If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

7978 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Jun 2012 at 5:20 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

brantgoose: The number of partners:

sm = 3
sf = 1
sfp = 2
s or g mp = 3
l= 0

Average of the males: 3
Average of the females: 1

By your own example you get l = 2, making the average for the females (wife + lesbian + female prostitute) = (1 + 2 + 2) / 3 = 1 2/3. And the straight man has 4 partners.

And then your example hinges more on the population of women being larger than actual promiscuity. I also find your examples weird, two straight men having sex and lesbians having sex with men? Sure, it happens, but it is hardly descriptive of the norm.

Somaticasual: Correct. It's about the amount of partners, and all of those items listed affect that number directly, not the times they had sex. The only thing i'll agree on there respectively is that 1:2.5 is probably based on a flawed sampling methodology, but that doesn't mean it's back to 1:1.

Those items affect the number on an individual basis, not in a population. Let us add up the amount of unique sexual partners men have, and call that n. Logic dictates that for every unique sexual partner a man has, a woman has to have an unique sexual partner.

Therefore nmale = nfemale = n.

To get to the average amount we need to divide n by the population (k). In the EU the ratio for men to women age 15-64 is 1:1.

Therefore kmale = kfemale = k.

n / k= n / k

And therefore the amount of sexual partners can't be anything other than equal.

For the people who like to claim that homosexual men are more promiscuous and would increase the numbers for the men:

95% of people in the ABCnews survey were straight, only 2.5% of men and 2.7% of women in the Telegraph article reported same sex partners, the Denver Post and IndependentWoman don't link to the survey. I'd say that the maximum of 5% of people that had same sex partners do not in any significant way alter the data. Sure, homosexual men might be more promiscuous than homosexual women, but to go from 1:1 to 3:1 5% of the population they would need to have ridiculous numbers of partners each.

Assuming:
1. Straight women and homosexual/bi women are equally promiscuous
2a. Straight Men and straight women have, on average, equal amounts of unique sexual partners
2b. This amount would be 8 (using the amount of the men)
3. Homosexual men are more promiscuous
4. Homosexual men are 5% of the survey

We find that to go from 1:1 to 1:3 we need the men to have 3 times as many unique partners. Let's do some maths:

0.95 * 8 + 0.05X = 3 * 8
7.6 + 0.05X = 24
x = (24-7.6) / 0.05 = 328

So the 5% of men who are homosexual would need to have, on average, 328 partners each for them to move the female:male partner ratio from 1:1 to 1:3. Hands up anyone who thinks that that is likely.

Just sayin'.

As long as she does a good job faking an orgasm, why should I care how many partners she had?

TFA: Okay, what if we nudge each guy's number up, so that we don't have 4 virgins. That seems more realistic, right?

bronyaur1: eurotrader: The number could explained simply. I know a few people that have had sex with in excess of 250 women so far excluding hookers, most stop counting at 100 and just use averaging per month. If you throw in pro athletes and show biz types whose number is a best guess of 500 plus, it makes the men that do not know how to talk women or are poor and ugly hovering at less than 5 have a higher average.

I hope you don't trade currencies based on the level of understanding of mathematics displayed by your statement.

Do you believe that there are fewer men than women in the population? That these values are medians rather than means? That the pool of responses is biased across gender? That the reporting is differentially reliable with respect to gender? That a much higher percentage of contacts are male to male than female to female?

Seriously, are you incapable of the most basic mathematical reasoning?

I hope he does trade currencies. I'll take the other side of all his trades.

The discrepancy can be explained with the following pictures:

Women exclude bad partners in their counts when talking to most guys.

OtherLittleGuy: Mathematics: "The CDC has itself blowing up at the end of Season 1 of Walking Dead. We have Danica McKellar."

You win. And I want Danica McKellar.

eurotrader: The number could explained simply. I know a few people that have had sex with in excess of 250 women so far excluding hookers, most stop counting at 100 and just use averaging per month. If you throw in pro athletes and show biz types whose number is a best guess of 500 plus, it makes the men that do not know how to talk women or are poor and ugly hovering at less than 5 have a higher average.

Statistically, it still wouldn't matter. Average = total / occurrences, so unless there is an hugely unequal number of women compared to men, it is impossible. If men farked a total of x women, then women farked a total of x men.

Unless they are counting gay sex occurances, in which case it is probably true.

TFA specifically says only heterosexual sex is counted...

BUT are people who abstain counted? (IE no zeros) Ignoring people who don't have sex is the only way the numbers can make sense.

/sorry to bring this up, please go back to being bad at math

CDC has obviously never read of the 3 rule.

When men talk about the number of women they have slept with you divide that number by 3.

When women talk about the number of men they have slept with you multiply that number by 3.

/dnrtfa

OgreMagi: I have never lied about the number of women I've had sex with. Just two, and both of them, Christina Hendricks and Megan Fox, will back me up on this.

Not picky are you? one land whale and one bag of antlers.

I started working actively on meeting women for s3x. After I learned more about how to talk to women I would go out everyday and talk to as many women as I could. between classes, at bus tops, supermarket, bus stops, work (caution used), church, bars ... lots of bars. I cleaned up my appearance, worked out like mad, watched what I ate, etc.

After learning more about first dates and reading and getting to know women i started racking up the numbers pretty quickly. I had a goal of one new women a month for a year. I thought this was pretty ambitious. After 3 months I had 12 new ladies that I added to my journal.

And for proof ... i have pictures ... lots of pictures ...
If you don't mind lots of hard work you can get great results. my screen name is all about me looking out for me.

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.