>> That's a bold faced lie!
>
>If the guy is decent looking, you'd be surprised.  I know
>of men who were almost "gigilos" who could charm and BS their
>way into a woman's bed.  Granted, the relationship
>was unstable as hell but these men are out there.
>

Ya and you are talking older school women and very old school men.

Times dye be a changin.

>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Notice that this article was written by a WOMAN.
>> >>
>> >> I concur.  This reads like feminist propoganda trying to
>> >> offset all the 30 something women PANICKING from
>> >> Bridget Jones and Hewlett.  I especially find it amusing
>> >> how she openly lies about the interpretation of a statistic
>> >> she cites:
>> >>
>> >> "The overall birthrate dropped 40% from 1955 to 1973"
>> >>
>> >> This is total crap first of all.  The "baby
boom" referred
>> >> to a period from 1945 through 1965 where the population
>> >> INCREASED.  But let's take her at her word for a moment:
>> >> There was a baby BUST from the mid-60's to the 70's with the
>> >> second baby boom onward from the 80's (my understanding).
>> >
>> >Well that's good isn't it?
>> >
>>
>> If you look at the birth rate in 1973 as compared PER CAPITA in 1955
>> you will probably see a decrease of 40%. Now, think about that......
>
>I'm talking about the author's claim.  I believe the next
>baby boom began during the 80's.
>

YOu might be right.... I didn;t think about the Cocaine Baby Boom

>> That's an 18 year range...... which means that all the young women of
>> birthing age in 1955 would then be 18 years older and more than likely
>> OUT of the Pregnancy range.  Ya THINK that might just total up to
>> about a 40% difference?
>
>Whether we're talking about 1973 or 1980, the number of women
>YOUNGER than either age 32 to 25 are increasing with every
>year (and the age range moves onward.)
>
>This is very good news for men 25 to 32 today.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Even so, if the population began to increase again,
>> >> as SHE claims, from 1973, then this means that there
>> >> are more women for every year after that starting with
>> >> women aged 33 and YOUNGER!
>> >>
>> >> In other words, pity the poor men!  There are more and more
>> >> YOUNGER women for them to date every year!  Yeah, that
>> >> means men who can't find one of those aging Gen Xers will
>> >> just have to settle for a more sexually active, attractive
>> >> younger women.  Cantya just pity 'em? :-)
>> >>
>> >> She claims in the article that such services are scrambling
>> >> to find women because of population increase but it's
>> >> more likely that they want more members because men
>> >> just tend to sign onto such services faster than shy,
>> >> often less computer saavy women.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know what crack she's been smoking, but match.com started
>> >> out with male to female ratios of 10 to 1 and now it's
>> >> evening out.
>> >>
>> >> She must be Dan Rather's cousin to write up this "memo".
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >> Mark Sobolewski
>> >
>>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 4:59:13 PM ---