Yesterday Cute Coworker and I mathematically worked out that in any group with equal numbers of heterosexual men and women, both sexes must have the same average number of sexual partners.
(This may be incredibly obvious to those fancy educated members of the audience who passed math classes. Hush, it took us like two hours and five scribble-covered pages to work this out. Math is hard, guys.)
I realize that the median number can be different, and a handful of super-prolific bedhoppers can give you a skewed image of the group as a whole, but still, this seems like a blow to both the old "men should be studs, but women shouldn't be sluts" double standard, and its whinier more recent cousin "women can get laid and men can't."
I always laugh when I see survey results that report different numbers of partners for men and women (as virtually all do) without troubling to point out that these results are impossible. (There could be prostitutes that skew things, but if they’re unaccounted for in the survey it’s a poor design). So who’s lying, the men or the women or both?
ReplyDeleteBoth.
ReplyDeleteSarah - Gay people might be included too, they totally fuck up the math.
ReplyDeleteNumbers are always different even when they only ask about opposite-sex partners, alas. Hey, here's an article on it! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html
ReplyDeleteSo, have you increased the numbers by one each yet????
ReplyDeleteYou mean that, in such a group, the average number of sexual partners who are in the group is the same for both men and women, right? Because you could have a group consisting of 10 women who have no partners, 9 men who have no partners, and 1 man who has 50 partners none of whom are in the group. In this case the average number of partners of a woman in the group would be 0, and the average number of partners of a man in the group would be 5.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I've seen reports of skewed ratios, they specifically mentioned that they were using the median figure. Probably because the "mean", which is what most people think of when you talk about averages, would not provide any useful results (because, by definition, it would have to be 50-50 no matter what)
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that when it appears in the news, some of the reporters are simply calling it "average" without saying which type of average (mean, median, or mode) which may be the source of the confusion.
Or maybe women get date-raped a lot and don't count it as sex, whereas men who do it to them do count it as sex. Not likely, but it's possible.
GreenEarth - Yes, this is for a closed group, since ultimately the group is really just a model for all of society.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - What I want to know is, does anybody ever use the mode for anything? You just never see it around.
Modes are used in assessment situations from time to time. Means are notoriously unreliable. The mode can help you check medians and means for relevance--the mode might not tell you much by itself, but it can reveal skewing.
ReplyDeleteProstitutes can't change the numbers any more than virgins can. If 99 people have one partner each and the 100th has 99 partners, the average is 1.98 partners each, just as if 99 people have two partners each and the 100th has none.
ReplyDeleteProstitutes can't change the numbers any more than virgins can.
ReplyDeleteRight; I meant if they were outside of the surveyed population.
Hi Rick R! You mean in such a gathering, the normal number of sexual accomplices who are in the assembly is the same for both men and ladies, correct? Since you could have a gathering comprising of 10 ladies who have no accomplices, 9 men who have no accomplices, and 1 man who has 50 accomplices none of whom are in the assembly. Hence the normal number of accomplices of a lady in the assembly would be 0, and the normal number of accomplices of a man in the gathering might be 5. Can am i right or not??
ReplyDelete