Read the article earlier today and I just read it again because the first time I honestly didn't really get its point. After reading it a second time, here are my thoughts:

> In the Vanity Fair article, David Buss, a University of Texas psychology professor, claimed that apps like Tinder contribute to “a perceived surplus of women,” among straight men, which in turn leads to more hookups and fewer traditional relationships. Here’s the thing: This surplus of women is not “perceived” at all but very, very real.

Okay, so according to Mr. Birger, we have we have a surplus of women. He fails to qualify it here, but later we realize this is true of only a few places (Manhattan, for example) and not necessarily true in the general case. In fact, women generally outnumber men in college[1].

> As I note in my book, today’s lopsided gender ratios “add up to sexual nirvana for heterosexual men, but for heterosexual women — especially those who put a high priority on getting married and having children in wedlock — they represent a demographic time bomb.”

I don't really get this. It smells of thinly veiled anti-male sentiment ("sexual nirvana for heterosexual men") -- as if women don't enjoy casual sex? It also seems that Birger doesn't think relationship goals are discussed by both parties. Men aren't the only ones that "decide" where a relationship heads -- Vanity Fair disagrees, but I frankly think that's complete nonsense and does a disservice to young women. Furthermore, women aren't indentured -- they can leave an unfavorable relationship at any time. Specifically, the Vanity Fair article was referring to hookup culture. Presumably, if you want a long term relationship (and put a "high priority on getting married and having children in wedlock"), you won't meet someone on Tinder Friday and have sex with them on Saturday. Even a dating neophyte can tell you that much.

> Regardless of orientation, obviously not all women place a premium on marriage, or even monogamy. But for the straight, college-educated woman who is eager to get married and start a family, the question becomes how best to deal with a dating market in which men have too much leverage.

Again, the Vanity Fair article specifically dealt with Tinder. You put a high premium on long term relationships and wedlock? Don't use Tinder. There's OKCupid, Match.com, eHarmony, and PoF; most of these are aimed towards relationship-building and not necessarily thrill-seeking. Tinder is primarily a hookup app. Kind of how the Silk Road was mainly used for buying and selling drugs. Sure, there are edge cases, but it's important to see the salient point here.

> Unsurprisingly, men tend to be less — I’ll say it — promiscuous when women are more scarce.

This is a (stupid, and again, thinly-veiled anti-male) truism. Female scarcity by definition implies less male sex going on. Mr. Birger managed to say absolutely nothing while at the same time making it Tweet-worthy.

But really the article fails at a much more basic level. Some people are looking for relationships while others are looking for hook-ups. Without quantifying these two segments (and the cross-pollination between these groups), Birger's claims are meaningless. At least the Vanity Fair article didn't particularly try to make any sweeping generalization and was somewhat of a showpiece: an excellently written, wonderfully researched, and fun to read collection of interviews. Birger's, on the other hand, makes claims it can't possibly prove and reduces some of the most complex human social interaction to "leverage" and "priorities". I think he took the Vanity Fair article a bit too seriously.

Finally, the entire Birger article makes a huge assumption: that most women are interested in a "boyfriend" rather than a hookup. Without the data to back this assumption up, we're stuck in the middle of nowhere.

[1] http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html