Why You're Still Single... (this might cheer you up!)

[Vyliss]

I posted this on reddit but didn't get much feedback there.. so here's my "theory" on why some people may still be "single" .. and why you really shouldn't feel too bad about it. Hopefully this will encourage and motivate you to keep getting out there.

 

Ok, so I had this theory floating around in my head for a while. Tonight I finally sat down and decided to try it out. I did it on myself and then on my husband. Our "numbers" were similar, so this got me very curious to see what other people's "dating to relationship" numbers were.

 

There might be a reason why you're "still single" and I'd like to see if I can use Math and Logic to pin point the reason.

 

Want to do this experiment with me? If anything, maybe just see if I'm onto something here or not.

 

There are 3 numbers you need to come up with, these are:

 

1. Total Prospect Number

2. Mutual Attraction Number

3. Committed Relationship Number

 

Let me explain how to add up your numbers because the criteria for adding up your numbers are VERY important.

 

(a) Total Prospect Number (only counted during periods you were SINGLE):

 

Number of men (or women) you've met who you've had at least a ONE hour conversation with in PERSON (either face to face or on the phone), or if online only, must have filled at least 5 (A4) pages of dialogue with.

 

This person must be 100% SINGLE and shown you at least "some" interest. "Some interest" meaning you met through an online dating site, a hook up site, they flirted with you, they setup a date and you said yes, or you setup a date and they said yes, they asked to meet for a coffee and you said yes or you asked and they said yes. They must have clearly been interested in you as more than just a friend.

 

**You can count people who started off as friends, and later confessed they wanted to be more. Also count those who started as friends, and it was YOU who confessed to want to be more.

 

(b) Mutual Attraction Number

 

Number of men (or women) who shared a MUTUAL attraction with you. This number will come out of (a).

 

Mutual attraction means: you liked them (more than friends) and they also liked you (as more than friends). Mutual attraction may mean a relationship was possible, or could also mean a relationship may not have been possible. Eg. if you're 60 years old and the person you liked was 20, you may have both liked each other but it doesn't mean you would have considered a relationship with that person. In this case, this person still counts.

 

© Committed Relationship Number

 

The number of people out of (b) who actually ended up in a committed relationship with you.

 

My ratios are:

 

(a) to (b) = 26% (1 out of 4 people had a mutual attraction with me).

(b) to © = 22% (1 out of 5 people who had a mutual attraction with me, lead to a committed relationship).

 

Interestingly, my husband - although his numbers were completely different from me, had similar ratios:

 

(a) to (b) = 27% (1 out of 3.7 people had a mutual attraction with him).

(b) to © = 20% (1 out of 5 people who had a mutual attraction with him, lead to a committed relationship).

 

Some other interesting facts about my numbers and my husband's numbers.

 

Mine was counted within a span of 3 years.

His was within a span of 9 months.

 

So, even though on paper I'd been dating longer. He actually dated and met a decent amount of women within that 9 months. I was surprised how the numbers worked out.

 

Also, both of our (a) numbers were roughly about ONE new person a month on average. Which means, we both talked to and met a hell out of a lot more people than that to get a high enough (a) number.

 

The length of time spent dating clearly does not matter.

 

What I'm curious about is the ratios.

 

How does yours look?

 

My theory is that.. if your (a) number is high, your (b) number should also be high. People don't choose to spend an hour or more talking to someone they don't have at least "some" connection or interest with.

 

HOWEVER. And here's what gets interesting, if your © number is LOW vs your (b) number, then something is really wrong here. Like perhaps you have commitment issues and/or you're also attracted to people who have commitment issues.

 

Also if you're still SINGLE and feel you're going to be single forever.. just take a look at your numbers.

 

Is your (a) number high? Like well in the double digits? If not, it just means you're not dating enough.

 

Please share your results, I'm really curious to know

[MetallicHue]

I’m thoroughly confused maybe because I’m tired. I’ve only dated one person and we got married. Is that 1 for a, b and c. No one else liked me. I’m just not a likable person

[ElKay]

Yeah, I've rarely had mutual attraction happen in real life, although maybe it would have happened if I went on OLD more.

[planb1973]

OK, I'll give this a go.

 

A: Probably around 50-60, will just call it 55

 

B: This one I see a flaw in. There are a number of women where there was enough mutual attraction that we had sex (My percentage of one night stands is very low so bear that in mind) but I did not want a relationship with and it was more of a FWB sort of thing.

So for the sake of this experiment I am going to say being sexual, or at minimum made out with more that once is my basis for mutual attraction.

45ish

 

C: As for women I have been with that it was known we were BF/GF

10 (I'm taking out extended relationships where "the talk" never happened.)

 

A to B: 81%

 

B to C: 22%

 

So from what I gather here, most women and I like each other enough for a date. Most of those women and I like each other enough that we want to "do it" more than once. Of those about 1:4/5 is there enough to give it a relationship a real shot.

 

Why am I single according to this?

Edited January 18, 2019 by planb1973
edit

[chillii]

No way l'm reading all that but yeah , l've known and watched long term single people .

Now this is just what l've thought and noticed my self but a couple of things.

They've had just odd personalities just in the relationship sense.

But eh , odds cool if you can find your matching odd.

Buttttt, they also seem to just have terrible pickers and lack the intuition of reading the opposite sex especially from a relationship or potential, point of view and don't seem to get it.

[Eternal Sunshine]

I will break this:

 

A) Number of prospects over 10 years: probably 200

B) Mutual attraction: 4 (2%)

Number of committed relationships out of B: 0 (0%)

 

I only had commited relationships with men I wasn’t that attracted to. I couldn’t get those I really liked so I attempted to push myself into relationships with men I was “meh” about. Never worked.

 

However, most of this was done through online dating so...

[5x5]

(a) Total Prospect Number (only counted during periods you were SINGLE):

 

Number of men (or women) you've met who you've had at least a ONE hour conversation with in PERSON (either face to face or on the phone), or if online only, must have filled at least 5 (A4) pages of dialogue with.

 

This person must be 100% SINGLE and shown you at least "some" interest. "Some interest" meaning you met through an online dating site, a hook up site, they flirted with you, they setup a date and you said yes, or you setup a date and they said yes, they asked to meet for a coffee and you said yes or you asked and they said yes. They must have clearly been interested in you as more than just a friend.

 

**You can count people who started off as friends, and later confessed they wanted to be more. Also count those who started as friends, and it was YOU who confessed to want to be more.

 

Your criteria for a prospects appears to be a bit narrow, and for those who one has no interest in too broad.

 

Is SINGLE simply not being married or engaged?

 

Does being divorced count as SINGLE?

 

Does being 100% SINGLE, include being in an ongoing dating or sexual relationship with someone else, yet not married to them?

 

Why should it be counted only while one is single?

 

What about me when I was married and certainly not SINGLE (although just seperated). Yet I was happy to say yes to women and to be in ongoing sexual relationships with some of them. Since I was done with my now ex-wife.

 

What about a woman (my now wife) who was in an ongoing sexual relationship with another man, who she wasn't married to and was not living with. Yet she asked me (me) out on a date, does she count as being 100% SINGLE or a prospect?

 

Or what about a woman who is a friend, that was married (just separated). Had sex with me at their initiation, and wanted to be with me in an ongoing relationship. Yet gets back together with her husband briefly, before separating again and then divorcing him. Following you not wanting to parent their kids, yet you would otherwise have happily chosen her?

 

What about the woman who I met at a pub one night? Who after speaking to her for less than ten minutes, I was having sex with her in that pub? Who I had/have no idea if she was single or not, the only thing I knew about her was her first name and her friends first name and what job she did. Was she a prospect or not, since the sex was very casual?

 

On the other hand my ex-wife and I shared sex (casually) with each other within a couple of hours of meeting each other at a party. There were no promises or plans, yet we ended up dating for at least 18 months before we got married.

 

So same sort of thing can happen, yet in one instance (at a party) it led to an ongoing sexual relationship. While in another instance it led me to never seeing her again, then having sex (the next day) with another woman that I met an hour after her.

 

I could be wrong, yet your criteria seems to discount my wife when we started dating. While it also discounts me at various times, plus some of my other previous ongoing and non-ongoing sexual partners as well.

 

For example my wife ( we've now been married for almost 20 years), was in a sexual relationship with another man. Yet she asked me out, then had sex with me and then dumped the other guy after I told her to dump him. Yet I don't think she fits your narrow definition of a prospect. Oh and for giggles when she asked me out, I was also dating/sleeping with another woman. Who I had previously dated/slept with, when I was still married though separated (almost divorced) from my ex-wife.

 

At the time, my now wife and I were not looking for anything else, except for some no strings sexual fun. Yet close to 23 years later after that first date, we're still sharing lots of sexual fun.

 

Oh and when I was a newly minted divorcee, I also had a brief sexual thing with a married woman who I had just met, although I let her go shortly after I was told she was married. She might have been a prospect, yet I don't think she was. Meeting her was one of those rare love/lust at first sight situations. Being in her presence and it was a mutual thing, felt like coming home.

 

As to those who confess their interest? Plenty of them ought to fall into the no prospects at all basket.

 

I remember one woman who asked me to take her virginity at a party, yet I turned her down (was interested in another woman). Yet even if I said yes, I wouldn't have been interested in being with her as an ongoing thing. Of which all she wanted was her cherry popped, so she wasn't wanting a relationship either. So neither of us were prospects in the ongoing sexual relationship sense. So does a person who wants to have sex with you, count as a prospect if they aren't looking for an ongoing sexual relationship?

 

I recall another woman who I had sex with at a party, who was keen to be with me on the next day. Yet I had zero interest in her, as an ongoing thing before during or after sex (despite the fact she was attractive). So to count me as a prospect for her is silly, since I just wanted sex with her and absolutely nothing more.

 

As to the numbers, unless someone keeps a detailed log of such things how on earth could one answer that?

 

The older one gets especially if one has had no trouble getting with people. The harder it must be to recall such numbers accurately.

 

1. Total Prospect Number

 

Who knows? there were certainly plenty of them?

 

2. Mutual Attraction Number

 

As above who knows? Yet that was plentiful as well.

 

3. Committed Relationship Number 3x through 30 years.

 

First lasting just over 2½ years before I ended it. Second lasting over 6 months before I ended it. With the third, so far lasting over 22½ years. All other sexual relationships were happily fleeting and casual.

 

At the end of the day though, I can't see how such numbers could possibly tell the following:

 

There might be a reason why you're "still single" and I'd like to see if I can use Math and Logic to pin point the reason.

[ExpatInItaly]

I'm not single now, but I could not begin to count the number of men I had a one-hour conversation with during the single periods of my life. Not because there were in the thousands or something, but because my memory isn't that good. We're talking periods of several months between relationships, stretching back more than 20 years ago when I first started dating in my mid-teens.

 

The only thing I could count with any degree of accuracy would be the number of committed relationships.

 

I think there are far too many variables for any such theory to really apply, and your parameters are a little arbitrary.

[some_username1]

Yeah I don't think the parameter definitions work, especially the middle one. It seems very nebulous, you like each other more than friends - but for how long?

 

My problem is that my pool (based on the last few years) would be something like 40 people, but I didn't like most of them after talking to them for an hour

 

4 of them I did and there was a further date or two until *they* realised that there was no mutual attraction on their side (more specifically they liked someone else more) so there were 0 resulting relationships. Which tells me I'm kinda picky and that the ones I do go for are all being chased by other guys at the same time.

 

I feel like I've just been told the sky is blue

[Nilfiry]

0 across the board. The real mathematical and logical reason why I am single is because there is statistically a 0.0005% or 1/2000 chance that I will meet someone that I would actually be interested in, and that is already being extremely liberal with the numbers.

 

I have astronomically strict standards, I know, but when you are like me and do not need relationships to make you feel happy, fulfilled, or whatever, then you can afford to be as strict as you want.

[Eternal Sunshine]

0 across the board. The real mathematical and logical reason why I am single is because there is statistically a 0.0005% or 1/2000 chance that I will meet someone that I would actually be interested in, and that is already being extremely liberal with the numbers.

 

I have astronomically strict standards, I know, but when you are like me and do not need relationships to make you feel happy, fulfilled, or whatever, then you can afford to be as strict as you want.

 

Exactly. Most people need companship of a relationship and hate being alone. Actually, in real life I have never met anyone who needs relationships less than I do. I would only give up my alone time for something truly amazing, and I haven’t met anyone that I’m truly interested in in many years, probably a decade.

[elaine567]

No way l'm reading all that but yeah , l've known and watched long term single people .

Now this is just what l've thought and noticed my self but a couple of things.

They've had just odd personalities just in the relationship sense.

But eh , odds cool if you can find your matching odd.

Buttttt, they also seem to just have terrible pickers and lack the intuition of reading the opposite sex especially from a relationship or potential, point of view and don't seem to get it.

...And they can often be incredibly picky.

Few "hopefuls" get to stage a) never mind b) or c).

 

I have a feeling it is due to not wanting to get hurt.

If you do not even try, you do not fail.

[Eternal Sunshine]

Definitely very odd personality. The closer you are to main-stream, the more people you will find compatible. I know this sounds bad, but I’m almost repelled by anything to do with pregnancy and human babies. I felt this way consistently since I was much younger. I adore kittens and puppies though

 

I don’t think there are many people that don’t find babies and toddlers at least cute, even those that don’t want children. I only feel endless annoyance when I see a child. It would be easy to conclude that I’m just not warm, giving and motherly type. Yet since I was a kid, I was saving injured birds and feeding street cats. I feel so much love for all animals. A street cat close to where I live just gave birth to kittens and I decided to take them until I find them homes. Their mum doesn’t like being indoors so she roams around but visits them every day. I find their bond so sweet

 

Anyway, real connection and having someone that understands me is almost impossible. Sorry for derailing the thread but OP, people are so much more complex, it’s impossible to fit them into 3 parameters.

[d0nnivain]

It all boils down to being a numbers game. If somebody is still single, they need to do everything in their power to increase what you call the "total prospect number." They need to meet more people & widen the circle of datable people in their lives. This requires more then sitting home & scrolling through a computer or phone & swiping.

[elaine567]

It all boils down to being a numbers game. If somebody is still single, they need to do everything in their power to increase what you call the "total prospect number." They need to meet more people & widen the circle of datable people in their lives. This requires more then sitting home & scrolling through a computer or phone & swiping.

 

 

Agreed and if we take the 1 in 4 or 5 to be somewhat average it takes a lot of people in a) to achieve c).

But of course if one filters a) at source, ie if you only spend time talking to guys/girls who ARE interested/interesting then that may cut the numbers

 

drastically

Of course it could then end up a=1 b=1 c=1

[Nilfiry]

... Actually, in real life I have never met anyone who needs relationships less than I do. I would only give up my alone time for something truly amazing, and I haven’t met anyone that I’m truly interested in in many years, probably a decade. ...

 

I know this sounds bad, but I’m almost repelled by anything to do with pregnancy and human babies. I felt this way consistently since I was much younger. I adore kittens and puppies though

 

I don’t think there are many people that don’t find babies and toddlers at least cute, even those that don’t want children. I only feel endless annoyance when I see a child. It would be easy to conclude that I’m just not warm, giving and motherly type. Yet since I was a kid, I was saving injured birds and feeding street cats. I feel so much love for all animals....

 

Le gasps! You are like me, only nicer because I would be too lazy to take care of animals. lol Also, not wanting children also drives down the potential matches significantly because most people eventually do want to have children.

[Vyliss]

Thanks everyone for responding

 

I have a lot to say about this haha. Anyway I'll try to answer those we took the time to do the experiment.

 

planb1973:

OK, I'll give this a go.

 

A: Probably around 50-60, will just call it 55

 

B: This one I see a flaw in. There are a number of women where there was enough mutual attraction that we had sex (My percentage of one night stands is very low so bear that in mind) but I did not want a relationship with and it was more of a FWB sort of thing.

So for the sake of this experiment I am going to say being sexual, or at minimum made out with more that once is my basis for mutual attraction.

45ish

 

C: As for women I have been with that it was known we were BF/GF

10 (I'm taking out extended relationships where "the talk" never happened.)

 

A to B: 81%

 

B to C: 22%

 

So from what I gather here, most women and I like each other enough for a date. Most of those women and I like each other enough that we want to "do it" more than once. Of those about 1:4/5 is there enough to give it a relationship a real shot.

 

Why am I single according to this?

 

Your number is also surprisingly close based on mine and my husbands.. The B to C number that is. Which confirms that 1 out of 5 mutual attractions leads to a relationship.

 

The reason this explains why you're single is that you just need to find more mutual attractions and the numbers should still "work out". This is more to give you some peace of mind of what your "pattern" of dating is.

 

I suspected everyone has their own "pattern" and the more crazy the pattern, the more it points to some logical flaws in the way you choose partners.

 

Eternal Sunshine:

 

I will break this:

 

A) Number of prospects over 10 years: probably 200

B) Mutual attraction: 4 (2%)

Number of committed relationships out of B: 0 (0%)

 

I only had commited relationships with men I wasn’t that attracted to. I couldn’t get those I really liked so I attempted to push myself into relationships with men I was “meh” about. Never worked.

 

However, most of this was done through online dating so...

 

Eternal... the fact that your A number is so wildly massive compared to your B number may point to some flaws in the way you're "picking" guys. And perhaps you're too quick to dismiss men before getting to know them. Is your criteria too narrow perhaps?

 

Also your B to C number is actually not too far off. The reason for no C number is because your B number is too low. But if your criteria for picking guys is really off than that's why in 10 years you've only had 4 mutual attractions.

 

5x5:

 

Your criteria for a prospects appears to be a bit narrow, and for those who one has no interest in too broad.

 

Is SINGLE simply not being married or engaged?

 

Does being divorced count as SINGLE?

 

Does being 100% SINGLE, include being in an ongoing dating or sexual relationship with someone else, yet not married to them?

 

Why should it be counted only while one is single?

 

What about me when I was married and certainly not SINGLE (although just seperated). Yet I was happy to say yes to women and to be in ongoing sexual relationships with some of them. Since I was done with my now ex-wife.

 

What about a woman (my now wife) who was in an ongoing sexual relationship with another man, who she wasn't married to and was not living with. Yet she asked me (me) out on a date, does she count as being 100% SINGLE or a prospect?

 

Or what about a woman who is a friend, that was married (just separated). Had sex with me at their initiation, and wanted to be with me in an ongoing relationship. Yet gets back together with her husband briefly, before separating again and then divorcing him. Following you not wanting to parent their kids, yet you would otherwise have happily chosen her?

 

What about the woman who I met at a pub one night? Who after speaking to her for less than ten minutes, I was having sex with her in that pub? Who I had/have no idea if she was single or not, the only thing I knew about her was her first name and her friends first name and what job she did. Was she a prospect or not, since the sex was very casual?

 

I guess one thing I didn't think about or factor in when I made the post is how much of a "sex first, date later" society we're in now.

 

Nothing wrong with that, but perhaps some clarification needs to be made if you don't do "traditional dating" but more just freestyling it.

 

 

(a) Total Prospect Number:

This number is the number of people you've been attracted to or they were attracted to you. By attracted, this means people you've had sexual interest in or done sexual things with (oral, kissing, sex).

 

(b) Mutual Attraction:

This number is how many of them in which you felt a connection BEYOND the physical. Had sex more than once. Had a conversation past sex (in your case). Your ex wife would clearly count in both of these because you were attracted to her, and clearly attracted enough you went back for more sex time and time again.

 

© Committed Relationship Number:

Number from B that turned into a committed relationship. You don't have sex and repeated sex with someone unless there's a connection beyond the physical.

 

ExpatInItaly

 

New definition above. I think counting "sex partners" may be easier for some people?

 

@Nilfiry

 

I find it very hard to believe you've never in your life met someone you were physically attracted to.. unless you're asexual?

 

@elaine567

 

If one number is very high and the others low.. perhaps your picking criteria is very off. I personally don't think people are "that different", unless you're a psycho in a mental hospital.. but even they have other mentally unstable people to relate with! Point being.. you're not as different as you think... your criteria for picking partners may be extremely unrealistic and... as you have said.. more a defence mechanism to keep yourself single on purpose.