Oh Lex, you really do make my head hurt sometimes.

What the hell is rhinoceroseseseses? I have neve seen a plural of anything that goes on that long.

“I can’t believe you’re single.” If I had a nickel for every time someone said that to me in the past year, well, I’d have about $1.30 right now, and I would go to the White Hen and buy a bottle of Pepsi.

I got to wondering about the whole thing, and started doing some calculating, or “ciphering,” as Jethro Bodine would call it. And here’s how my dating site experience breaks down:

I have met 9 people from various dating sites, and I would have been much better off if I hadn’t. Actually, I would have been much better off being run over by a Jeep filled with rhinoceroseseseses 9 times, although I am not looking to do that as a retroactive option.

As it stands, I cannot seem to find anyone even remotely compatible (let alone interesting) on a dating site. Why is this?

It all boils down to the math. If you don’t like math, I’m on your side, and you can just skip the next 37 paragraphs. I don’t like math either, but I’m not going to be able to make my point here using semaphore, probably, so math it is.

OK. I have found, as a general rule, that most women on dating sites have kids. And the likelihood of a woman having kids goes up as she gets older. It’s a fairly easy concept to grasp: a 30-year-old is more likely to have kids than a 20-year-old. This is a strictly linear process; everyone starts out childless, and then more and more of them move from Column A (childless) to Column B (with kids) as time goes on. And it’s a one-way street. Nobody ever really goes from B to A. (Even the cases where it appears to go from B to A are really just reconfigurations -- kids move out, etc., but it doesn’t nullify the fact that they were born.)

I have done a thorough study of this, although my definition of “thorough” might seem a bit strange to anyone who actually owns a dictionary, but that’s another matter. It turns out that 98.3% of 30-year-old women, on an average dating site, have kids. In addition, of the remaining 1.7%, slightly more than 472% of those want children, proving that women really do have some difficulty with math.

I got to wondering if there might be some sort of magical “cutoff point” – a certain age where there were a significant number of women on a dating site who didn’t have kids and who didn’t want kids.

So I reran the study, this time using age 25 instead of 30, and I found that 97.9% had kids, and most of the others were trying to come up with ways to steal babies out of hospitals.

While it was true that younger women tended to be less likely to have kids, this trend was more than compensated for by the fact that even the 19-year-olds seemed to be spending hours a day learning how to write “AND THEY ARE MY WORLD” for use in future dating site profiles.

Not to mention the ever-increasing number of 19-year-olds who already HAD 3 kids.

The evidence is clear: Women are avoiding using dating sites until they have children. I suspect this is caused by a secret ingredient in anti-perspirants or hair spray or something. Or it may be hormonal, but that’s just too messy to think about.

That's just a safety precaution.

I counter your claim. I.....am 48. I have no children nor, do I plan on having any. Also, if you don't already have your **** together, there is no point in trying to "do" anything about you. So, no, I'm not looking to change anyone.

Like birth control for the grammatically challenged? And I have spent the last several minutes reviewing your calculations....98.3% of 30-year-old women, on an average dating site, have kids. In addition, of the remaining 1.7%, slightly more than 472% and I am feeling either very stupid or very blonde. I have decided to spend the remainder of my day trying to spell "We are the world". Damn, that's not right!

Well, I'm not very good with numbers, either.

Back in school, I hard a hard time with the idea that a negative number times a negative number equals a positive number. This makes no sense. The law or reciprocity would then demand that a positive number times a positive number must equal a negative number. But NO, that's wrong somehow.

When in doubt, just make up numbers to support your assertions. 94.9% of all researchers do that.

Hummmm guess ya could always try to convert a nun hey at least they would not have any kids nor want any kids but then you would have to deal with trying to convert them to atheist. Ohhhhhhhhh hell might just be easier staying single ya think? Ohhhhhhhhhh just too much thinking for me to do

Oh, good, now I have to do a study of nuns!

The other problem is they're drinking wine all the time....

Surely, there are women around here who can't or don't choose to have children...at least a few?

Perhaps this situation calls for a posse? A 'woman-hunt', so to speak? Have those who know you here or elsewhere ever tried to hook you up sith someone. (Oh...I am so fearing the answer to this...with any luck, I've just killed another thread... )

<-----100% non-breeder. Never had kids, don't want kids, never will. I'm pretty sure you can find a clone of me who resembles Billie Piper, Lex, you're just not looking hard enough.

I can't tell you how hot it makes me that you were so flabberghasted you made two typo's. I will have sweet dreams tonight for sure.