That's likely a function of the area skewing so heavily towards a surplus of men. It's hard to play the field when the single man:single woman ratio is 3:1.
How can it be 3:1? Seems the male/female breakdown for SF is about 1.1:1. There are some other factors, but I still don't see how it can be anywhere close to 3:1.
Look at the male surplus until 60. Then remember that 80% of those are taken. And that the 1.1 : 1 ratio includes the huge 70+ women surplus.
I could believe a 2:1 single ratio for ages 20 - 60
Wouldn't 80% of males also be taken?
No, the surplus skews it. If there's 120 males and 100 females for an age bracket like 30 - 40, and 80 of them are couples (assuming hetero), that leaves 40 males for 20 females as the rest, 2:1 single ratio. Men are born like 1.05 : 1 so early years are male-surplus and elderly are female-surplus because men die quicker. Then you also have the conundrum where males 20 - 50 are competing for women 20 - 35, so market dynamics aren't always 1 to 1 age-wise.