ABC, CBS, FOX & NBC Have Lost More Than 77% Of Their Market Share

[Beltway]

How did we stop talking about sex?

Someone wanting it 3 or 4 times per week vs. someone wanting it once per month.

Twice a week is typical average.

Actually, the large majority of married couples have sex once a week or less.
https://nicetracker.app/posts/is-it-normal-to-go-weeks-without-sex

When you average in sexless marriages, of course the mean collapses.

The number of men reporting that their marriages went functionally sexless -- sometimes for years -- is extremely large. That's not anecdote; it's a well‑documented pattern in surveys, counseling literature, and divorce testimony.

So "once a week" as an average hides a bimodal distribution:
-- couples with regular intimacy, and
-- couples where intimacy has effectively stopped.

Lumping those together and calling it "typical" is statistically meaningless.

[Beltway]

So, you've had 47 relationships that didn't make it.  Sounds like you're probably not too enjoyable for a woman to be around, or surely one of them would have stuck.

I would imagine someone that knows exactly how many relationships they have had (when the number is larger than, say, five) would be exactly the type of person who would have a tough time getting one to stick.

The term was "dated," not "relationships."

A first date, a short sequence, and a relationship are different categories. Treating them as the same thing is the core error here.

Knowing your own dating history isn't unusual -- it's just being precise about your own life.

[NWI_Irish96]

I know the subject of age difference came up recently. I haven't been in the market for a new partner in nearly 25 years, but if I were, I think a lower limit for me would be someone who is at least old enough to have had some grasp of the magnitude of 9/11 when it happened, so probably born no earlier than 1991-ish. That makes is a roughly 17 year difference to me, which is also well within the range of not seeming creepy (looking at you, Mr. Belichick).

[SEWIGuy]

So, you've had 47 relationships that didn't make it.  Sounds like you're probably not too enjoyable for a woman to be around, or surely one of them would have stuck.

I would imagine someone that knows exactly how many relationships they have had (when the number is larger than, say, five) would be exactly the type of person who would have a tough time getting one to stick.

The term was "dated," not "relationships."

A first date, a short sequence, and a relationship are different categories. Treating them as the same thing is the core error here.

Knowing your own dating history isn't unusual -- it's just being precise about your own life.

I think it is very unusual to know the exact number of women you have dated in your lifetime if it's anything more than 5-10.

[Beltway]

Nobody who is member of this hobby has enough game to go out on dates even with 20 different people in their lifetime.

What if you are a "member" of 39 diverse hobbies and interests, 27 of which started before high school age?

Who the fuck counts how many hobbies they have????

What if hobby counting is one of the hobbies? Every so often you have to update your spreadsheet of which hobbies are active, which are on hiatus, and which you've lost interest in, and add any new ones you've picked up (like "complaining about bridge plans").

Firstly, that was posed as a question, not a claim.

Secondly, people in the information systems field work with data collection, organization, analysis, and storage every day. It's normal to apply the same habits to personal interests.

I maintain over 30 non-work spreadsheets across a wide range of topics. I wouldn't call it a "hobby," but it's a long‑running interest -- which is why I listed both terms above.

[kphoger]

the mean

I didn't say anything about the mean.  In this context, the mean is a useless average.  I'm talking about the median.

The number of men reporting that their marriages went functionally sexless -- sometimes for years -- is extremely large. That's not anecdote; it's a well‑documented pattern in surveys, counseling literature, and divorce testimony.

Defined as less than ten times yearly, 15% to 20% of marriages are 'sexless', the number varying greatly by age.

For kicks, let's call it 18%.  Subtract that from the total of 47% of married couples who have sex less than once a week, and you're left with 29% married couples having sex less than weekly but who aren't 'sexless'.

Then there's the 37% who have sex weekly.  Add 37% to 29%, and you have roughly two-thirds of married couples having sex once a week or less but who aren't 'sexless'.

As I said, the large majority of married couples have sex once a week or less.

So "once a week" as an average hides a bimodal distribution:
-- couples with regular intimacy, and
-- couples where intimacy has effectively stopped.

Lumping those together and calling it "typical" is statistically meaningless.

Ten times per year is still more frequent than once every two months.  I'd still call that 'regular', even if it's not what most people would prefer.  Sex that happens more than twice a month certainly hasn't 'effectively stopped'.

[Max Rockatansky]

So, you've had 47 relationships that didn't make it.  Sounds like you're probably not too enjoyable for a woman to be around, or surely one of them would have stuck.

I would imagine someone that knows exactly how many relationships they have had (when the number is larger than, say, five) would be exactly the type of person who would have a tough time getting one to stick.

The term was "dated," not "relationships."

A first date, a short sequence, and a relationship are different categories. Treating them as the same thing is the core error here.

Knowing your own dating history isn't unusual -- it's just being precise about your own life.

I think it is very unusual to know the exact number of women you have dated in your lifetime if it's anything more than 5-10.

I would expect most people to know how many actual dedicated relationships they've had.  I would also expect most people to know how many sexual partners they have had in lifetime. 

Either way, dating 47 individuals seems implausibly high for even the sleaziest people.  It REALLY doesn't add up for someone who keeps spreadsheets on their hobbies and obsesses over spending on bridge replacements.

[Beltway]

The term was "dated," not "relationships."
A first date, a short sequence, and a relationship are different categories. Treating them as the same thing is the core error here.
Knowing your own dating history isn't unusual -- it's just being precise about your own life.

I think it is very unusual to know the exact number of women you have dated in your lifetime if it's anything more than 5-10.

It's not unusual in any meaningful sense. It's only unusual to people who don't track anything.

People in data‑driven fields routinely keep long‑term records.

I've been dating for over 50 years. Knowing the approximate count of first dates, short sequences, and relationships over that timeframe isn't remarkable -- it's just basic record‑keeping.

Before spreadsheets, it was just a little black book -- basic record‑keeping, nothing more.

[Beltway]

I would expect most people to know how many actual dedicated relationships they've had.  I would also expect most people to know how many sexual partners they have had in lifetime. 
Either way, dating 47 individuals seems implausibly high for even the sleaziest people.  It REALLY doesn't add up for someone who keeps spreadsheets on their hobbies and obsesses over spending on bridge replacements.

I know and track far more details than I am going to post here.

You're treating 47 as if it happened in a short window. It didn't.

I've been dating for over 50 years. Over that span, dozens of first dates, short sequences, and a smaller number of relationships is the normal distribution for anyone with a long dating timeline.

Tracking things isn't a personality tell -- it's standard practice for people in data‑oriented fields. Before spreadsheets, it was a notebook.

Nothing about that is implausible.

[Beltway]

Ten times per year is still more frequent than once every two months.  I'd still call that 'regular', even if it's not what most people would prefer.  Sex that happens more than twice a month certainly hasn't 'effectively stopped'.

Less than ten times per year is the standard definition of sexless marriage used in counseling literature.

[Max Rockatansky]

I would expect most people to know how many actual dedicated relationships they've had.  I would also expect most people to know how many sexual partners they have had in lifetime. 
Either way, dating 47 individuals seems implausibly high for even the sleaziest people.  It REALLY doesn't add up for someone who keeps spreadsheets on their hobbies and obsesses over spending on bridge replacements.

I know and track far more details than I am going to post here.

You're treating 47 as if it happened in a short window. It didn't.

I've been dating for over 50 years. Over that span, dozens of first dates, short sequences, and a smaller number of relationships is the normal distribution for anyone with a long dating timeline.

Tracking things isn't a personality tell -- it's standard practice for people in data‑oriented fields. Before spreadsheets, it was a notebook.

Nothing about that is implausible.

Out of that 47 individuals you are claiming to have dated:

-  How many people went on a second date with you?
-  If both parties were asked would they agree that a single event was actually what they would consider "a date?"
-  How many people you dated entered a committed relationship with you?  Since you want to be analytical let's call that a relationship that lasted six months or longer. 

To clarify, have you or have you not been married?  I know you have already said that you don't have any children out there.

[Beltway]

I'm not answering personal‑life interrogatories. They're outside the scope of the discussion, and I don't ask that of others here.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not answering personal‑life interrogatories. They're outside the scope of the discussion, and I don't ask that of others here.

Why claim outlandish dating numbers in public then if you don't want to respond to follow up questions?  You're the one who started all this.

[Molandfreak]

I would expect most people to know how many actual dedicated relationships they've had.  I would also expect most people to know how many sexual partners they have had in lifetime. 
Either way, dating 47 individuals seems implausibly high for even the sleaziest people.  It REALLY doesn't add up for someone who keeps spreadsheets on their hobbies and obsesses over spending on bridge replacements.

I know and track far more details than I am going to post here.

You're treating 47 as if it happened in a short window. It didn't.

I've been dating for over 50 years. Over that span, dozens of first dates, short sequences, and a smaller number of relationships is the normal distribution for anyone with a long dating timeline.

Tracking things isn't a personality tell -- it's standard practice for people in data‑oriented fields. Before spreadsheets, it was a notebook.

Nothing about that is implausible.

I mean ok, you can keep records in calendars, but it's pretty weird that you knew that exact number off the top of your head and didn't pull out that information after saying "more than 40" or similar.

[Beltway]

We haven't defined "date" in this thread yet. I'm using it to mean a mutually intentional one‑on‑one friendly meeting of meaningful duration (typically at least a couple of hours), not a brief or incidental interaction.

[kphoger]

Tracking things isn't a personality tell

Baloney*.  Keeping a spreadsheet of everyone you've dated for the last 50+ years is definitely a personality tell.

*  Note:  Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet

Nothing about that is implausible.

It is, however, quite impleasable.

Defined as less than ten times yearly, 15% to 20% of marriages are 'sexless', the number varying greatly by age.

Less than ten times per year is the standard definition of sexless marriage used in counseling literature.

Glad to see we're in agreement about that, then.

[Beltway]

I mean ok, you can keep records in calendars, but it's pretty weird that you knew that exact number off the top of your head and didn't pull out that information after saying "more than 40" or similar.

Here is some data that I have been keeping for over 50 years --
http://roadstothefuture.com/VA-Freeway-Widening-Projects.xlsm

I don't mind posting this data.

[Max Rockatansky]

So if I'm getting this right by Beltway's definition anytime I ever went to lunch alone with a female coworker is something he would consider to be a "date."  That certainly is one way to skew dating numbers. 

[NE2]

I know the subject of age difference came up recently. I haven't been in the market for a new partner in nearly 25 years, but if I were, I think a lower limit for me would be someone who is at least old enough to have had some grasp of the magnitude of 9/11 when it happened, so probably born no earlier than 1991-ish. That makes is a roughly 17 year difference to me, which is also well within the range of not seeming creepy (looking at you, Mr. Belichick).

I don't understand. 9/11 was 52.5 years ago, and why is Chilean history that important to someone Irish in northern Wisconsin?

[Beltway]

So if I'm getting this right by Beltway's definition anytime I ever went to lunch alone with a female coworker is something he would consider to be a "date."  That certainly is one way to skew dating numbers.

A 2+ hour lunch? Never could do that.

I know the subject of age difference came up recently. I haven't been in the market for a new partner in nearly 25 years, but if I were, I think a lower limit for me would be someone who is at least old enough to have had some grasp of the magnitude of 9/11 when it happened, so probably born no earlier than 1991-ish. That makes is a roughly 17 year difference to me, which is also well within the range of not seeming creepy (looking at you, Mr. Belichick).

I don't understand. 9/11 was 52.5 years ago, and why is Chilean history that important to someone Irish in northern Wisconsin?

So if she isn't old enough to remember the Apollo Moon landings, the Vietnam War, and the Kennedy assassination, and you do, you have nothing to talk about? [Dr. Phil show reference here]

People talk about family, work, school, future plans, current events, hobbies, travel, etc. Age difference does not play a factor in that. Besides, if one of your interests is history, you can read and learn about those events.

WW II history is one of my interests since about 9 years old. I did not live thru it, my parents did, and I well eclipsed their historical knowledge about it.

[Beltway]

I'm not answering personal‑life interrogatories. They're outside the scope of the discussion, and I don't ask that of others here.

Why claim outlandish dating numbers in public then if you don't want to respond to follow up questions?  You're the one who started all this.

Well no I did not. It was repeated comments like "women don't find you enjoyable" and "people in this hobby don't have that kind of game" that led me to post some data that led to all this.

I am the "humble don't toot your horn" kind of person, but I will correct factual errors when they're about me. That's the only reason the number came up.

[Molandfreak]

I am the "humble don't toot your horn" kind of person,

Well you could have fooled me.

[Max Rockatansky]

Back in late 2015 I was still living in Orlando.  By November I had my transfer back to the west coast approved.  I was due to make the actual move via a cross country drive during January 2016. 

Also during November 2015 I had taken delivery on my Dodge Challenger.  I was taking to work somewhat regularly so I could get 500 miles on the engine before I shipped it to my brother's house in Arizona. 

On one of the days I was driving the Challenger to work one of the female managers who was around my age asked me I would take her for a ride.  She liked cars and offered to buy me lunch, so agreed.  It was a longer work day so we took about a 90 minute lunch at a restaurant off of Semoran Boulevard. 

That female coworker was married at the time and I certainly didn't consider that lunch to be a date.  I couldn't really tell you if she thought it was a date or not.  Unbeknownst to me she was going through a divorce but she never brought it up.

Said female coworker ended up getting married to my replacement.  They have two kids and recently moved closer to her family in New England.  Maybe there was something to that lunch that I wasn't picking up on?  Who knows, but I wouldn't tally it on a hypothetical spreadsheet as a "date."

[Beltway]

On one of the days I was driving the Challenger to work one of the female managers who was around my age asked me I would take her for a ride.  She liked cars and offered to buy me lunch, so agreed.  It was a longer work day so we took about a 90 minute lunch at a restaurant off of Semoran Boulevard. 

In and of itself I would not call that a date. There needs to be at least some kind of "friendly spark" there to call it that. But then again it may be at the border of being a date.

I did have a first meeting with a woman who wanted to test drive a car. She did not have a car. But that led to a dating relationship of over a year.

[Beltway]

You spontaneously meet someone and after about 30 minutes together it advances physically to hugging and kissing for several minutes. You and her part and do not get together again.

Was that a date?