The criteria used to make this list is horrendous. "Ratio of single women to single men," but that doesn't mention that a 45-year old spinster counts the same as 20-year old. The percentage of college-educated women? Other than maybe they're a little sluttier, what's the advantage to that?

The number I would most be interested in seeing what US cities have the highest percentage of unmarried women under 30. The obesity rate for women under 30 would also be useful.

I agree totally. These surveys don't mean very much as we need more precise data sets. Number of women under 30, male/female ratio for younger people, obesity rates, and a score for the general attractiveness of the local population.

I did a little digging and found a list of cities with populations of at least 10,000 where the highest percentage of the 18-34 female population has never been married. Not too surprisingly, the top of the list was dominated by college towns. The highest city over 300,000 was Boston followed by DC, Baltimore and Detroit. (Not exactly the pick-up capitals of America)

Another interesting, probably better list was the list of zip codes with the most alcohol drinking places as of 2005. The top zip codes were in Austin, New York (Union Square/NYU area), New Orleans and Chicago.

I can't posts the links because I don't have enough posts but you can find the lists at city-data.com

[Deluge]

So wait. Washington D.C is number 1 but Las Vegas is 100? For a second I genuinely thought that list was upside down.

[InternationPlayboy]

(03-19-2012 09:14 PM)alphamale87 Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 09:00 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Cleveland..Way under rated. Nice cute friendly girls everywhere. Tampa bay has sluts but no real LTR stuff

Ohio? You've got to be kidding me. But you're spot on about Tampa Bay, so many sluts showing every inch of skin they possibly can.

My top 3 based on experience:
1) LA
2) Miami
3) NYC

If you considered "Wife" or "LTR" type as what an eligible women would be, Miami is going to be last on my list. Lots of nice girls to look at, but their attitudes are by far the worse or anywhere I've ever been.

[phoenix101]

I struggled with how to arrange this data, and I left out the margin of error (usually around +/- 3% on the larger numbers and +/- 10-20+% on much smaller populations) but this is 2010 unmarried data for each area:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bx44f4-...c3FZSmhQZw
[/quote]

Edit: 1- LOL, DC has better ratios compared to other states! What are you guys complaining about! j/k

2- Just noticed that the age range might be a bit too wide at 20 to 34 range but that is the best data I could find so far.

3 - This 2010 data shows 3.93M million more single men between 20 and 34. 2009 data I compiled a while ago is pretty close at 3.787M men so at least something is in line.


United States (2009 Census)_____20 to 24____25 to 29___30 to 34
Never Legally Married-Male_____9,055,000___6,626,000___3,345,000
Never Legally Married-Female__7,893,000___4,803,000___2,543,000
__Excess Males______________1,162,000___1,823,000___802,000
_______________________________14.7%______38.0%____31.5%

[germanico]

(03-19-2012 07:32 PM)peterthephoenix Wrote:  

Apparently this list was put out by Men's Health.

Apparently, Men's Health is edited by eunuchs.

[Deluge]

(03-20-2012 01:26 AM)germanico Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 07:32 PM)peterthephoenix Wrote:  

Apparently this list was put out by Men's Health.

Apparently, Men's Health is edited by eunuchs.

All "mainstream" magazines are full of total shit. I think it's a good thing that we regularly ridicule the crap they pass off as "advice" here on the Forum. My heart goes out to those men who took this list into consideration when they chose to move to D.C.

[phoenix101]

30 Best and worst cities, and the 20 largest cities not included in best and worst cities for unmarried men/women from ages 20 to 34:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?...U1sTDZTMHc

Top 5 worst with less than 420 unmarried women per 1,000 men:
Jacksonville city, North Carolina
Folsom city, California
Milpitas city, California
Vacaville city, California
Rapid City city, South Dakota

Top 5 best with more than 1,300 women per 1,000 men:
Lynn city, Massachusetts
Medford city, Oregon
Evanston city, Illinois
Lorain city, Ohio
Brownsville city, Texas

Data was not available for about 60 cities. Cities above have small population of unmarried people. I was going to post county ratios but narrowed it down to cities.
Take it with a grain of salt. There is a small % margin of error that I ignored.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-20-2012 01:36 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 01:26 AM)germanico Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 07:32 PM)peterthephoenix Wrote:  

Apparently this list was put out by Men's Health.

Apparently, Men's Health is edited by eunuchs.

All "mainstream" magazines are full of total shit. I think it's a good thing that we regularly ridicule the crap they pass off as "advice" here on the Forum. My heart goes out to those men who took this list into consideration when they chose to move to D.C.

AskMen, Maxim, Men's Health, they all suck. They remind me of what conservatives were saying about Newt Gingrich - the left hates him because they think he's conservative, and then he doesn't actually *do* anything conservative. So he gets all the hate and no action. Same with these mags - you know there are feminists somewhere calling them chauvinistic, misogynistic, shallow, etc. So these mags incite the hatred of men, yet they don't even accomplish anything.

Those mags also make almost all their money off ads. So they're constantly pushing unnecessary consumption, while trying not run any genuinely controversial content that would piss off their advertisers. It'd be interesting to see if the iPad enables subscription supported magazines with better quality and more editorial independence.

[Sparks123]

If I were better at statistics, I’d come up with some sort of formula, but this is what I’d put into it in order of importance:
1)Population: This is the most important, it’s a numbers game over everything else.
2)Walking score: Essential for daygaming (and even night game because you don’t want to drive from bar to bar). Also, people who live in high walking score cities are more likely to be in decent shape.
3)Lowest difference between January and July average temperature: You want a city with a nice, year-long climate that keeps you and the girls active. (San Francisco or if you like it a little hotter, LA or Miami)
4)Percentage of 18 to 24 year olds
5)Highest percentage of females 18-34 who have never been married.

I don’t think the level of unmarried men to unmarried women is that important, most men are choads and they are not your competition. The raw number of single women 18-34 is much more important.

US News put out a list of Top US Nightlife Cities which seems pretty solid: 1) NYC, 2) Las Vegas, 3) LA, 4) Chicago, 5) Miami Beach, 6) San Francisco, 7) Philadelphia, 8) New Orleans, 9) Portland, OR, 10) Austin
I disagree with putting Philly at #7 but that might be me being biased from having lived here too long.

[PDX]

[cibo]

(03-20-2012 11:23 AM)Sparks123 Wrote:  

If I were better at statistics, I’d come up with some sort of formula, but this is what I’d put into it in order of importance:
1)Population: This is the most important, it’s a numbers game over everything else.
2)Walking score: Essential for daygaming (and even night game because you don’t want to drive from bar to bar). Also, people who live in high walking score cities are more likely to be in decent shape.
3)Lowest difference between January and July average temperature: You want a city with a nice, year-long climate that keeps you and the girls active. (San Francisco or if you like it a little hotter, LA or Miami)
4)Percentage of 18 to 24 year olds
5)Highest percentage of females 18-34 who have never been married.

I don’t think the level of unmarried men to unmarried women is that important, most men are choads and they are not your competition. The raw number of single women 18-34 is much more important.

US News put out a list of Top US Nightlife Cities which seems pretty solid: 1) NYC, 2) Las Vegas, 3) LA, 4) Chicago, 5) Miami Beach, 6) San Francisco, 7) Philadelphia, 8) New Orleans, 9) Portland, OR, 10) Austin
I disagree with putting Philly at #7 but that might be me being biased from having lived here too long.

There are different methods to approach this. The fact most of these facets have to be subjectively valuated against an unknown city score, you need a overall score to determine what variables explain the score, means I wouldn't use a pure statistical model for this.

I would use a decision model with a 1-10 criteria defined. Based on your rankings, on average, your weights are this:

Population45.7%
Walking Score25.7%
Temp varance15.7%
% of 18-249.0%
% of females 18-34 Never married4.0%

Define what scores 1-10 are and there you go.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-20-2012 08:14 PM)cibo Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 11:23 AM)Sparks123 Wrote:  

If I were better at statistics, I’d come up with some sort of formula, but this is what I’d put into it in order of importance:
1)Population: This is the most important, it’s a numbers game over everything else.
2)Walking score: Essential for daygaming (and even night game because you don’t want to drive from bar to bar). Also, people who live in high walking score cities are more likely to be in decent shape.
3)Lowest difference between January and July average temperature: You want a city with a nice, year-long climate that keeps you and the girls active. (San Francisco or if you like it a little hotter, LA or Miami)
4)Percentage of 18 to 24 year olds
5)Highest percentage of females 18-34 who have never been married.

I don’t think the level of unmarried men to unmarried women is that important, most men are choads and they are not your competition. The raw number of single women 18-34 is much more important.

US News put out a list of Top US Nightlife Cities which seems pretty solid: 1) NYC, 2) Las Vegas, 3) LA, 4) Chicago, 5) Miami Beach, 6) San Francisco, 7) Philadelphia, 8) New Orleans, 9) Portland, OR, 10) Austin
I disagree with putting Philly at #7 but that might be me being biased from having lived here too long.

There are different methods to approach this. The fact most of these facets have to be subjectively valuated against an unknown city score, you need a overall score to determine what variables explain the score, means I wouldn't use a pure statistical model for this.

I would use a decision model with a 1-10 criteria defined. Based on your rankings, on average, your weights are this:

Population46%
Walking Score26%
Temp variance16%
% of 18-249%
% of females 18-34 Never married4%

Define what scores 1-10 are and there you go.

I'm decent at statistics, and this isn't really the place for them. It's such a qualitative comparison, evaluating things that aren't always easily quantified, or the stats simple haven't been collected. It's like comparing paintings by analyzing the number and color of brush strokes in each work.

And, you just don't know the effect of things until you feel them in person. Like a high number of unmarried women. That might correspond with a high number of unmarried men. According to the blog Ratio Factor, these men are a primary factor behind cockfests. In short, men over 30 continue going out, when the women don't.

[cibo]

(03-20-2012 09:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 08:14 PM)cibo Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 11:23 AM)Sparks123 Wrote:  

If I were better at statistics, I’d come up with some sort of formula, but this is what I’d put into it in order of importance:
1)Population: This is the most important, it’s a numbers game over everything else.
2)Walking score: Essential for daygaming (and even night game because you don’t want to drive from bar to bar). Also, people who live in high walking score cities are more likely to be in decent shape.
3)Lowest difference between January and July average temperature: You want a city with a nice, year-long climate that keeps you and the girls active. (San Francisco or if you like it a little hotter, LA or Miami)
4)Percentage of 18 to 24 year olds
5)Highest percentage of females 18-34 who have never been married.

I don’t think the level of unmarried men to unmarried women is that important, most men are choads and they are not your competition. The raw number of single women 18-34 is much more important.

US News put out a list of Top US Nightlife Cities which seems pretty solid: 1) NYC, 2) Las Vegas, 3) LA, 4) Chicago, 5) Miami Beach, 6) San Francisco, 7) Philadelphia, 8) New Orleans, 9) Portland, OR, 10) Austin
I disagree with putting Philly at #7 but that might be me being biased from having lived here too long.

There are different methods to approach this. The fact most of these facets have to be subjectively valuated against an unknown city score, you need a overall score to determine what variables explain the score, means I wouldn't use a pure statistical model for this.

I would use a decision model with a 1-10 criteria defined. Based on your rankings, on average, your weights are this:

Population46%
Walking Score26%
Temp variance16%
% of 18-249%
% of females 18-34 Never married4%

Define what scores 1-10 are and there you go.

I'm decent at statistics, and this isn't really the place for them. It's such a qualitative comparison, evaluating things that aren't always easily quantified, or the stats simple haven't been collected. It's like comparing paintings by analyzing the number and color of brush strokes in each work.

And, you just don't know the effect of things until you feel them in person. Like a high number of unmarried women. That might correspond with a high number of unmarried men. According to the blog Ratio Factor, these men are a primary factor behind cockfests. In short, men over 30 continue going out, when the women don't.

I just put some quick numbers to sparks stuff. The weights %'s I put are not statistics based, they're just averaging decision weights,which is basically means I'm guessing his weights by his rankings (~87% accurate). For scores, you can put down whatever you feel is a 1 or a 10 based on your own choice. Hell, it can be low/med/high if you want.

If we wanted to do a statistics model, we would need qualitative scores collected like you would a survey (which in this case would be determined by a good of experts, e.g. this forum) and the demographic quantitative variables. The rest of the problems would be noticed by the modeling process (mutil-correlation checks, significance tests,etc.). This would create a forum consensus model.

Now for me, my personal view of what determines a good city to meet eligible chicks is:

Culture(friendly, feminism,dtf, etc.) 26.0%
Obesity score 23.4%
18-35 Sex Ratio 20.8%
weather/environment13.0%
% of female population 18-2611.7%
Walking Score 5.2%

[speakeasy]

(03-20-2012 09:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

And, you just don't know the effect of things until you feel them in person. Like a high number of unmarried women. That might correspond with a high number of unmarried men. According to the blog Ratio Factor, these men are a primary factor behind cockfests. In short, men over 30 continue going out, when the women don't.

I hadn't really thought about that before, but the article is true. Most my 30+ guy friends that are single still want to go out to try and meet women. Most the female friends I know that are 30+ and single either stay home or only go out on designated girl's nights like someone's birthday. Or they just get their girlfriends together and go out for dinner and then go home. They seem to either rely on dating sites or social network only.

[tomtud]

(03-21-2012 12:46 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 09:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

And, you just don't know the effect of things until you feel them in person. Like a high number of unmarried women. That might correspond with a high number of unmarried men. According to the blog Ratio Factor, these men are a primary factor behind cockfests. In short, men over 30 continue going out, when the women don't.

I hadn't really thought about that before, but the article is true. Most my 30+ guy friends that are single still want to go out to try and meet women. Most the female friends I know that are 30+ and single either stay home or only go out on designated girl's nights like someone's birthday. Or they just get their girlfriends together and go out for dinner and then go home. They seem to either rely on dating sites or social network only.

Speakeasy. You hit the nail on the Head. They are followers and will be the most miserable or have a higher rate of failure in future relationships IMHO. They typically will go to a friends house who is already taken, and waste their time and not meet men. Men are in bars and clubs ladies. Yes clubs aren't the best, but where else on a weekend night can you typically meet men. Everywhere, but lots of men in clubs for sure.

Their social network is limited by doing this. But it will be too late if you try to tell a woman this as they aren't logically thinkers. As I aforementioned they are followers. They go to washrooms together in clubs, they follow the "leader" of the group to wherever she wants to go out etc.

As for meeting eligible women, each city does have places where they do go. Even here in the gulf middle east, you can meet eligible women.

[Timoteo]

(03-23-2012 12:05 PM)tomtud Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 12:46 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 09:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

And, you just don't know the effect of things until you feel them in person. Like a high number of unmarried women. That might correspond with a high number of unmarried men. According to the blog Ratio Factor, these men are a primary factor behind cockfests. In short, men over 30 continue going out, when the women don't.

I hadn't really thought about that before, but the article is true. Most my 30+ guy friends that are single still want to go out to try and meet women. Most the female friends I know that are 30+ and single either stay home or only go out on designated girl's nights like someone's birthday. Or they just get their girlfriends together and go out for dinner and then go home. They seem to either rely on dating sites or social network only.

Speakeasy. You hit the nail on the Head. They are followers and will be the most miserable or have a higher rate of failure in future relationships IMHO. They typically will go to a friends house who is already taken, and waste their time and not meet men. Men are in bars and clubs ladies. Yes clubs aren't the best, but where else on a weekend night can you typically meet men. Everywhere, but lots of men in clubs for sure.

Their social network is limited by doing this. But it will be too late if you try to tell a woman this as they aren't logically thinkers. As I aforementioned they are followers. They go to washrooms together in clubs, they follow the "leader" of the group to wherever she wants to go out etc.

As for meeting eligible women, each city does have places where they do go. Even here in the gulf middle east, you can meet eligible women.

True. Bitches complain, but won't take action. A few years ago my circle convened in Vegas for a bachelor party for one of the crew. One of our circle lives in Vegas, as has a ton of single girls in her crew. She was single for years, but got tired of it and found a guy she's been with for a couple of years now. Her girls were ALWAYS complaining, and over the years she's tried to hook them up with single guys she knows (one of my boys that's known her since college has smashed 5 or 6 of them over the years). Every time we get together in Vegas, she tells her girls she's bringing in solid, single dudes for them, so stop bitching and get some. At the bachelor thing, these bitches clung to the married dudes, even when cool single cats were trying to holler. They want to complain, but they are actually scared to try for a guy they'll actually have to do something for. They don't want the responsibility of an available man.