|
crumpets -> RE: Male:Female ratio on collarspace (8/31/2015 10:45:11 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
Since you put forth an open invitation, I took a peek. ...These are purely subjective comments off the top of my head.
Thanks for taking the time and energy to peruse my profile for the purpose of ascertaining where I fit in the demand curve (top, middle, or bottom).
Since I read and respond, line by line, I'll proactively don my protective nomex "flame suit", just in case...
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
Your profile is too long and too wordy.
Given that the goal, with respect to this thread, is to see if my results can equate to the "average" (and then to compare "my numbers" to others' results), I take that to mean that my profile is far longer and far more verbose than your "average" subbie profile. (I can't, and won't disagree, and, as a side note, I will "fix" that, but fixing it is an off-topic aside).
What we need to ascertain, since we know my success ratio, is where I fit (top, middle, or bottom) in terms of having a profile that appeals (or doesn't appeal) to the respective ladyfolk whom it's aimed at (and, literally, who would show up in a directed search).
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
I didn't even bother to read your journal entries as a result.
I "fixed" (i.e., truncated) the profile, by moving the verbosity into my journal (I hate to waste words!).
But, again, it's an aside to fix the profile.
What we need to assess is where I fit in the male-profile index of initial suitability to a choosy woman.
Am I in the top, middle, or bottom?
The reason it matters is that we know "my" success ratio. So, if I'm in the bottom, that's what others in the bottom can reasonably expect; if I'm in the middle (which I am assuming I am, for now), then we know what the middle can reasonably expect. etc.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
I get the feeling that you are towing the party line, that you are expressing what you think a Domme would want to hear.
I guess I'm not subtle (I never was).
[I'll never be assigned to the post of diplomat in a foreign country.]
But, the question is how "average" I am (because we want to compare numbers, given the concept that was brought up in this thread that the ratios for successful meets are dependent on the subjective "quality" of the profile, and not only on the subjective NUMBER of profiles.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
It's not the typical do-me sub broken record, but it plays like a broken record all the same.
Hmmmm.... so it isn't your "average" profile in approach, but, it "is" your average profile, in intent?
I guess, that make me, um, just about average, does it not?
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
Sorry, but I would lump you in the cookie-cutter male sub who has a little bit of experience category, the category of subs with pre-conceived notions (stereotypes) about Dominants and what makes us tick, that I can do without.
Again, it seems that I'm average, so, that would mean, by extension, that my results should be about average, given the newly formed argument that it's not the objective NUMBERs that matter when it comes to face-to-face meets, but the qualitative assessment of the person behind the profile.
This would mean that the ratio of male:female success, for the average guy who identifies as my profile does, should be something around 12% to 15%, which equates to something reasonably like 6 or 7 to 1, which we can round out to about 10:1 (which is pretty damn good odds, if you ask me).
Up until now, I have been espousing 1,000:1 ratios, but that was based purely on objective numbers of profiles.
If we assume a kinked demand curve (which is what the ladies have been trying to tell me in the past few posts), then for an "average" guy, that horridly depressing ratio improves (dramatically) to something akin to (roughly) 10 to 1.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
Then upon reading your posts here, I would find your profile text suspect. Highly suspect, as in "has all kinds of hidden agenda = sneaky little fucker" suspect.
Here we delve into off-topic areas (for this thread - which is about success ratios); but I do understand your criticism, which is that my profile has some, shall we say, suspiciously identifying characteristics, especially given that you have the beforehand knowledge that I have previously crafted scores of profiles, each of which is designed to impersonate a particular fetish-oriented human behavior, whether or not that specific human itself, in that exact form, actually exists in that form.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
This isn't to say that you haven't shown courtesy to the posters on this thread.
I must admit, what frustrates me most, is pure stupidity, which you have not exhibited.
When I see stupid, I try to correct it, but, as we all know, while ignorance can be cured, stupidity can't.
So, I often lose my courtesies when responding to idiots; luckily, the majority of posters here are as smart or smarter than I am, so, the learning (and improvement) process is what I enjoy.
The key thing I learned here, for example, is that the horridly skewed odds are based on a too-simplistic algorithm, whereas the actual odds depend mostly upon the subjective quality of the profile.
Hence, we might tentatively conclude that the 1,000-to-1 success ratios for the puerile profiles improves dramatically, to arguably, something around 10:1 for your average profile (I'm assuming I'm average - if not - my 10:1 success ratio would have to be relegated to a different portion of the kinked demand curve).
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
But there is a passive-aggressive argumentativeness that does and would rub me the wrong way and get on my nerves.
I'm sure you won't find it surprising that, when I am submissive, the ladies often find it best to summarily gag me.
In fact, I carry a comfortable face dildo in my toybag, just so that the gag, which is up to the lady to employ, at least serves a dual purpose that is of some positive use to a lady.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
Back to average. Average to me, translates into mediocre. I abhor mediocrity almost as much as I am repelled by an untrustworthy-seeming (wannabe) sub.
Hmmmm... we have a problem with definition, which we have to get past, in order to make any valid conclusions.
To "me", average is pretty good, considering there are probably hundreds to thousands of similar profiles here.
To be on the top 15% or so (where, for example, DS or RS might be) is too much to hope for.
To be on the bottom 15% is also too little to aspire to.
But, to be in the middle 70% seems to be achievable, so, it's not pejorative. It's just what one can reasonably expect.
I know, for example, that on standardized tests, I generally score in the 95% to 99% percentile; but, in informal looks, demeanor, attitude, beliefs, success, achievements, utility, habitability, likeability, etc assessments (i.e., in all the ways a lady might judge me), I consider myself squarely in the average zone.
That's not good. It's not bad. It's pretty much where most everyone else is. It's defined as "average".
If you feel otherwise, then I'm not sure how to fix the definition of average problem because I'm assuming the mid-kink of the demand curve is for the average guys - so it's important that we iron out our definitions.
Anyway, if I continue to "assume" I'm pretty much an average guy here, we can then move forward to reiterate that we know my success ratio (as defined prior) is something like 10:1, while we also know that the pure NUMBERS suggest a far more horrid success ratio (of something like 1000:1) for many cock-shot profiles,.
That would mean, as others have pointed out, that the cock-shot profiles have (essentially) no chance, while the "better" (I call them average) profiles have a better chance, while, we can assume, the "best" profiles have the best chance possible.
All this means, as has been pointed out by the ladies here, is that the demand curve isn't close to as simple as I have (up to now) portrayed it. At the very simplest, it contains kinks. (How many tangental inflections? I don't know.)
Let's assume, for the moment, that there is only 1 kink (i.e., 2 levels) of demand leading to a meeting between a man & a woman.
Furthermore, if we assume "my" profile is average, then we can assign "my numbers" to that average portion of the demand curve.
a) 1000:1 (below average)
b) 10:1 (average to above average)
http://www.amosweb.com/images/KnkDm01f.gif
[image]http://www.amosweb.com/images/KnkDm01f.gif[/image]
NOTE: That images is a standard image from Economics texts - and is just there to illustrate the point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
My baseline is friendship. If you (plural) aren't the type of person I would even want as my friend, someone I could count on and express myself freely with in inviolable confidence, then you (plural) have zero chance of making it any further with me.
Oh man. I get what you say. But that is gonna defy numerical classification.
Bearing in mind that we're trying to figure out the male:female success chances, we'd have to QUANTIFY that friendship assessment.
I don't even know where to begin quantifying it.
So, for now, I'll leave that as an open flaw in the assessment (to be handled later, in the second edition).
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
There will never be a face-to-face meeting. Not ever.
To that end, I can't say that I even meet as many as a half dozen men in one year, although there was that one year when I had Domme fever and consented to meet over a dozen. A very, very exceptional year.
OK. Here we have some good usable data.
You, in your most prolific year, met a dozen men, while, on average (there's that word again), you meet roughly about half that.
I find those numbers surprisingly low (probably because, as has been beaten into my head in the prior posts, you women are downright CHOOSY!). :)
So, this is interesting. It's not what I thought it would be, but that CHOOSINESS factor changes the interpretation of the profile number surprisingly greatly.
Notice, I'm an average guy (or so I assume), where in my BEST year, I meet about six potential women, face to face, while you, in your average year, meet the same. Huh? That changes everything!
If we assume that you and I are average (and, by Occams Razor, we have to start with that assumption), then that implies that the average ratio of successful meets is just about the same for (average) men, as it is for (average) women, which is, in this case, just about between 2:1 and 1:1.
These numbers are close enough to 1:1 that I'll state that if you compare ONLY your results, and mine, and if we assume we're average (it's not pejorative - it's just what most people are), then the one-to-one ratios that were originally spoken about in this thread might have been accurate after all.
But then, why are there so many threads complaining about the lack of women on the forum? Are all those threads simply coming from the well-below-average (i.e., losers) whom you've all clearly stated you wouldn't give the time of day to, based on their profiles (so their effective ratio is on the order of 1000:1)?
We need more input from the guys and gals here ...
If we assume the curve is as complex as 3 kinks, we get something like:
a) Loser male profile (1000:1) ???
b) Average male profile (10:1) ???
c) Above average male profile (2:1) ??? [but only the likes of DS and RS can give us that information!]
http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/ee/v41n3/a02fig02.jpg
[image]http://i.imgur.com/O77lQvF.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
