Best and Worst dating cities

[pstokely]

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/DatingCities_list.aspx

How accurate is this list based on your experiences?

[Suich]

1. Hey, we're 5th! n/t

[SeattleGirl]

18. Woohoo!

When I was on the dating scene, I found it was pretty good, actually.

[SeattleGirl]

19. Woohoo!

When I was on the dating scene, I found it was pretty good, actually.

[crim son]

2. I'm unsurprised to find that Bangor didn't make the list.

Jeepers creepers.

[Maineiac]

25. That's because of you

You're the shining star in an otherwise cloudy and dreary sky. If you were to leave, we'd be the worst. #1 in lonely hearts.

[Maineiac]

26. Check out #63

They lumped all of NH & ME in with Boston.

[crim son]

36. Well that's blatantly bullshit.

I lived in Boston and there is NO COMPARISON between Boston and Bangor. And, sweetie, thank you for your overblown compliment. :hug:

[dropkickpa]

3. #73 baby!

Yeah, it really sucks here.

[jmm]

4. I'm skeptical of any survey commissioned by Axe body spray.

I'm not complaining because my hometown was #63 but I don't trust their criteria.

[pstokely]

7. Colorado Springs is high is that list

Something must be wrong

[GOPisEvil]

5. We're number 1, we're number 1!!!!

So how come my sweetie lives 2000 miles away? :shrug:

[Chan790]

6. I don't buy their statistical-based methodology,

Actual quality of individuals is equally or more important. Hartford, CT is a city with a lot of single people, a lot of people dating online, and lot of coffeeshops and florists. Problem is...the singles and the single life suck. Everybody is looking to get married and buy a condo. It's like dating musical chairs.

Reason #31 I can't wait to move away.

[NewJeffCT]

8. and even more surprising to me

is that Springfield, MA is rated so highly??

[Chan790]

9. Yeah, but Springfield likely includes Northampton, MA

and Northampton is the shit. Hot, genuinely-cool women with real interests and concerns beyond condos, big weddings, and babies. It scares me when I meet a woman here (Hartford) and they act like they can't wait to get married to somebody, anybody and have a child so their sole life-purpose can be fulfilled. Nuptial Zombies. :scared:

[NewJeffCT]

10. i guess it's changed since the 90s

when i was single... back then, i couldn't find women interested in anything serious. I had to go to NJ to find a woman interested in marriage.

and, I think Hartford is closer to Springfield than Northampton.

[ForrestGump]

11. Like I need any help with non-dating: Vegas is # 52

I wonder if this includes dates paid for by the hour?

[FuzzySlippers]

14. Forrest, if you can't find any non-dates in Vegas,

I'd be happy to non-date you from afar. :D

[ForrestGump]

16. It's a non-date!

A relative told me that if I couldn't get 'intimate' (not the word she used) being an Elvis in Vegas then I never would. Darn. :-(

And my work partner said of someone "he couldn't get laid if he spent the night with a hooker" -- I glared at him and threatened him with a smack upside the head because, that very evening, I'd spent two or three hours in the company (as a friend, I hasten to add, and fully clothed) of a particularly beautiful working girl.

I continue to beat the odds.... :D

:hug:

[FuzzySlippers]

12. I find it interesting that the data is only for the 18-24 age group.

If you're 25 or up, no dates for you!

[alarimer]

22. It's really bleak here (Corpus Christi)

I saw a chart once that indicated 2500 more single women than men here. Which probably partly explains my problem. Plus the men are all raving right-wing loonies (or the ones I seem to encounter are), uneducated morons scared by intelligent,independent women, or beach bums terrified of commitment (which probably also describes me!). Plus I am apparently "old", past my sell-by date or whatever.

[Lord Helmet]

13. Margaritaville has its perks

but it usually ends badly

[Starbucks Anarchist]

15. #18.

Damn, I need to get out more.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

17. Accurate ! #75

So its really not me - I am perfect. This city sucks.

[last_texas_dem]

20. So I'm currently living in the top dating city in America?

Man, now I feel like an even bigger loser! haha

[amitten]

21. Um...Austn is NOT a great dating city. I'm young and single and

pretty good-looking and the men here look but rarely approach. They're like a scared bunch of little wuss men, I swear ta God.

I got twice the action in other cities I've lived in (up north). Maybe I just need to go blonde and do the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader look. That seems to sell well here. :eyes:

On second thought...nah. Not even worth it.

[Radical Activist]

24. What's wrong with you approaching a man?

Maybe Austin men are used to women who aren't passive scared little wusses.

[amitten]

27. No, they're seriously just unusually shy. If a guy's too shy to

approach me, believe me when I say he's not my type.

And if he actually thinks I'm a wuss for not approaching HIM, he's still very much not my type. I don't believe that Austin men expect to be approached any more than men in Manhattan, Chicago, Houston and Denver (others places I've been). The men in those cities just have more balls when it comes to women, IMHO.

[Radical Activist]

30. It seems like

you're giving up some of the power to decide who you get together with by waiting for the man to approach you first, and that you're a lot more likely to end up with a pushy, over-aggressive man who screws around a lot.

But I understand that most women are attracted to men who appear to be confident and assertive so I don't mean to give you a hard time about it. I approach women but I also like it sometimes when women approach me. I can't imagine placing myself in a passive position where I'm always waiting for someone else to act and I sometimes wonder why so many women do. So, I'm glad you gave your perspective.

[amitten]

32. Point taken. But I just feel I shouldn't have to be the one to

approach EVERY time in EVERY situation.

But for some reason, that's how it's been here in Austin. :shrug:

And for me it's not about aggression. It's about how bad a guy wants to meet you. If he doesn't even bother to approach, one can only assume that his interest is not exactly overwhelming.

[Chan790]

39. I'm certainly not shy, but...

I refuse to date any woman who refuses to meet me half-way.

I'll flirt but I will not quote/unquote "approach a woman." I just don't believe in unilateral approach in either direction. (I suspect (and hope) that we mean different things by approach. I'll make my interest known and I'll flirt overtly, but that's my limit. I like being pursued dammit...if I'm making myself clearly available and obviously interested and she won't take the bait to ask me out (or suggest that we go out or that I should ask her out. (which is the same as asking me out really))...her loss. If she initiates the overt flirting, then the obligation with me to make the pursuit. Basically, whomever initiates the non-vague flirting, the obligation is on the other to make the approach. That way everybody is equally out on a limb.)

If she's that into herself that she insists on being "approached" (in both the overt-flirt and the ask-out) then I can say with certainty that we're not compatible. I like my women strong and self-sufficient and bold and uninterested in gender roles. Yeah, this just eliminated 90% of women, but they're the 90% I'm going to dominate (energetically/emotionally/intellectually) anyways. (Not by choice, I have a very-strong personality.) I dig equality.

[amitten]

49. Well, you're saying she's too "into herself" if she doesn't

approach you.

Doesn't that mean you're also too "into yourself" if you don't approach her?

BTW, about 99% of women out there want the exact reverse of what you've just posted. They want to flirt and make it apparent they're available, but have the guy ask for the phone number or date.

[Chan790]

51. Yes. (A long-response to a short-post warning)

I'd concede that. I am full of me. Completely into me, I'm the best. (This is only my internal monologue though.)

I have no self-esteem issues. When I said I tend to dominate other people I wasn't kidding. I am fun, witty, charming, dangerous*, chivalrous, brilliant, an exceptional conversationalist, people gravitate to me, I tend to date out of my league looks-wise.** I'm fearless, liberal, involved. I help old-ladies with their groceries, dance with awkward nieces at weddings, protest for civil (and women's, and gay, and humanitarian, and animal) rights, and hand out muffins to homeless people. Given I'm not the cutest guy in the world but I don't care. Dammit, I deserve to be pursued. I wish more men thought like me. I wish everybody thought like me. People who don't think they are awesome confuse me...if they don't think they are great then why aren't they working on that? Not that this post shows it, but I have a very "gee-aw-shucks" modesty IRL. I hate public recognition.

I hate traditional gender roles. Pre-women's-lib dating-etiquette belongs in the 1950s. You are not an accessory or an object. That's where these conventions come from. Men are supposed to do all the pursuing because you (as a woman) are supposed to be passive, dainty, overwhelmed, and pretty (but dumb and utterly unaware you're flirting); we're supposed to buy dinner because you're incapable of taking care of yourself and need us to make all the money; We're supposed to be the sexual aggressors because you're supposed to not have needs. Does that sound like someone you'd want to be...it's certainly not anybody I'd want to date. Give me bold, intellectual, strong, aggressive women.

BTW, about 99% of women out there want the exact reverse of what you've just posted. They want to flirt and make it apparent they're available, but have the guy ask for the phone number or date.

I'm a realist. I know the difference between what I want and what is realistic. Face it, everybody wants to be the pursued. It's nice to be actively-desired-upon. If she flirts, I'll pursue. I do so frequently. (I'm blessed with a job which allows (and encourages) me to flirt though so I manage to get asked-out as often as I ask-out.) I tried to make this clear...it has to be a two-way street. I have an issue with people who don't flirt and expect that they're entitled that potential partners are going to make that stone-cold approach. It's stuck-up...like "I'm too important to flirt with you, but if you grovel at my feet, I might let you take me out." That is lame. It's also SOP for the craptastic city I live in.

I dream of a world where everybody flirts and everybody pursues. It's time for an intellectual-romantic-sexual liberation.

* - I tend to talk people into things they would never do...such as public nakedness in crowded places to protest fur and animal exploitation. I also didn't get the 0% purity score for being a choir boy.

** - there is a running joke that Cary Grant is my spirit animal.

[Initech]

23. #59 - Orange County, I can agree with that ranking

There aren't a whole lot of women my age here who aren't interested in anything other than money, it sucks.

[BuelahWitch]

28. Kansas City #80

LOL, and to think I moved to this area from #41 Salt Lake! :rofl:

[pstokely]

40. How did SLC get a higher rating?

[BuelahWitch]

46. Probably because of the young Mormon population

If it's talking about 18-24. The University of Utah is there as well.
Incidentally, I got lots of dates till I hit 22 or so when I lived in Salt Lake. I guess everyone thought I should have been married by then. :(

[Scout1071]

41. I can testify to that......#80 sounds about right.

But I still can't believe that Salt Lake is better. At least not better for the non-Mormon variety.

[krispos42]

29. 78th?!?!?

No wonder I'm single and, um, well, no wonder I'm single...

Better fire up the Personals ad again...

[Radical Activist]

31. My city is a little too small to be on the list

but trust me, its a horrible place to be single. Anyone young with any ambition, intelligence or hopes for the future gets the hell out after high school. I often wonder if coming here was a bad idea.

[pstokely]

42. Many college towns are too small to be on that list

They probably just put them in with a bigger area

[EFerrari]

33. Wtf? FRESNO beat San Francisco? How did that happen?

lol

[pstokely]

43. The list must have been freeped

or they include housing costs

[Fenris]

34. Yeah, San Marcos is a great city for dating

If you're into Neanderthals.

I guess there are some lonely professors you could go after, but they usually commute from Austin.

[rockymountaindem]

35. Colorado Springs as number 2 would be refuted by anybody who lives there

No nightlife at all. Taking someone to church is considered a date. The only reason we rated so high on this scale or whatever is because of the high presence of young, unmarried military men. News flash: they've all got girls back home.

[pstokely]

44. This list must have been compiled using statistics alone

[Alexander]

37. Phoenix belongs at the bottom of the list.

A more scientific survey was done a couple of years ago showing that as far as big cities go, the dating scene in the Phoenix area sucks the most.

Maybe that's because most of the people I meet here are concerned with little more than the superficial. And the education of many Phoenicians makes the rest of the US look like a MENSA convention.

Yeah, lots of ladies are attractive here, but why should I waste my time with them when there is nothing going on upstairs?

:shrug:

[AngryAmish]

38. Gary, IN is 27th: This list is a crock

Has anyone ever been to Gary? It is terrible. It seems a high % of single people make a town good for dating. That is why college town rank so high. Anyway most people are single in Gary because it is a city populated by losers.

[pstokely]

45. Why didn't they include that area with Chicago?

Many isolated college towns did not show up anywhere on that list

[Harvard]

47. My experience

Best: Miami
Worst: Boston

[pstokely]

48. Why?

[KamaAina]

50. Yeah! Top Ten for the sacred 'aina!

So how come I can't get arrested? :shrug:

[Orsino]

52. I don't think I would want to be the kind of person...

...who could speak knowledgeably on the subject.