Outnumbered Single Men Less Likely to Marry
by Steve Watters on 06/11/2009 at 8:00 AM
From ScienceDaily.com we get this headline: "When Young Men Are Scarce, They're More Likely To Play The Field Than To Propose." According to the press release:
In places where young women outnumber young men, research shows the hemlines rise but the marriage rates don't because the young men feel less pressure to settle down as more women compete for their affections.
But when those men reach their 30s, the reverse is true and proportionately more older men are married in areas where women outnumber men.
This finding comes from a University of Michigan researcher named Daniel Kruger,who studies evolution and how it relates to contemporary behavior. Taking an evolutionary perspective, Kruger would have expected men who are outnumbered to take a rational "survival of the species" type-approach and to compete for a partner in order to pass along their genes, but that's not what he found.
"Marriage patterns aren't rational because men and women have somewhat different reproductive strategies," Kruger said. "Men have a greater reproductive benefit than women from having a greater quantity of relationships. If they can leverage their scarcity into attracting multiple short-term partners, they will not have as much of an incentive to settle down."
Those of us who don't proscribe to an evolutionary view of life recognize that men and women have a lot more on their minds than "reproductive strategies." We know humans are driven by motivations that are more complex than simple animal instincts. What other motivations do you think might be at play than the evolutionary theory Kruger offers?
For additional food for thought on this topic, check out the article series Plenty of Men to Go Around that Candice wrote. That article provides the reminder that there just aren't many metro areas where single women outnumber single men. Despite conventional wisdom, single men outnumber single women in the great majority of communities throughout the United States.
1. obewan said the following at 8:06 AM on Jun 11:
"For additional food for thought on this topic, check out the article series Plenty of Men to Go Around that Candice wrote. That article provides the reminder that there just aren't many metro areas where single women outnumber single men. Despite conventional wisdom, single men outnumber single women in the great majority of communities throughout the United States."
--------------------------------
Thank you for seeing things from my perspective. I wish I could have spent my prime years in an area where women outnumbered men. I am not one to play the field, but the odds would have been a lot more in my favor than the 12:1 ratio I lived with for years near the largest submarine base in the world. Heck, at one time in that town, there were 30,000 men working in the shipyard...Talk about "picky" women...LOL
2. Scott Arnold said the following at 8:43 AM on Jun 11:
Aw, don't bring me down like that.
I confess I'm hoping for this imbalance to be a bit prevalent when I get older so that women will start considering me as a possible husband. Unfortunately it feels very challenging when a good friend of mine who is very well respected with women (and very smooth, he's very comfortable talking with them), a really spiritually solid guy, and is genuinely desiring a biblical marraige is having a lot of trouble finding a wife (he's been shot down quite a few times). If he's having trouble, I find myself struggling with believing that a very nerdy and kind of awkward with women guy (but with a good character and focused on Christ!) could actually convince (and attract, which seems to be the issue, stupid attraction) one of these spiritually awesome women that I'm husband material!
Oh, well. This was probably a good wakeup call to sin I've been secretly hiding and hoping for (sin being: "oh, when I get older I'll finally get what I *deserve*...considering everything is a gift that's prideful")- since I'm the guy, I just need to keep getting out there and relying on God's grace for the outcome! :3
I think it will encourage the ladies though, which is always good! :D
PS: I would say that in my church it's about an equal split- there's about a 1:1 single man to single woman ratio. ><
3. Adam said the following at 8:48 AM on Jun 11:
It would be interesting to see if single Christian men (SCM) are more likely to marry where there are are an abundance or scarcity of SCW.
I can say it is incredibly discouraging to live in a city where SCW seem to be somewhere between an endangered species and extinct. I'm not quite sure whether to be relieved or bummed that the case is the same in most metro areas of the country.
4. Liz said the following at 8:49 AM on Jun 11:
I have to say that I think this study falls into the "duh" category. Isn't there a Beach Boys song with the line "2 girls for every boy" in it from like, 1950?
It seems that for a great many young guys in their twenties, who aren't particularly interested in getting married yet, being in an environment with lots of single women will only encourage them to keep playing the field. Once they hit their thirties, when they might be more likely to want to get married anyway, having lots of single women around will make it easier to settle down with just one. No evolutionary theories, no magical reason for this "phenomenon," just factors like age, supply and demand, at least in my opinion.
5. Courtney P. said the following at 10:42 AM on Jun 11:
Good post, I did a research proposal of the on high incarceration rates of African American men between the ages of 25-29 about 10 to 12 percent of this age group of men are in prison, at historical black college there are 7 women to every man! The median age of marriage in American is 26 and 28 for men and women respectively. As a young black women the numbers look bleak, but God is the creator of marriage and if marriage is your desire God will grant you the desire of your heart! Very timely post, keep the faith girls lol:)
6. Keith said the following at 10:48 AM on Jun 11:
When I read through the study, I was surprised that it didn't seem to give any quantitative numbers to support the conclusion. In other words, I wonder how significant the findings really are. If there are 10% more females in a city, does that mean the men are 1% less likely to settle down? 20% of men are less likely? 80% of men are less likely? The fact that they are unwilling to provide the numerical support leads one to suspect that the affect in question may be so minimal that it is insignificant.
Also, one has to be careful reaching conclusions with just numbers. I remember in one my of my university classes that a professor said that around 50% of young women say they have been abused in a romantic relationship, and yet less than 10% of men surveyed said they had ever abused a girlfriend. So she concluded that young men and young women must have different understandings of what constitutes "abuse." It seemed that no one but me could pick up on the logical flaw in this argument - Isn't it possible (very likely) that the 10% or so of abusive men have multiple relationships with several women because they can't stick to one woman because of their abusive tendencies?
All I am saying is that I would like to see the numbers myself to see if any different conclusions can be drawn.
7. Jorden said the following at 10:58 AM on Jun 11:
Lol sorry, but this article reminded me of my senior prom last month. They did this "game" where the guys are in a circle and the girls are in a circle, and you move in opposite directions until the music stops. Then you dance with whomever your closest to.
Well the problem was there was a lot more girls than guys. So there were a few guys who danced with multiple girls :P.
(My girlfriend and I avoided the game by sneaking away at the beginning of it, lol.)
8. rushncap said the following at 11:34 AM on Jun 11:
Actually, the evolutionary model describes this situation perfectly. Yes, the male tendency to spread their genetic information is quite in line with these findings. This is why in the old (Biblical, for one) days, men of power had harems. Solomon certainly did, and I think so did many of the other kings of Israel (and of just about every other country).
9. BY said the following at 12:05 PM on Jun 11:
rushncap #8,
Solomon and the other kings of Israel had harems because they wanted to demonstrate their power as rulers to the whole world, not because they followed some evolutionary model. They tried to do the same things that the pagan kings around them did. But, even choosing a king in Israel was sinful from the people of Israel as they in a way rejected their God. Please read the book of Judges and about the prophet Samuel who was the last judge who ruled over Israel. He surely did not have any harems.
BTW, most monarchs today are not very healthy looking individuals because they intermarried so much within the royal families that almost all the genetic diversity was lost over time.
10. BDB said the following at 12:10 PM on Jun 11:
I see another flaw in the study:
>>In Las Vegas, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Austin, and Phoenix, there are about nine unmarried women for every 10 unmarried men. In these areas, about 77 percent of the men aged 20-24 are unmarried.<<
Those cities all have big colleges. They also have more conservative politics.
So, there are two confounding variables. First, did they separate out residents from college students who are just in the city temporarily?
Given that college is a good place to meet someone, if the women in the first set of cities are there because they didn't go to college, then they are reducing their prospects for marriage. They simply won't meet nearly as many eligible people if they are staying at home compared to going off to college.
During the years covered by the study, places like Las Vegas and Phoenix were booming. Young people who are married need jobs to support their families. They often move to the cities that are growing to find work.
Conservatives often gravitate towards living near other conservatives. I know my city is more than 60% Republican. The city is also 40% minority. We know that not all white people are Republicans. Which means that Republican-leaning minorities have moved to this city. I remember living in very ethnically mixed apartments and condos. When I occasionally took a day off work, I realized the complexes were completely deserted - everyone was at work.
So, you could easily be seeing a difference in marriage rates because people who are more pro-marriage migrate to areas with a booming economy so they can support their families.
Conservative areas tend to be more pro-law-enforcement, too, which translates to a lower crime rate - also attractive to families. While crime rates vary over time, it's MUCH safer in my city than either New York or Washington D.C. If I take a walk in the middle of the night here, the rare times I meet another person they say "good evening." They don't try to rob me.
11. Mishy said the following at 12:21 PM on Jun 11:
To #2 Scott hey I would like to think that there are many more young women would like the nerdiness. I find it very attractive actually. I'm sure your handsome in your own way and all those other girls who could have turned you down obviously weren't worth your time. They probably were more concerned about their reputations and what people thought of them anyway. I think if you care about God's character and have an ongoing building relationship with the Lord I'd give say heck yes for you. If you find you have a hard time talking to girls, I'd say take a deep breath and be yourself. Don't rush your words, and I'm sure if you haven't had a lot of experience talking to girls I thinks its normal. Don't worry about all those other smooth guys, they are just who they are and you can't change yourself. Be who you are and be happy in who Christ made you to be. If you lack self confidence ask the Lord to build it up in you and talk good to yourself. Build yourself up in Christ's word. I like I guy who is confident in himself and who hopefully doesn't have a lot of past relationship baggage, slim to none if any. Now a days that's hard to come by, because we all fall short of his glory. In all cases, keep yourself in the positions of getting to know young women and be yourself. You do your part and watch God take care of the rest. I think nerdiness is a good trait and it shows your diligent about something. I think that could show your a hard worker you know. Girls who look just at the looks are missing quite a bit. I know I worry more about a guy finding me attractive if I wasn't all that into clothes and makeup. Godly character is more important than looks. But looks are important, but to me they come like 2nd or 3rd. Keep building that Godly character and seeking the Lord scott and I think you'll be surprised. I'm sorry that's been your experience before with girls with them turning you down. Those girls who apparently turned you down weren't worth your time anyway, you deserve better. Anyway, scott keep your head up and keep relying on the grace of God and in his time he'll bring it about. I'm still waiting and hoping for that someone as well. I work in the public all the time and God could if he wanted bring that christian young man into target but he hasn't. Um..my church doesn't have a lot of young man near my age and so again he hasn't chosen that avenue either for me. It will come when it does, I'll just keep seeking the Lord and becoming that women after his heart that he's called me to become. Keep it up my friend.
Mishy from SouthBay California
12. NeedACatchyName said the following at 1:14 PM on Jun 11:
I wonder if the reverse is true? That is, I wonder if women who live in areas where the single men outnumber them are less likely to want to "settle down" and get married. The reason I ask this is that I live in such an area and my completely non-scientific, purely anecdotal, and based completely on my own observation opinion is that yes, that could be the case. While they may not be playing the field per se, it does seem like a lot of the single women in my area are inclined to "hold out" for more instead of accepting an invitation from an otherwise suitable male. And this isn't just my opinion; one of my married female friends said that she's observed the same thing, and summed up the attitude of a lot of girls as "not wanting to date Mr. Right because they don't want to miss Mr. Perfect."
I think that, in general, people who are in the outnumbered gender tend to know that the odds are in their favor, and therefore tend to be reluctant to settle down because there's an increased possibility that a "better offer" could come knocking at any time. Conversely, those in the other gender know that the odds are stacked against them, and are more inclined to go ahead and take a risk on someone since they know that, mathematically speaking, there simply aren't enough single people of the opposite sex to go around in their area, and as people pair up the odds only get worse over time.
Thoughts?
13. Karey said the following at 2:05 PM on Jun 11:
Thanks for the post! And all the great boundless articles!
As always, I love what boundless publishes. I also think how interesting it is to hear other perspectives on the ratio of men and women. I can remember that out of my entire junior high group, it was all female and maybe 5-8 guys, depending on the turnout (probably 40 kids in total). That statistic followed us through high school and now into our mid 20s. I have many wonderful, single girlfriends who would love to be married. But we know so few single guys! Where are they?
Thats why I think its interesting to hear of others who speak of the low prevalence of single, born again, faith living women. Because us Ontario girls think differently :)
To #3 Adam, you say SCW are endangered species where you live? We think that way about the men! Crazy how the statistics will completely "reverse" themselves depending on the city or even country. I try not to focus on the "stats", because well, that can be depressing! And God is bigger than any numbers :).
14. rushncap said the following at 2:30 PM on Jun 11:
BY (#9) -- the way you demonstrate power is through the use of force. Having a harem is a rather inefficient way to do so. In fact, a large harem may be viewed as a weakness: a ruler who is more concerned with... well, women, than he is with fighting. I do not know whether Samuel had a harem, though I suspect that you're right -- he did not. This is most likely due to the fact that he was unable to do so. In most, if not all, ancient societies power and money allowed men to translate it into possession of many women. We see the same in most other mammals: the dominant male of a herd gets to mate with most or all of the available females. This is true in lion prides, elephant herds, etc. Humans are scarcely different.
15. Mike said the following at 5:33 PM on Jun 11:
#13 Karey, I don't think you can say there are way more Christian girls than guys in Ontario, it's just that it seems that we all go to different churches! My church's C&C group is mostly dudes.
Regarding the article, I wonder about when men experience a shortage of women? My experience is that the guy might smother a relationship and scare off a girl because he starts thinking that he has no other options.
16. O from Canada said the following at 6:03 PM on Jun 11:
#13 Karey, where in Ontario do you live? I'm going to have to send some of my male friends to your area since you are experiencing a scarcity.
This is an interesting study I suppose. I'm not exactly sure what my conclusion is here.
rushncap, Samuel would be considered a man of great power in his society though, so I'm not sure if that exactly fits.
17. beck said the following at 6:30 PM on Jun 11:
Keith, #6... it also seems fairly intuitive that there's a societal taboo against admitting to abuse. It's entirely possible that there were dishonest answers to that survey, anonymous or not.
18. obewan said the following at 6:56 PM on Jun 11:
#15. Mike said the following at 5:33 PM on Jun 11
Regarding the article, I wonder about when men experience a shortage of women? My experience is that the guy might smother a relationship and scare off a girl because he starts thinking that he has no other options.
---------------------------------
Funny you should say that. When I was in the abysmal 12:1 ratio, I did manage to "befriend" a very beautiful young woman. She blew off virtually all the other guys in the group, but was willing to actually give me a chance. When I started to be "intentional" by pursuing more frequent "dates" she said: "Don't smother me!" LOL. She continued to invite me to monthy small dinner parties at her house though. And, when the group would go to activities, she would always ride in my 2 seat car and hang with me like a girlfriend. That's all she ever became a girl-FRIEND. LOL
19. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 7:00 PM on Jun 11:
I am a 36-year-old single man in a church body with very few single women who are anywhere close to my age. Outnumbered single men may be less likely to marry, overall, but in my situation, at least from a human perspective, it seems less and less likely that I will marry (unless I meet a strong Godly woman from another church)... With that said, I am striving not to view things purely from a *human* perspective.
20. Vanessa said the following at 7:28 PM on Jun 11:
I really want to know which parts of the country besides Alaska have a higher concentration of single (never married) Christian men than women between the ages of 26 and 35. I know a LOT of good, Christian women who may be inclined to move there and even that statistic out.
I haven't gone to a church since I was a young teenager that had more guys than girls in my age group. It is even harder once we are out of college and not working in entry-level jobs at big corporations. If my entire dating pool consists of 5 men and there are 20 women in that same pool...my chances aren't so good.
21. Karey said the following at 8:20 PM on Jun 11:
I have an idea.
Put all the mostly single female church groups together with the mostly single male groups and voila!
Hmmmm....a boundless convention of sorts?
And we do have guys, it just seems like we are low in numbers in my region.
And to #16 Beck, I agree that the statistics could be underreported. I have seen and heard of this.
22. NeedACatchyName said the following at 9:34 PM on Jun 11:
To answer Vanessa's question at #19, I can think of three places where there are likely to be more men. Roughly in order from least likely to most likely, they are:
1) Rural areas
2) Towns with a lot of technical jobs (engineering, science, etc.) or other male-dominated careers
3) Towns with military bases (if you want to be a military wife, you can hit the jackpot here, with male:female ratios sometimes approaching the 12:1 that obewan describes at #1)
Sometimes you can even hit the trifecta and get all three of these in one area, as DoD engineering contractors (#2) tend to be located near the military bases they support (#3), which tend to be located in smaller cities (#1, sort of) because military bases take up a lot of land.
23. Tami said the following at 9:35 PM on Jun 11:
Vanessa -- check out this blog post from Carolyn McCulley:
http://solofemininity.blogs.com/posts/2007/04/i_live_in_an_or.html
Though I gotta say, I live in one of the biggest "blue blobs," and it's not like I feel like I'm swimming in a sea of available Christian men!
24. AEFC said the following at 10:15 PM on Jun 11:
When a single guy visits my church, regardless of looks, he gets checked out top to bottom and side to side----by ALL the single ladies, regardless of age...lol...ohhh and do the mothers make a push for their single daughters.
"Mom, but he's breath stinks!"
"That's okay honey, buy him tic-tacs."
Sigh...
I'm still praying Jesus will send me mine :)
25. BDB said the following at 10:20 PM on Jun 11:
On a tactical basis, I can see how men being outnumbered could slow things down.
On a small scale, picture the mission-trip fundraiser with one single guy and 10 single women. He probably won't even be able to talk with all of them at that one event, especially if he's doing the work he's supposed to be doing. But he'll be aware of them and that they have something in common. That's a different dynamic than when you're the only two single people at an event composed of church families.
I can see how college would fall into this pattern, too. If you've met hundreds of single women, and know that each year a few hundred more will show up, well, it might be tempting to meet a variety of people while they are handy.
But, part of the problem is that some women can be aggressive about taking initiative. So, consider the 10:1 ratio above. If someone pounces and starts inviting him to things, depending on his personality, he might start out being polite and end up only talking to her.
26. Kelly said the following at 10:31 PM on Jun 11:
To the women wondering just WHERE these men are... probably not in churches.
Most Americans will check "Christian" on a survey when asked. But how many of those actually attend a church every week? Women, being more relational, are more likely to be regular attendees than a solo male with no friends/family encouraging him to go.
27. BY said the following at 11:06 PM on Jun 11:
rushncap #14,
King Solomon used marriage as a political tool as he married many of the daughters and sisters of the kings of his neighbouring countries. At his time harems and concubines were a symbol of power in the same way fat was a symbol of prosperity and wealth during the Middle Ages.
All men and societies have a choice. They can choose to act like the other mammals or they can choose to live like the human beings that God has made them to be so that they can enter in fellowship with Him.
28. obewan said the following at 6:52 AM on Jun 12:
O.K. Maybe I should take a second stab at my Farmer Tom speculations. Maybe he has never met a Christian who is a "celibate" gay or a Christian who has struggled with same sex attraction.
He seems to lump those who are celibate but tempted into the same category as those who are actually sinning.
But, I confess the heart attitude is important to God. What is different about my realization though is that I am no different than the celibate person who struggles with same sex attraction since I have struggled with lust. That makes me an adulterer in my heart. Since Farmer Tom lumps those who struggle in with those who actually commit the sin, I suppose I would not be welcome by him in his church.
29. IMO said the following at 8:31 AM on Jun 12:
#27 I agree with you. I thought the Boundless articles on these type of issues were pretty clear and helpful.... Guess not everybody took them to heart.
Maybe I should pull out some Scripture for the Farmer as well...
30. rushncap said the following at 9:16 AM on Jun 12:
BY (#26) -- King Solomon did not invent that practice. That had been going on for thousands of years, both before and after him, in just about every society. Even today in many Arabic societies, and other places where women are treated as commodities, such customs are commonplace.
As for acting like mammals -- we ARE mammals. Our reproductive practices are similar to those of many other mammals. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, and at our current stage of evolution monogamy is the more preferred reproductive choice, but you don't have to scratch far beneath the surface to find our old, primal drives.
31. Ken said the following at 10:18 AM on Jun 12:
@#10 BDB:
Excuse me, but what area do you live in and can you back up your claim that your community is MUCH safer than NYC?
According to FBI stats, NYC is one of the safest big cities in the world.
I'm sick and tired of people who always say NYC is dangerous when they probably haven't spent any significant amount of time here.
It shows sheer ignorance of the issue.
I notice common sense is a lot more of an indicator of whether someone will be a victim of crime than the area they are in.
32. BY said the following at 10:49 AM on Jun 12:
I never said that King Solomon did invent "that" practice. I gave him as an example of a king who had a huge harem in order to show off his power and win allies.
Let me ask you one question. You have once been a baby and since then you have developed and "evolved" into what you are today. Just because you used to be a baby, does it mean that you still have to behave like a baby? There is a reason why you have a human mind with which you can make choices and you can ask questions about the meaning of life. Yes, in one aspect we are all mammals, but that's not the whole picture about us, because we are different from all other creatures in this world. So, go on and continue chewing the grass in your garden...
33. Sarah P. said the following at 11:59 AM on Jun 12:
@ rushncap: Why must you suppose that this "primal drive" to procreate has something to do with evolution, rather than with God's command to all of humanity to "be fruitful and multiply?"
34. BDB said the following at 2:20 PM on Jun 12:
Ken (#31) wrote:
>>According to FBI stats, NYC is one of the safest big cities in the world. <<
BIG cities. That's the point, they tend to keep statistics in BIG cities.
But I can answer your question.
The best way to compare is to look at the per-capita rates of violent crime. The per-capita violent crime rate for my city is around 30% of the national average.
Per Capita, New York ranges from equal to to well above the national average for violent crime.
Per Capita, Washington, D.C. ranges from 133% to 575% of the national average for violent crime.
Rancho Cucamonga statistics.
New York is here.
Washington, D.C. is here.
And, incidently, this is why people prefer to live in the suburbs. Let the anti-car people live in cities and be crime victims if they want.
I'm pretty sure my neighborhood is pretty heavily armed, too. American flags, dogs, pickups and NRA memberships appear to be positively correlated with low crime rates.
35. kim said the following at 4:32 PM on Jun 12:
I agree with Karey (#16 and #21)!
I'm also a single lady from Ontario, and hey, networking through Boundless sounds great :0)
But wouldn't it be nice for the SCM to initiate this?
Oh, singleness, gender roles and gender differences... time and time again my loving Christian married friends tell me how happy they are that the single/dating stage of life is over for them, and I have to say I nod my head in agreement with these statements! Do we make this stage of life harder than it needs to be?
36. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 6:03 PM on Jun 12:
Kelly (#26),
I understand that in your statement, you said "probably," not "definitely," but there *are* single men who are committed Christians and involved members of local churches. I am one.
However, I also have a physical disability, am unable to drive a car (due to the disability), and because of the preceding factors, have struggled to even get back and forth to a job. In other words, I am not viewed by most Christian women as a great catch, or possibly, even viewed *period.*
My faith is central to my life (in thought, word, and deed), my church family is very important to me, and I am a single man. Because of my particular life situation, it seems unlikely that I will be married. I haven't completely given up hope though-- God is in control, and if He wants me to be employed (which I certainly want and am seeking) and married, then I believe that He will ultimately provide both the job and the Godly woman! :-)
37. Mike said the following at 7:41 PM on Jun 12:
Kim (#35), fine, fine, I'll man up and take some initiative. You, Karey, and all your SCW friends are invited to my church this Sunday at 10. Don't be late.
38. Ken said the following at 7:52 PM on Jun 12:
@ BDB #34
I still think your fear mongering and don't really know what your talking about.
All you are going by is stats which still doesn't validate your false assumption that people are in more danger in NYC.
Washington DC I can't speak to since I don't live but I do spend a lot of time in NYC.
All I ask is that you don't spout ill informed views that are not anywhere near based in reality.
39. BDB said the following at 8:06 PM on Jun 12:
Kim (#35) wrote:
>>But wouldn't it be nice for the SCM to initiate this? <<
Supply Chain Manager?
40. BDB said the following at 9:55 PM on Jun 12:
Ken (#38) wrote:
>>All you are going by is stats which still doesn't validate your false assumption that people are in more danger in NYC. <<
Dude...25,000 robberies in one year?
There's a reason that Americans have left the big cities - crime is one part of it. Corrupt government and dysfunctional school systems are anther (despite huge per-pupil expenditures).
I haven't been to NYC in a while; I've been to Washington D.C. and San Francisco much more recently. I've done some urban ministry in Los Angeles. I'm sure crime varies by neighborhood, conditions, and how one conducts oneself.
The fact remains that ethnic minorities flee the cities as soon as they are financially able, for the reasons cited above. If big cities weren't so corrupt, I'm sure they'd be safer.
So, in your case, are you honestly telling me that you don't feel safer in New Hampshire or Greenwich, CT or Long Island?
41. kim said the following at 10:24 PM on Jun 12:
BDB (#39),
Sorry, I was using the short form for Single Christian Men as used in post #3!
42. BDB said the following at 10:48 PM on Jun 12:
OK Ken, my original one was 2003 data, so I looked up the 2008 data. I did find something interesting.
Los Angeles Violent Crimes:
26,553 out of a population of 3,850,920 or 0.69%
Colorado Springs Violent Crimes:
1,999 out of a population of 378,403 or 0.528%
New York Violent Crimes:
48,430 out of a population of 8,345,075 or 0.58%
Rancho Cucamonga Violent Crimes:
395 out of a population of 176,307 or 0.22%
So, Ken, you are correct, that New York appears to be statistically safer than Los Angeles, and about the same as Colorado Springs.
But I'm careful in L.A., just as I'd be careful in NYC. Or Colorado Springs, apparently.
43. karey said the following at 11:06 PM on Jun 12:
Good way to take initiative Mike #37. Make the SCW do all the work and come to you... Not sure how well that will work out.
Too bad Kim #35 will have to go alone....Im working nights all weekend!
And Kim #35, sometimes I wonder if we do make this harder than it should be. Or at least allow it take over our lives more than it should. Perhaps if we spent some of this energy into being active in church and our peer groups, we just might run into that SCM we are looking for! (Not that it should be our motive or anything...) :)
44. kim said the following at 5:39 AM on Jun 13:
Thanks for the invite, Mike (#35)!
I feel like this line of posts is creating something similar to what is being discussed in another article... "Browsing for A Mate"... :0)
have a wonderful weekend, everyone!
45. Mike said the following at 2:45 PM on Jun 13:
Karey (#43), I would be happy to offer a ride to you and your friends, but I don't have a car and I think it might be a little awkward with my bicycle. Might work if I hauled the trailer along. Your call.
Kim (#44), that may be intentional. If you look at the copyright date of the Browsing article, you will find that it is from 2005, so they may be responding to feedback they see here by re-publishing relevant stuff.
46. payne said the following at 4:54 PM on Jun 13:
Research and statistics on this stuff is stupid.
Here is my philosophy: If there are fifty gals in a room and twenty guys, I say, "Bye Bye people. And gals, have fun drooling over the guys. I'm outa here to do something fun and worth my time."
Frankly, I feel bad for all these single Christian guys. The poor dudes can't get a break from desperate Christian girls who think marriage is the next big thing.
Leave 'em alone. Go climb a mountain or learn a language.
47. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 8:04 PM on Jun 13:
Beth Spraul has written a helpful essay here on the lies of "chick flicks" (into which many Christian women have bought): http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/wp-content/uploads/youve_got_lies.pdf
Of course, many Christian men have sadly bought into lies too (such as those of pornography). However, it seems that the "chick flick" lies often go unexamined and unchallenged.
A sample passage from Beth's article: "The next time you think about saying “no” to an offer of courtship or even a coffee date, honestly ask yourself if your answer would be any different if he were tall, extremely handsome, and said his favorite pastimes were taking long walks and writing poetry. None of these are qualities Scripture exhorts you to be looking for!"
48. Jeremy said the following at 7:39 AM on Jun 14:
BDB -- a commonly overlooked fact with crime data is that for big cities, a huge percentage of violent crime is related to the drug trade, and the overwhelming majority of the drug trade is found in major cities. If you are not involved with drugs (or gangs in LA specifically), you are about as safe as anywhere else, including suburbs.
An obvious implication is that the legalization of certain drugs would have a huge impact on violent crime, but perhaps that is not a discussion for this topic. My point is that living our lives motivated by fear seems a lot like not trusting God, and choosing where to live based on crime statistics seems a lot like living motivated by fear.
49. Jeremy said the following at 7:41 AM on Jun 14:
Let me add, I am not advocating choosing a home based on the number of singles of the opposite gender either; it seems like people pour way too much unncessary energy into this. People live in all different areas, and everyone ends up married (I know, I know, with the odd rare exception).
To be perfectly honest, it sometimes seems like Boundless promotes this self-focused desire more than they promote any God-focused desire (and I tire of the Wild at Heart-style copout that "God gave me desires, so pursuing whatever I want is the same as pursuing Him").
50. BDB said the following at 6:10 PM on Jun 14:
Jeremy (#48) wrote:
>>If you are not involved with drugs (or gangs in LA specifically), you are about as safe as anywhere else, including suburbs.<<
That's probably true for murder and assult. However, these statistics are reported crimes. There are differences in reporting depending on how much people trust law enforcement. I've read studies suggesting that there's actually a lot more reporting in the suburbs because in general there is a more favorable view of law enforcement. This makes reported crime statistics look more dangerous in the suburbs than it really is. People don't report crimes if they don't trust the police. That's part of the reason crime exists in those areas.
Take the Broken Windows theory of policing. The summary of the theory is that if you fix the small things, the big things move elsewhere.
I experience this once in my town. I came home from work one day and there were some young guys I didn't recognize walking around without shirts. I thought, Hmmm, who are they? By the time I parked my car and a was walking to my condo, a bottle went flying and broke near a moving vehicle.
I thought, "That's it." I called the police and described the situation.
Within two (2) minutes, there were TWO police cruiser there. Then came into the complex from both directions so no one could get away. I went out on my porch and saw one of the guys sweeping up the broken glass from the bottle while a sheriff's deputy stood over him. Several neighbors were standing, arms crossed, glaring at the teenagers.
We had a very quiet summer.
I'm guessing those guys were friends of some new renter. They learned real quick that we don't put up with any _____ from guys loitering and up to no good. Never saw them hanging out again, either.
Now, a thrown bottle wouldn't even rate as a "violent crime" unless it was thrown at someone.
In another situation a few years earlier, I heard a girl screaming from the direction of a parking lot with a grocery and liquor store. I called 911 and explained that it might just be teenagers goofing around, but I'd hate for it to be something serious and not call it in.
Within a few minutes, a police car was there. I saw the girl and the guys walk away together (with their skateboards), so I'm guessing that they were all just goofing off. But it's good for them to know that the sound of a woman screaming gets an immediate police response. They can tell all their skater friends that the police have time to follow up on even the smallest of incidents.
Now, in neither of these cases do the young people in question know who called the cops on them. It wasn't a threat I made to their face. It's a much better deterrent if the police show up out of nowhere, because then they don't know who's watching for misbehavior.
But it makes the area safe. This is why I feel perfectly safe walking around my neighborhood alone at 2am - something I'd never do in L.A. or another big city.
Though I'm sure parts of NYC are much better than Phnom Penh, where on a mission trip the walled complex was locked at 9pm and everyone locked themselves into their apartments behind steel gates on the doors and windows. Totally violates fire code. Not that there's a fire code there.
>>but perhaps that is not a discussion for this topic.<<
A discussion of drug policy alternatives should definitely be a different topic.
51. BDB said the following at 6:12 PM on Jun 14:
Yes, my thoughts are also colored by the facebook discussion I'm having with a friend who lives in Queens, talking about the neighborhood drug dealer...(SIGH)
52. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 10:33 PM on Jun 14:
Jeremy (#49),
Biblically speaking, marriage is not a primarily "self-focused" concept. It is a covenant in which a man and a woman agree to love each other sacrificially, for the other's good and for the glory of God (especially on the man's side-- he is commanded to love his wife as Christ loved the church, laying down His life for her).
In that light, why do you seemingly say that the desire to be married is, for Christians, a "self-focused" desire?
53. Jo said the following at 12:46 AM on Jun 15:
Christopher #52,
You're absolutely right about the Biblical idea of marriage, but I think Jeremy also has a point. In your opinion, what is most people's reason for desiring marriage? Are they thinking, "Man, if only I had someone to love sacrificially and lay my life down for", or are they thinking, "Man, if only I had someone to love me and be with me"? Ideally both thoughts will be there, but which is the stronger motivator?
"It is not good for the man to be alone" - that's what the Bible says, and I think for most people that's the driving force behind their desire to get married. So it is largely self-focused in that sense. Doesn't make it wrong, of course.
54. Jeremy said the following at 8:00 AM on Jun 15:
Christopher from Albuquerque (#52) -- That is a fair point, but I imagine you would agree that that is not anywhere near central to the common theme about marriage promoted on this site. More often that not it is encouragements along the lines of "your desire for marriage is a good thing", "be proactive in pursuing that desire", "churches that don't have programs to promote your desire should be avoided", etc. It is not always phrased in quite those terms, but at least to me, that is the clear message, and I worry that it comes close to glorifying a human desire.
(perhaps that is why there is such harsh and dismissive treatement of passages like 1 Corinthians 7, which seem to indicate that singleness is more God-focused than marriage)
Anyway, I don't mean to sound condemning, I don't think this is a huge problem, just something for people to think about in their own lives.
55. InChrist said the following at 8:21 AM on Jun 15:
I originally found my wife on this website about 2 years ago. I saw that she commented on a boundless blog article and she had a link to her blog. I read her blog for a few months off and on. We eventually met [at a conference we both happened to go to, but planned on at least seeing each other] and we were recently married on April 11th.
You never know...
God Bless
56. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 5:54 PM on Jun 15:
Jo and Jeremy (#53 and #54),
About most *peoples'* primary desire(s) in pursuing marriage, it probably is selfishness of some sort. That is the thinking of the natural, worldly man and woman.
About most "Christians'* primary desire(s) in pursuing marriage, it may be selfish too (although it's hard to know, unless one directly asks each Christian who is pursuing marriage!). However, that is why it is all the more important for Christians to know that *Biblical* marriage is largely a call to *die to self,* rather than a way in which to always have one's desires (good or not) satisfied.
Personally, from what I have read on Boundless over the years, I have seen, overall, a good balance on this issue-- an enthusiastic commendation of the earthly comforts of marriage and a clear-eyed acknowledgment that the call to marriage is a call to *self-sacrificial, often self-denying* love.
57. Shelley said the following at 4:46 PM on Jun 18:
Whoo...try reading 56 comments in one setting! There's a lot of thinking going on here.
I live in a small college town, working at a small Christian college...then add to it the NW region.
Because I think marriage and family is a calling on my life (while at the same time I'm also living life), I've chosen to be open to having a man pursue me via eharmony...although there's been some conversations, it hasn't lead to any relationships, and that's okay. But I'm trying to be open to it and not necessarily base assumptions off where I live.
God is big and he can use all sorts of methods to bring two people together if He chooses, so I won't worry too much about where you live. (I think I'm speaking this more to myself b/c it is discouraging sometimes...).
The thing about Boundless is that they actually talk about what we think about...so I'm glad to have a space where they do value marriage and pursuing it.
58. TC said the following at 5:37 PM on Jun 18:
Well, if there's an area where there are at least a balance of SCM to SCW, I'd like to find it. Especially in the above 35 range, SCM who are authentic christians seem basically "already taken". SCM seem to be few and far between. I finally found a christian singles group that gives me fellowship, fun, and hope for a relationship, God willing.
59. R said the following at 11:39 AM on Jun 21:
> Despite conventional wisdom, single men outnumber single women in the great majority of communities throughout the United States.
Thank you for breaking the myth! Too many SCW use the idea there are few SCM as an excuse ... especially to date and marry non-Christian men!
I will have to read Beth's article. Certainly SCW's chick-flick mentality has really hurt SCM's opportunity's to date as the women tend to have unrealistic & ungodly expectations for husbands-to-be.
60. a sassy sister said the following at 3:38 PM on Jun 21:
to R:
I certainly agree that chick flicks have a tendency to distort marriage and create unrealistic expectations on men. But I also believe that unrealstic expectations on both sides are the problem as well. I don't doubt for a second that many single Christian men want a woman who will have the domestic capacity of Martha Stewart, the spiritual fortitude of Corrie Ten Boom, all wrapped up in a beautiful Hollywood starlet package. I could be wrong, but in observation and conversation with single Christian men, it seems the desire is for an idealized version of their mothers.
So, in my opinion, both single Christian men and women may carry with them unrealistic expecations with them into marriage, focusing more on the tangible benefits than on the actual character building, growth, sacrifice, and selflessness that the covenant requires. I may like some chick flicks, but I learned a long time ago that people have different understandings and experiences regarding what it means to show affection and regard for another person. That being said, what affects a man's heart is going to be different than what affect's a woman's heart. It doesn't make one better than the other; it simply just is a reflection of differences. One of the things I am still learning to do as a single Christian women is celebrating differences between men and women instead of being continually frustrated by them.
The best thing single Christian women can do is encourage their brothers to continue to grow in the Lord and give them the room to be the men that He has called them to be. It is definitely trying and a test of patience and trust in God, but it is worth it. I also would be encouraging our fellow brothers to surround themselves with godly men who can walk with them as they learn how to be godly men.
As single Christian women, we can also surround ourselves with older Christian women in the faith who mirror and reflect the love of God in their marriages and unconditional respect for their husbands. We can raise our standards(on godly character, wisdom, and responsibiility), but be gracious in respectfully communicating our standards, ensuring that they are rooted in a Biblical foundations and not cultural ones. And we can do all these things by constantly reminding ourselves through the Word that our value is not tied,as Hudson Russell put it, to our "relational currency." Our value has been determined by the God who created us(male and female), and there is no one who can take that away from us.
So, that being said, I will say three things about this post:
1)There's statistics and there's the truth of God's Word. While I don't dismiss exercising common sense and the challenges that singles face, that can not (and shouldn't) negate God's goodness and faithfulness in your life.
2.) When it comes to life and love, from what I understand as a Christian, it's not about you as it is. Marriage is not about finding someone to curb your sexual desire, end your loneliness, and make you feel whole. If that's what you think marriage is about, you are in for a rude awakening.
3) This would be a great post if you wanted to explain why women/men play the field(and yes, women do too); but frankly it seems to forget some simple things, such as the different reasons men marry versus women and the societal pressures(even in the church) for marriage, in addition to a real indepth-reason why men choose not to marry(seeing the financial and emotional vulnerability in divorce and the bias in the family court system against fathers).
61. R said the following at 9:38 PM on Jun 22:
sassy sister,
Well, there are certainly a few guys that want it all from a gal; it is my experience that most just want a decent, kind, trusting, godly, fun Christian woman. In this day and age of feminism we are seeing fewer and fewer Christian women following the biblical principles particularly with Proverbs 31. What a sad testimony of churches today. I constantly meet so many women who are not ready for marriage because their careers are not in place.
I would say its safe to say that men are not looking for perfection ... I think we understand that best given the pressures men are under these days.
62. Sarah P. said the following at 8:29 AM on Jun 23:
@ R (#61): I constantly meet so many women who are not ready for marriage because their careers are not in place.
This is a hard thing. Marriage was at the top of my list all through college. I knew from about the age of 12 that I wanted to write stories, and I focused myself into the idea of writing, exactly so that I would be able to exercise those talents while being a SAHM and homeschooling.
But God had other ideas. I graduated with no prospect for marriage, and have had to completely redo my thinking. It seemed that God was asking me to develop other talents and to take life one step at a time, not assuming I can foretell what is going to happen.
So now I am beginning what is starting to look like a career. Funny, that.
I guess the point is that every person's story is different, and perhaps those "career women" are doing exactly what God wants them to be doing. :)
63. A.S. (F/27), a Jewish reader of your site said the following at 4:38 PM on Aug 24:
To Scott #2: You say you're a nerdy kind of guy who can't seem to get the attention of women...I believe that you have the opportunity to change this around quickly.
Women say they want a nice guy. Based on the description of yourself, you do sound like a nice guy. The only problem with nice guys is that is most women are not greatly attracted to them, as they seem to lack sex appeal or an intangible “something” that would otherwise create attraction in the woman. Okay, but why is this so? Well, what I've noticed is that the stereotypical nice guy is *lacking in exuding masculine energy in his life*; THIS is why the stereotypical BAD BOY is so appealing—he’s very masculine, is dominant, decisive, take-charge, and is ACTIVE (*NOT* passive) in pursuing his wants—woman or otherwise—all traits that women find very sexy in a man (generally speaking).
Feminine women like masculine men who demonstrate leadership and authority. Unfortunately, the bad boys who exude this kind of strong masculine energy, typically do damage to the women they meet along the way...sure, they are exciting to be with, very masculine, have a cocky & arrogant attitude (the woman mistakes this for confidence)...but perhaps also these bad boys are unfaithful, dishonest, in trouble with the law, a little bit dangerous, alcoholic, into drugs, are players, etc...oh, the grief these guys cause so many women.
So, in order to strike a balance between being the seemingly blah nice guy who lacks appeal & lacks masculine energy, and being the bad boy who makes women feel like there's real "chemistry", but he eventually breaks their hearts, you're going to have to learn how to be the nice guy you ARE but you're also going to have to LEARN HOW to EXUDE masculine energy for women to really take notice and start to be attracted to you (i.e., learn to do BOTH at the same time). What I'm saying is for you to be a GENTLEMAN. Gentlemen are VERY attractive. You sound like you want to meet a woman who'd appreciate your nice guy side AND also be attracted to you. One other way to learn how to become a gentleman: you study from the pros and learn how they do things. Emulate them and you learn how to be a winner with women.
ALSO, PLEASE DON’T WORRY that you’ll turn off a bunch of women who’ll think you’re a pansy for showing courteous and gentlemanly behavior towards them, like opening doors and permitting the woman to enter ahead of you; rest assured that you’ll only turn off the women that you DON’T want to meet, date, or have relationships with. The only women you’ll turn off by your most EXCELLENT gentlemanly behavior will most likely be the modern, independent FEMINIST women—women who act like they don’t need a man to help them do anything. And to be quite honest, this kind of woman doesn’t sound much like the type you’d want to meet anyways. You seem to want a woman who’d appreciate your efforts in treating her like a lady—someone who’d reciprocate in kind, treating you with respect for acting like a gentleman.
[NOTE: I don't believe in feminism; in fact, I consider myself an anti-feminist. I believe in chivalry and promoting manhood. I consider myself an anti-feminist because I’ve recently come across some information that has made me think that feminism has done more harm to society than most of us realize. Yes, it has provided an opportunity for women to pursue careers and earn their own money, but it hasn’t guaranteed that they can “have it all”—at least not all at once, at the same time. So if today’s modern woman wants to pursue a career, then she likely sacrifices her 20s, when she’s at her peak in health, fertility, and beauty (a time when she’s most attractive to men), choosing to climb the career ladder instead of pursuing finding a suitable husband and creating a family. She loses out on the years when she CAN have a family. By the time she’s in her mid-late 30s, there are fewer available single men for her to pick from that are marriage-quality. By that time, most men her age are already married, or have been married and are now divorced and have already had children. See how this is a problem? Women have been brainwashed into thinking that having their independence and own career is the way to self-fulfillment. Sure, maybe for some…but for most people, having a loving family is what really counts. You can change jobs and start over with a new career multiple times over the course of your life. You don’t have that same luxury with fertility; women have a narrow time window in which they can most easily conceive and bear children with the least amount of health risks, to her or to the baby.]
Perhaps check out Henry Makow's website and read some of his articles on how feminism has screwed up society. (www.henrymakow.com) He's a secular non-practicing Jew who promotes traditional family values and traditional gender roles. And honestly, this kind of model works well with love relationships because both the man and the woman are valued for their respective DIFFERENCES. Feminism has striven to make women more like men. The problem with this of course is that heterosexual men are not attracted to mannish women--they're attracted to FEMININE women. Men do not want to compete with women in the world of love and romance! It's the differences between the sexes that bring us together...Furthermore, the degree to which a man is attracted to a woman depends on three traits: YOUTH, HEALTH & BEAUTY. This is BIOLOGICALLY wired into heterosexual men to seek out young, healthy, and attractive women to couple and mate with in order to create offspring with the best chances of survival. This is not a conscious search, BTW. I mean, aside from each man’s individual preferences for what he finds most attractive in a woman (dark hair vs. light hair, for example), these three traits are factored in, but it’s not like the man is consciously seeking these out. He seeks them out because he’s looking for these on AUTOPILOT, without thinking about them; they just are, and he’s looking for them. It’s like saying that being physically attracted to someone should go unstated in order for a romance to develop. Both parties should be attracted to each other…
Check out this website too: www.takeninhand.com Although it’s a website written for married people or couples in committed, monogamous LTRs, you’d likely benefit from reading the material, since it seems to be in the direction of what you want (a traditional type of relationship, where the man is the leader, the woman submits to the man and allows him to lead).
Well, what else...? I'm guessing another reason you're not attracting women is because you're seeking approval and always deferring to her and/or are a "yes" man (both of which demonstrate non-dominance, therefore a turn-off for feminine women).
[Note: BTW, my "guess" could also be wrong, so if I'm assuming incorrectly, I apologize in advance. If my "guess" is more on the correct side, then I hope that what I have to say may be of some help to you.]
I can relate to you…I went to a magnet high school with honors and AP-level classes that had ONLY the geeky/nerdy types (hey, I'm one of them; I'd say 85% of them looked rather normal though, including myself). So I'm familiar with the geeky/nerdy type...some are more shy and passive, while others don't seem to be socially hindered or scared to talk to girls. Keep reading, there’s a point to this!...
When a man is seeking approval from a woman he's attracted to, he's basically giving her all the power, especially if she knows of his interest. Then she can be cruel and treat him like a doormat and be very demanding because she knows he'll put up with a lot more just to be graced by her presence (assuming he has low self-esteem and his interest is very high in her). In sum, she won't respect the guy if he's bowing down to her all the time. There's a biological reason for this too, believe it or not...women are more likely to pair off and mate with men whom they deeply trust. If a woman cannot trust a man with her life in his hands, how is she supposed to trust his leadership? And if he's always deferring to her or asking her what to do or is seeking her approval, he's showing that he doesn't trust in HIMSELF. The woman (unconsciously) translates this as lack of leadership, since HE is essentially asking HER to lead since SHE'S making all the decisions (he asks her, she answers him, he does whatever she wants/whatever is pleasing to her-->it's too easy to manipulate the guy, therefore she loses respect for him as well as any attraction). There is a difference however between being a pushover who is eager to please a woman and a gentleman who is eager to please a woman. The pushover who is eager to please a woman comes off as needy; the gentleman does not. The gentleman does the right thing in the situation that is best for them BOTH, while asking for her input and feelings about whatever it is, and considers her wellbeing before making a decision.
I'd like to suggest that you go watch the movie Marnie by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Sean Connery (as Mark Rutland) and Tippi Hedren (as Marnie), to see an example of what I mean. Mark displays courteous, polite and GENTLEMANLY behavior throughout the film, even when he becomes mildly cross with Marnie's lies; he sees the pain she tries so hard to hide from him and because he loves her, he attempts to draw her out of it, to protect her from her own demons. And it worked. It has a happy ending.
In fact, Sean Connery is typically cast as a gentleman in many movies he’s been in…aside from actively trying to seduce women as James Bond, he’s otherwise the gentleman hero in these films. Go study some of his James Bond films and observe how polite and decisive he is with the women he interacts with and you’ll get a good idea of what a gentleman should behave like. BTW, I’m not saying you should go and try seducing women early on though! Save the seduction strategies for when you’ve gotten the ONE woman you want to be with and are IN a relationship with her. Do it too early and you run the risk of coming off like a sex-hungry man, and she won’t know that you’re really a good guy inside. You see, if you continue to pursue and woo her, even after she’s been “gotten” by you, you end up a winner because she can trust that you’re not going to get lazy once you’ve gotten her committed to you alone. A woman wants to be “won” over every day by her man, she doesn’t want the romance to stop once you’ve won her heart. I’m a woman and I can say with absolute certainty that the previous sentence is something akin to a real-life rule that women expect men to just intuitively “know” to be true. Unfortunately, most of us are not mind readers…just wanted to share this with you.
Have you heard of the author David Deida? He's written books about spirituality and sexuality, and is a leading expert in this field. His book Dear Lover is worth reading. I consider it my own "love bible". Okay, so the book is written for women, but if you read it, you'd get a pretty good idea of what most women are looking for in a man. 80% of women have a feminine inner core although a lot of the times, after having been hurt or having had to act like a man in a man's world to get by (jobs/work), their feeling/emotion-based feminine nature gets hidden by outer shells of masculinity, and they seem hard, cold, defensive and distant on the outside.
The book is not JUST about sex though; it addresses the ENERGETIC components of what makes relationships work or not. It talks about POLARITY, which is what makes two people attracted to each other come together, enter a relationship and actually HAVE success and stay together. Without polarity, there is no attraction between the sexes.
Lastly, do you dress well daily? i.e., you wear a button-down shirt with khaki or dark-colored slacks? Dress to impress, but not in a super-trendy metrosexual style--girls may think you might be gay. Also, no baseball caps or baggy t-shirts or baggy pants or baggy shorts. This is something so simple, but I am just saying this as a way to make a good first impression on anyone—man or woman—without you having to say a word. By being well-dressed, you present yourself in a manner that says I CARE about people perceiving me in a good light...furthermore, you never know who you're going to meet when you're out and about! Best of luck!