FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Man to woman ratio on here
Man to woman ratio on here
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
(((HIGH FIVE))) | |||
"I wouldn't be surprised if it were closer to 20:1 bro. It's a good thing they have three holes yo!!!
(((HIGH FIVE)))"Them bishes need makin airtight dog! Sorry, thought we were getting all street. Word. | |||
 | |||
"I wouldn't be surprised if it were closer to 20:1 bro. It's a good thing they have three holes yo!!!
(((HIGH FIVE)))
Them bishes need makin airtight dog!
Sorry, thought we were getting all street. Word. "Innit cuz! | |||
"I wouldn't be surprised if it were closer to 20:1 bro. It's a good thing they have three holes yo!!!
(((HIGH FIVE)))
Them bishes need makin airtight dog!
Sorry, thought we were getting all street. Word.
Innit cuz!"As my boy Lethal Bizzle would say, Dench. | |||
"What does everyone think the man to woman ratio is on here. I do feel sorry for the women they just get mass of messages. I would have a pop at 7:1" Ooh, sympathy! 
Does this mean I can ask hot hottie blokes for sympathy shags? | |||
 | |||
"What does everyone think the man to woman ratio is on here. I do feel sorry for the women they just get mass of messages. I would have a pop at 7:1" That's right! Ignore the couples! No wonder they're the most marginalised, ignored and under-represented segment on the site! 
 
A | |||
| |||
"What does everyone think the man to woman ratio is on here. I do feel sorry for the women they just get mass of messages. I would have a pop at 7:1 Ooh, sympathy!
Does this mean I can ask hot hottie blokes for sympathy shags?"You sure can, not sure I qualify though x | |||
"What does everyone think the man to woman ratio is on here. I do feel sorry for the women they just get mass of messages. I would have a pop at 7:1 Ooh, sympathy!
Does this mean I can ask hot hottie blokes for sympathy shags?
You sure can, not sure I qualify though x"Maybe. If you weren't 400 miles away! | |||
"What does everyone think the man to woman ratio is on here. I do feel sorry for the women they just get mass of messages. I would have a pop at 7:1 Ooh, sympathy!
Does this mean I can ask hot hottie blokes for sympathy shags?
I'm sure we can work something out x
You sure can, not sure I qualify though x
Maybe. If you weren't 400 miles away! " | |||
| |||
| |||
"Don't feel sorry for me. I'm having a ball "Only 1, shouldn't it be at least 2? Lol | |||
"48 women on meet today so far and 300+ guys Would be interesting to know what the ratio actually is for site numbers " I've always felt the ratios are irrelevant. More choice for single females and couples looking for men. And motivation to put some effort in and stand out for the single guys. A good profile, whether single of either sex or couple, will generally do well and enjoy life on site so the numbers don't mean much. A | |||
| |||
| |||
In terms of a "Mr. Right" I've been told I fit that criteria in different aspects. Much like any other man would depending on the woman's preferences and desires. | |||
 | |||
 | |||
"In a way I don't think it matters, too much. When you look at single guys' profiles, so many are lacklustre, no pics or just pics of their cocks, 1 line of blurb. The ratio between serious contenders for meets is a lot lower than that of men to ladies. "Ha, I bet you that ratio is still inverted! | |||
 | |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area? "10:1 who have logged in in the last day - all the men, just over 30 women. But as I say, how many of those are the 'unevolved'?? | |||
| |||
"What does everyone think the man to woman ratio is on here. I do feel sorry for the women they just get mass of messages. I would have a pop at 7:1" It depends on how you measure as there are men who are really boys and far from being men, there are men who dress in frocks who want to be women there are men who have a woman's profile for what knows reason and there are women who look like men.  | |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area?
10:1 who have logged in in the last day - all the men, just over 30 women.
But as I say, how many of those are the 'unevolved'??"Well if you were inclined to go through and sort out the one liner cock pic profiles from the good ones then yes, that ratio will improve. But then you'd have to do the same for the women too so probably not by as much as you imagine. | |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area?
10:1 who have logged in in the last day - all the men, just over 30 women.
But as I say, how many of those are the 'unevolved'??
Well if you were inclined to go through and sort out the one liner cock pic profiles from the good ones then yes, that ratio will improve. But then you'd have to do the same for the women too so probably not by as much as you imagine. "I might actually try that later. Bust out an Excel spreadsheet and make a pie chart. That's how I roll! | |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area?
10:1 who have logged in in the last day - all the men, just over 30 women.
But as I say, how many of those are the 'unevolved'??
Well if you were inclined to go through and sort out the one liner cock pic profiles from the good ones then yes, that ratio will improve. But then you'd have to do the same for the women too so probably not by as much as you imagine. "Yes, but my point is the profile does not maketh the man! Some of the 'best' profiles have been created by the most devious shits, and some of my best meets have been with guys who have one line profiles. You just can't tell!!  | |||
 | |||
| |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area? "I tried this within 20miles Using the same filters it was 300+ men (looking at the 10pages of men all 300 had been online within the last hour) 112 women (logged in in the last week) So I decided to check how many women had been on within the last hour and it was 35 Don't have a definite answer to either of the searches for men as the maximum it shows is 300 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Don't feel sorry for me. I'm having a ball
Only 1, shouldn't it be at least 2? Lol"oh if I counted them all up I'd run out of toes | |||
"I tried even narrower search parameters, searching for people within 5 miles of my postcode who are the same age as me. I got: 6 men looking for women 1 woman looking for a man (me) 1 woman looking for a woman (also me) 3 MF couples looking for a woman 3 MF couples looking for a man. From this very small cohort I would surmise that there are 3 times as many couples as single girls, twice as many single men as couples and 6 times more single men than girls. And yet I'll travel for a guy I want. "I'm going to do that too | |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area?
I tried this within 20miles
Using the same filters it was
300+ men (looking at the 10pages of men all 300 had been online within the last hour)
112 women (logged in in the last week)
So I decided to check how many women had been on within the last hour and it was 35
Don't have a definite answer to either of the searches for men as the maximum it shows is 300"If you go to page 10 of the results and keep clicking 'next' you can find out how many more pages there are. | |||
| |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area?
I tried this within 20miles
Using the same filters it was
300+ men (looking at the 10pages of men all 300 had been online within the last hour)
112 women (logged in in the last week)
So I decided to check how many women had been on within the last hour and it was 35
Don't have a definite answer to either of the searches for men as the maximum it shows is 300
If you go to page 10 of the results and keep clicking 'next' you can find out how many more pages there are."When I got to page 10 there was no 'next' button just 'prev' | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area?
I tried this within 20miles
Using the same filters it was
300+ men (looking at the 10pages of men all 300 had been online within the last hour)
112 women (logged in in the last week)
So I decided to check how many women had been on within the last hour and it was 35
Don't have a definite answer to either of the searches for men as the maximum it shows is 300
If you go to page 10 of the results and keep clicking 'next' you can find out how many more pages there are.
When I got to page 10 there was no 'next' button just 'prev' "Then you only had 300! | |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area?
I tried this within 20miles
Using the same filters it was
300+ men (looking at the 10pages of men all 300 had been online within the last hour)
112 women (logged in in the last week)
So I decided to check how many women had been on within the last hour and it was 35
Don't have a definite answer to either of the searches for men as the maximum it shows is 300
If you go to page 10 of the results and keep clicking 'next' you can find out how many more pages there are.
When I got to page 10 there was no 'next' button just 'prev'
Then you only had 300!"I don't think so, it definitely said 300+ and those 10 pages were within the last hour! I don't think all the men in my area will have been on in that hour and none been online more than an hour ago! | |||
 x x X | |||
"I've just done some research based in my local area, because it's lunchtime and I'm bored. This was for people within 20 miles of IV1. First, Men looking for women=300+ Second, women looking for men=155 I didn't feel that was useful as a comparison so I checked the boxes to display only those verified and with public pics so we could assume they are somewhat active. Men=232 (of which only 176 logged in within last week) Women=30 (of which only 19 had logged in within the last day, then there was a massive jump to 4 months since last login!) So that looks to be a ratio of around 8:1 in my area for those I would consider active users. If you've lost the will to live, why not give it a try in your area? "Within 20 miles of my postal code: Men, 18-99, looking for women, verified and with public photos: more than 300 The first 300 (that's all the search will display) have all logged on within the last 11 hours. Same search above, but with at least one verification y meeting ticked too: more than 300. The first 300 of those have all logged on within 3 days. Women, 18-99, looking for men, verified and with public photos: more than 300: 65 49 have logged on within a week. A further 7 have logged in within a month. 2 last logged in over a year ago. Same search above, but with at least one verification y meeting ticked too: 58 Of those 51 have been online within the last month with 44 having been online with the last week. Again, 2 have not been online in over a year. So, in summary.... Since the search for men cuts off at 300, and I can't be bothered to do it by separate age groups at the moment, it's not possible to tell what the local ratio is. I can conclude there are a fuck of a lot more men looking for women than there are women looking for men locally. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Strewth VV! I thought I was bored but that's incredibly thorough. Do you have OCD? "Er yeah, just slightly Ask Ryan or Lickety about my books/CDs/DVDs!
I was waiting for computery stuff to happen, and I needed to be on hand to click "yes", "no" and "yes I really am certain" at various points, so I did that at the same time.
It actually didn't take that long.
Plus I encountered a few really scorching hot local guys Just waiting to hear how they feel about lardyarse stroppy nightowls with chronic OCD | |||
"Strewth VV! I thought I was bored but that's incredibly thorough. Do you have OCD? "Besides, I had to atone for the error in my first post. "Women, 18-99, looking for men, verified and with public photos: more than 300: 65" should, of course, read: Women, 18-99, looking for men, verified and with public photos: 65 | |||
| |||
"Be glad I haven't posted all the other "interesting observations" I made after compiling the numbers... "Go on, you know you want to.... Besides, I'm intrigued now and yours is rapidly becoming the seminal work in this field. You should publish a paper in Swinger monthly. | |||
"Be glad I haven't posted all the other "interesting observations" I made after compiling the numbers...
Go on, you know you want to....
Besides, I'm intrigued now and yours is rapidly becoming the seminal work in this field. You should publish a paper in Swinger monthly. "None of it means anything useful. I'd have to look at how long accounts in each category had existed and the like to draw worthwhile conclusions. But, for example, for the categories from 18-59, for those verified but not necessarily by a meet, the numbers of men in each category is about 10x the number of women. After 60 the ratio changes dramatically. Of course, the age divisions I used are pretty arbitrary. I only had to get a result of less than 300 accounts in each. So it's an interesting quirk rather than anything useful. In the 18-29 category only about half the verified accounts are verified by a meet. That gave me pause for thought. We know from the posts on here that young guys can find it difficult to get meets (for whatever reason - there are lots, as we all know) so it may be that. Or perhaps the site is growing in popularity with younger men and many of the accounts are fairly new. Naturally there are faaar fewer female profiles and the majority of verified women are meet verified. I doubt anyone finds that surprising | |||
| |||
" Lies, damn lies and statistics.....make em say what you want." Not quite true, I want them to say what next weeks lottery numbers will be, but they refuse! Damn statistics
Bottom line is we don't care, looking for couples who are looking for this couple and in each category for that search the ratio was in our favour. | |||
| |||
"Be glad I haven't posted all the other "interesting observations" I made after compiling the numbers...
Go on, you know you want to....
Besides, I'm intrigued now and yours is rapidly becoming the seminal work in this field. You should publish a paper in Swinger monthly.
None of it means anything useful. I'd have to look at how long accounts in each category had existed and the like to draw worthwhile conclusions.
But, for example, for the categories from 18-59, for those verified but not necessarily by a meet, the numbers of men in each category is about 10x the number of women. After 60 the ratio changes dramatically.
Of course, the age divisions I used are pretty arbitrary. I only had to get a result of less than 300 accounts in each. So it's an interesting quirk rather than anything useful.
In the 18-29 category only about half the verified accounts are verified by a meet. That gave me pause for thought. We know from the posts on here that young guys can find it difficult to get meets (for whatever reason - there are lots, as we all know) so it may be that. Or perhaps the site is growing in popularity with younger men and many of the accounts are fairly new.
Naturally there are faaar fewer female profiles and the majority of verified women are meet verified. I doubt anyone finds that surprising "No, that's hardly surprising at all. But I think it's an interesting snapshot of the Fab world you've done there, nice effort | |||
"Be glad I haven't posted all the other "interesting observations" I made after compiling the numbers...
Go on, you know you want to....
Besides, I'm intrigued now and yours is rapidly becoming the seminal work in this field. You should publish a paper in Swinger monthly.
None of it means anything useful. I'd have to look at how long accounts in each category had existed and the like to draw worthwhile conclusions.
But, for example, for the categories from 18-59, for those verified but not necessarily by a meet, the numbers of men in each category is about 10x the number of women. After 60 the ratio changes dramatically.
Of course, the age divisions I used are pretty arbitrary. I only had to get a result of less than 300 accounts in each. So it's an interesting quirk rather than anything useful.
In the 18-29 category only about half the verified accounts are verified by a meet. That gave me pause for thought. We know from the posts on here that young guys can find it difficult to get meets (for whatever reason - there are lots, as we all know) so it may be that. Or perhaps the site is growing in popularity with younger men and many of the accounts are fairly new.
Naturally there are faaar fewer female profiles and the majority of verified women are meet verified. I doubt anyone finds that surprising
No, that's hardly surprising at all. But I think it's an interesting snapshot of the Fab world you've done there, nice effort "Worryingly I am wondering how the trends change with distance from this locus. | |||
| |||
"OK, I lied, I can be bothered... Within 20 miles of my post code: Men (Verified and with public pics) 18-29: 127 (1 week 86, 1 month 10, over a year 14) 30-39: 196 (1 week 145, 1 month 16, over a year 19) 40-59: 298 (1 week 230, 1 month 20, over a year 17) 60-79: 23 (1 week 16, 1 month 2, over a year 3) 80-99: 0 Men (Verified by a meet and with public pics) 18-29: 63 (1 week 52, 1 month 3, over a year 5) 30-39: 134 (1 week 109, 1 month 11, over a year 8) 40-59: 217 (1 week 176, 1 month 13, over a year 9) 60-79: 14 (1 week 12, 1 month 1, over a year 0) 80-99: 0 Women (Verified and with public pics) 18-29: 12 (1 week 9, 1 month 2, over a year 0) 30-39: 18 (1 week 13, 1 month 1, over a year 1) 40-59: 34 (1 week 25, 1 month 4, over a year 1) 60-79: 1 (1 week 1, 1 month 0, over a year 0) 80-99: 0 Women (Verified by a meet and with public pics) 18-29: 10 (1 week 9, 1 month 1, over a year 0) 30-39: 16 (1 week 11, 1 month 1, over a year 1) 40-59: 31 (1 week 23, 1 month 4, over a year 1) 60-79: 1 (1 week 1, 1 month 0, over a year 0) 80-99: 0 These numbers will exclude hidden profiles, of course. So, Active single male profiles can be counted at somewhere between 377 and 644, depending on your criteria. Active single profiles can be counted at 50-65, again, depending on what you call "active". The ratio of men looking for women:women looking for men is somewhere between 10:1 and 7:1" Hire this woman as a secretary | |||
