White cover! We just had a white cover in April, I'll never figure these things out! Shakira, wearing a doily! Seriously, the top isn't just "lacy", it's a giant piece of lace! Best cover story: "Vaginas Under Attack!" Least likely-to-be-accurately-titled cover story: "99 New Sex Facts!"
Invented by a Harvard engineer and sold at LeWhif.com for about $2 each, new inhalers deliver java- or chocolate-flavored air to curb cravings sans calories.
Yeah, because my problem with coffee is all those calories. And seriously, I can't imagine being so miserably self-denying that flavored air seemed like a good idea. I would rather eat a small piece of strong chocolate and let those ~20 calories go straight to my thighs than resort to ridiculous rock-soup solutions.
Why More Girls Are Kissing Girls
"I kissed a girl... and I liked it!" When Katy Perry's infamous ode to the girl crush first rocked the airwaves two years ago, it felt ballsy--shocking, even. Now? Eh.
No, Cosmo, lesbians and bisexuals were not invented just last week. (Fake bisexuals-for-attention neither.) It's long been obvious that the kink community and feminist movement do not exist in the Cosmo universe, but it's a little weird to find out that they didn't even know about gay people.
Run a bath or cozy up on the couch with a glass of wine, and try imagining yourself in a relationship with someone of the same sex. If you can picture it clearly, you may have more than a girl crush.
"Like OMG Becky I totally took Cosmo's advice and now I'm like totally into being bisexual now, OMG!"
10 Reasons We're Still Obsessed with R-Patz
1. We're aware a lot of our readership is thirteen years old.
2. Or emotionally thirteen years old.
3. We always wanted a hundred-year-old murderer to stalk us.
4. But not fuck us.
5. SPARKLES!
6. EYEBROWS!
7. PALLOR!
8. BIG HAIR!
9. We think he probably has a penis, presumably.
10. We have to be obsessed with a male celebrity at all times, and he seemed as good as any.
Don't wait to feel turned on before you make a move. Most women experience arousal after the fun has already begun.
So, uh, when should I initiate sex, if I can't trust my own feelings and plan to inflict a "well, you'll like it once it's happening, baby" on myself? At total random? Since I actually do experience sexual desire, can I ignore this, or do I still need to force myself into sex with a bone-dry pussy and hope for the best?
The average number of sexual partners for heterosexual men is 7; for heterosexual women, it's 4.
No, that's the average number self-reported by these groups. It could conceivably be the median (although that's unlikely), but I can very much guarantee you that on average, men fuck women exactly as often as women fuck men.
A fetus responds to Mom getting it on: It can sense blood-pressure and heart-rate changes, and it feels nonsexual excitement.
I'm pretty sure they threw the "nonsexual" in there just so it wouldn't be weird or anything.
The "sexual pursuit" part of a man's brain is two-and-a-half times bigger than a woman's.
Ah yes, the clearly delineated, sole-purpose, and well-understood "sexual pursuit" lobe. Stands out like a neon sign in any dissection.
Giving him a massage may get you excited. Fingertips and pads are the most sensitive parts of your skin.
I don't know about that; I don't think I'd take it nearly as well in stride if I opened an envelope wrong and got a papercut on my clitoris.
That glazed look a man gets when he sees breasts? His visual brain circuits are on the lookout for signs of fertility.
That conscious look a man gets when his eyes are open? His visual brain circuits are processing visual information.
Keep a glass of ice water on the bedstand, and once you've both climaxed, take a drink, holding and swirling the cool liquid in your mouth before swallowing. Then immediately envelop his balls with your lips, one at a time.
I don't even have balls, and I just felt them jump about two feet up into my stomach.
[Q: My boyfriend has a foot fetish. I'm okay with that. Somehow this is a question, rather than just a statement.]
A: Your guy's preference is only a concern if he can't get an erection without foot-play. If that's the case, he'll need to see a therapist.
Why? Why is that the dividing line? It's okay to have a fetish, as long as you're still able to be "normal"--but if you actually need your fetish, then it's no good any more? The guy likes feet, he dates women who let him play with their feet, and all is well in the world; no therapy required.
"Doctor, doctor, I can't get a boner unless I do this!" "Then do that."
There's more, but I have to sleep; more later.
Wut's "R-Patz"?
ReplyDeleteAlso seconded on the what's an R-Patz?
ReplyDeleteThe whole "girls kissing girls" thing was "scandalous" back in the 1980s, or at least the provocative public mentions of said act. During the 1990s it became somewhat mainstreamed. And only now does Cosmo notice this, and only because a few religious nutcases blew the Katy Perry thing out of proportion somewhat recently? They're like 15-20 years behind the times.
Then again, that's probably true of a lot of Cosmo readers.
Oh, I needed a laugh out loud this morning! Thank you for your beautiful, beautiful snark.
ReplyDeleteR-Patz is Robert Pattinson, star of the Twilight films. I'm not especially happy that I know that, but a lot of my knowledge is in the same category.
ReplyDeleteThe girls-kissing-girls segments come as close as Cosmo ever has to making my head explode. Who the fuck writes this shit?
Came here to ask what an R-Patz was, leaving satisfied.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't those of you asking what an R-Patz was type "R-Patz" into Google and see for yourself?
ReplyDeleteI don't usually click on ads but there was one recently that challenged me to enter my number of sexual partners and see how I stacked up against others in my general demographic. And it was legit: it showed me all kinds of stats without doing fishy shit like asking for my cell phone number first.
ReplyDeleteAnyway. I looked at a big chart that stated the average partners for men and women in a bunch of different age ranges. The numbers of partners in each age range were identical for men and women.
Also, I'm not a math whiz so correct me if I'm wrong but how can the average number of sex partners (for straight people) be higher for men than it is for women? Every time a straight guy gets laid, a straight girl gets laid. Even if most women are doing the gatekeeper thing and all the guys are fucking like two awesome sex-positive chicks, those chicks' number will bring the overall female average up. Right?
So the only way Cosmo can be getting their skewed numbers is either a) people are lying or b) Cosmo is surveying a very specific demographic and the guys are fucking women outside of it.
Right?
Oh, also, the idea of satisfying chocolate or coffee cravings with flavoured air is fucking stupid. Chick magazines never seem to acknowledge that food addiction is a chemical thing. I don't crave chocolate because it's so darned yummy (although it is); I crave it because I want a high from the sugar and/or the caffeine and/or that chemical whose name I can't remember that makes you feel like you're falling in love. People crave coffee because they want a damn caffeine high. The taste of these things is just a Pavlovian trigger that the high you're seeking is about to hit, and therefore I posit that flavoured air will just be a horrible tease that makes you crave these things more.
ReplyDeleteIt's like telling someone "it's easy to quit smoking - just suck on a drinking straw instead! It's round, it's in your mouth, you can inhale through it...so that's pretty much the same thing, right?"
No.
Aw, I love your Cosmocking Holly (and the "different average numbers of heterosexual partners" thing never fails to crack me up- are we a whole country of mathematical illiterates?), but I think you missed the boat on this one:
ReplyDelete>Don't wait to feel turned on before you make a move. Most women experience arousal after the fun has already begun.
In my experience, this is totally true. I mean, nobody is saying strawman things like "initiate sex totally at random!" or "force yourself into it with a bone-dry pussy!" (Though, okay, I wouldn't put it past Cosmo. But at least not in that quote.)
But I've felt that "Gee, sex would be nice, I wish I could get horny" thing many many times, haven't you? And (and this is just the way I'm wired- I'm pretty toppy) laying there and fantasizing won't necessarily get me there, and having the guy initiate sex won't get me there... but if I just decide that I want sex, horny at the moment or not, and pin/tie him down and tease him? 90% of the time I'll end up raring to go.
It just seems like "you don't have to wait for the Perfect Magic Mood" - not to mention "you don't have to wait for him to push the exact right series of buttons to put you in the Perfect Mood" - is pretty good advice. Realizing that I could just decide "I want sex now, dammit," and learn how to force the issue when I was frustrated with my own uncooperative body- well, that was a good thing.
The sexual partners thing - it might be that men and women, in general, count different acts as "sex" or "not sex." So women, who are encouraged to be all virginal by the abstinence-only crowd, might not count anal, oral, etc., because they're still "technical virgins" or whatever, whereas the guys they're having anal sex with are encouraged to have higher "numbers" because it makes them more manly. Or they're just lying.
ReplyDeleteDragoJustine - Okay, I see what you're saying. I actually don't personally experience that very often, because I do get physically horny very easily, but I can understand the difference between that and "forcing yourself."
ReplyDelete"The "sexual pursuit" part of a man's brain is two-and-a-half times bigger than a woman's."
ReplyDeleteOK... Do they mean the BSTc? or the bundle of neurons that control the penis? Because the size ratio is right for either. But they're both the size of a *grain of rice*. And one is for holding his penis straight out - the other one we don't even know what it's for. It's not the "Sexual Pursuit part of a man's brain".
Science Fail.
Perversecowgirl - "Food addiction" also has an element of basic biological need. You may not need specifically chocolate, but you need to eat something today, and you can't substitute flavored air for all of it. Obviously a whole bunch of chocolate isn't the healthiest way to get that something, but if a small piece of strong chocolate makes up part of it, that's really not a problem.
ReplyDeleteSo the thing about your "quitting smoking" analogy--it's not quite the same thing because no one needs to quit food.
I would say that food addiction has almost no basis in biological need at all*. I mean if a hardcore pothead only ever had pot in brownie form, and he ran out and was jonesing for more, would you rationalize it by saying "Well, a person does need to eat..." It's the druglike elements of food that people get addicted to and this has nothing at all to do with sustenance.
ReplyDeleteI have, in all seriousness, seen an article in a chick magazine where a woman said "When I crave french fries, I just eat green beans instead!" which is pretty much a perfect match for my smoking analogy. "Green beans are long and skinny and so are french fries so this totally means I can make the substitution and fill my craving!" - totally ignoring that green beans don't have any of the components that make up a french fry craving: fat, salt, and simple carbs. These articles are simplistic, ignore the actual root of the problem, and will probably make a lot of women feel like failures when these asinine substitution tricks don't satisfy their cravings.
Nobody needs to quit food, but a lot of us do need to quit eating crapfood with no nutritional value. And I've found that the best way to do that (for me, anyway) is to just quit entirely because "substitutions" make the cravings far worse. (Chocolate may be an exception here. Generally when I'm eating very well, my cravings for sweets, junk food, etc. pretty much go away...but PMS seems to make me need chocolate regardless).
*The body does require salt and carbohydrates, but not nearly as much as most people consume in a day.
I dunno, perversecowgirl, you say "food addiction" and I still hear "oxygen addiction."
ReplyDelete@perversecowgirl The trick is to douse the green beans in tons of salt and butter. Mmmmm. Not healthy, I'm sure, and hence totally besides the point, but definitely on deliciousness-par with french fries.
ReplyDeleteAnd to echo what DragoJustine said, I initiate a lot of my sexy times not feeling aroused at all. Not to sound too stereotypically wishy-washy and female but I get a lot of things out of sex besides orgasms: a sense of emotional closeness with my partner, a giddy feeling of "OMG we're awesome!" after a scene goes well and even--seriously--a feeling that I've just gotten a great intellectual workout if we've had a scene with a ton of amazing banter. So sometimes I get this "I want sex" feeling even though I'm not aroused but instead, say, feeling giddiness-deprived. It's not random. It's generally something that happens with someone I know I've had an awesome time with before. And then it's a pretty simple matter of trusting that the proceedings will turn me on because they have in the past. And even if they don't always, I'm sometimes okay with that.
That said, there's a happy medium somewhere between the statements "Sex isn't about orgasms, but about ~emotions~. I'm perfectly happy not to have orgasms" and "There's no point in having sex unless everyone comes ten times." Everyone's going to fall somewhere different on the spectrum. As long as they're falling there naturally, instead of because a magazine is sorting them according to gender, I think that's fine. You seem like you're a lot closer to the statement #2 end and I'm a bit closer to statement #1 (though not glued up against it by any means.) Therefore, sometimes I do identify with the things Cosmo says in this vein while they seem totally foreign to you. I just HATE that Cosmo says I have to feel this way because I'm a woman.
--Andy
Okay, "oxygen addiction" is an obtuse answer, obviously it's better to eat a wide variety of vaguely-based-on-nature foods than to feed yourself entirely based on cravings. But I don't think that a food craving is an "addiction" in the same sense that meth is--it's more like a personal preference, and not always wrong in moderation.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if you're familiar with Michelle Weiner-Davis (THAT'S NOT FUNNY! STOP IT!) but she's a sex therapist who works with what she calls "sex-starved marriages." She states that many if not most of her female patients are either completely missing the emotional connection (so they have no desire for sex with their husbands at all) or they feel terrible about putting their husbands through months or years without sex, but feel that unless they're feeling physical desire at the moment, it would be "fake" and wrong to have sex, no matter who initiates it. By waiting to feel that physical rush, they put off sex with their husbands longer and longer, and the longer it's been, the less likely they are to get that feeling. Her advice is to "just do it"--in other words, if you want to have sex with your husband, don't worry so much about why. Just get started and see what happens.
ReplyDeleteSince I've told this much, I might as well admit that my wife and I have been through this and that advice helped us. We're a lot happier now.
To those who complain that the 4 partners per woman / 7 partners per man average is a math fail, that's not quite true. There are actually 3 types of averages - mean average, median average, and mode average. When people use the term "average" in ordinary speech, they are referring to the mean average only. In that case this would indeed be an impossible result. However, the original study which the 4/7 figure comes from was using the median average - in which case this would be indeed possible if a small number of women with a great many partners were skewing the results.
ReplyDeleteOf course the original study didn't control for self-reporting bias, and it's really old information by now (I first heard of it when I was a child and I'm in my mid-30s!) so it may not even reflect the current reality. But if there's a fail involved, math isn't it.
Not Me - I'm pretty sure that "average" means mean, and that there's no such thing as "median average" but just "median."
ReplyDeleteAlso, even if they'd said "median," it only takes the results from impossible to very, very unlikely.
median is equally as valid an "average" as mean, especially when there's statistical outliers. 4/7 sounds fishy anyway, but the fact that the mean is by necessity the same for men and women does *not* necessarily mean that the *distribution* is the same.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, these curves have the same mean and median, which is why standard deviation is awesome: http://mvpprograms.com/help/images/KurtosisPict.jpg
This is kind of illustrative too: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/skew.jpg
I think it's far more amusing to contemplate possible ways that the 4/7 figure could be entirely accurate, even with the mathematical definition of average.
ReplyDeleteThree options come to mind straight away:
1) Men surveyed really like intergenerational sex. A few years ago, they all went and spiced up the lives of (female) nursing home residents. Unfortunately, since them they've all passed on, so the women aren't around to be surveyed.
2) Men, on the balance, have really bad memories. Sure, they -think- they've had sex with seven partners, but it's really only the same four girls wearing different outfits.
3) Sex education in the US is worse than we all feared it to be. While men indeed had on average seven partners, it turns out that three of them were actually guys.
The trick is to douse the green beans in tons of salt and butter. Mmmmm. Not healthy, I'm sure, and hence totally besides the point, but definitely on deliciousness-par with french fries.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually exactly the sort of thing that I do. Still has to be healthier than french fries since there are veggies under there somewhere. :D
Holly: junk food isn't a "preference". Companies came up with the idea of refining sugar specifically so it hits the body harder and gives you more of a "high". Salt is known to be addictive, as well, and even eating fat apparently gives you a bit of a high. MSG was specifically engineered to give food an "oomph" that normal, healthy, edible food lacks.
So, garbage-food gives you a "high" or "alertness" or "happy feeling" that healthy food doesn't, which encourages you to keep eating garbage-foods. What part of this doesn't sound like addiction to you?
I think most people just write their junk food cravings off as "nuh-uh, I'm not addicted, I just like it!" - I did, for a long time. But at some point (probably after realizing I'm borderline hypoglycemic and my "preference" for eating cookie dough all day was rendering me pretty much bedridden) I started becoming more attuned to my food reactions.
Like, y'know all those commercials for low-fat products that claim you'd never know the difference because they taste the same as the regular version? Pffft. What does taste have to do with anything? Full-fat mayonnaise gives me a fucking total mouthgasm and low-fat mayo doesn't because it doesn't have as much fat.
Although low-fat mayo does taste ludicrously sweet to me. Low-fat products usually have more sugar than their regular counterparts: when one addictive ingredient is removed, they replace it with another, otherwise nobody would like or buy the stuff.
Anyway, I'm aware that I'm ranting and I'll try to stop. I've had a lot of health problems due to eating the wrong foods and I get frustrated when other people don't recognize that food is inherently chemical and can strongly affect their well-being.
Perversecowgirl - It's not an evil conspiracy or a druglike addiction that makes sugar and fat delicious though, it's the fact that they're extremely efficient sources of energy. We may not need a massive energy surplus in modern times, but wanting one is neither new nor evil.
ReplyDeleteWanting these foods isn't evil. The companies that spike it into their products kind of are, though. :P
ReplyDeleteI dunno, it's pretty hard for a company to decide to make its food taste worse. (Unless they're going for the health-food market, in which case it's very nearly a requirement.) I'm never sure to what degree processed foods are designed by evil overlords wanting to create addictions, and to what degree they're designed by chefs wanting to create palate appeal on a given budget.
ReplyDeleteMore likely, the bad-for-you ingredients are in there because it's cheaper. No need for a conspiracy when the simple drive for cheap ingredients will do.
ReplyDeleteHigh Fructose Corn Syrup? Cheaper than plain sugar, especially since trade barriers make importing sugar to the United States fairly expensive. Also, HFCS is liquid, and that's a lot easier to work with in a food assembly line.
Trans fats? Also cheap -- hydrogenated vegetable oil is a lot easier to make than, say, the traditional lard. Also, semisolid fats like trans fats increase shelf life, since unsaturated fats go rancid much more quickly. In fact, removing still-fairly-expensive fats and replacing the texture with gelatin and emulsifiers is what gives a lot of processed foods long ingredient lists.
And yes, processed foods are a little perverse. We've all gotten used to very strong-tasting foods, and unprocessed foods are a lot subtler.
That said, for ice cream go straight to Häagen Dazs. The ingredients are simple and obvious, and probably a full half of the cost difference comes from the use of real, bona-fide cream.
More likely, the bad-for-you ingredients are in there because it's cheaper.
ReplyDeleteA compelling point. But why did companies start using refined sugar instead of raw? (This isn't an "ah-HA, I'm still right!" thing; I'm genuinely curious and you seem like someone who'd know!).
@ Earlier stuff: They did say median in the original study. But back then (which was decades ago) even kids were taught that there were 3 types of averages, and that it was very important to say which type you were using. The fact that it seems hardly anyone knows what "median" and "mode" are anymore and (possibly as a result) hardly anyone reports which type is being used makes me wonder what happened to the education system since my childhood.
ReplyDeleteI have fun sometimes blowing up people's assumptions by saying I've never had a consensual monogamous relationship and have had six sexual partners in my lifetime.
ReplyDeleteThe number of people who identify as monogamous who suddenly stop throwing around "you awful promiscuous slut" language after that sort of thing is kind of epic.
This anecdotal experience leads me to a certain amount of pondering of "4" and "7". Perhaps I just tend to talk about sex in groups of people who have a lot of it (which does make some sense; the sex-pos-ish and alt-sex communities might well have a higher number of higher-partner folks than the population-at-large).
... though I think the last time I played this game my number was "five". I can't imagine that would make a huge difference, though.
A compelling point. But why did companies start using refined sugar instead of raw?
ReplyDeleteAt least as far as it goes for table sugar, refining raw cane separates the molasses -- something that can be sold separately.
Refined sugar has a much plainer "sweet" taste, and for processed foods that's what you're going for, so as to not overwhelm whatever else you're putting in. Also, at least for baking raw and refined sugars act differently -- brown/raw sugar traps moisture better, and that's not always what you're going for.
Nom de Plumage, I really really enjoy how you know things about food.
ReplyDeleteYou've got me beat and I'm usually the one my friends come to with their ingredient questions!
OK, here's one: Is the brown sugar I buy in a bag at the super market any less processed or more "raw" than the white sugar? I don't really care, but I am curious.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the survey results could be an average if the guys are having all this anomalous sex with bisexual women, but straight women are less likely to have bisexual male partners.
ReplyDeleteStill improbable, but possible.
@Don: Brown sugar is also somewhat processed but it has a higher molasses content than raw sugar. It's possible to find raw sugar in some stores, though it tends to be an uncommon specialty item - it's a lighter golden brown, and less of a wet-sand type texture than brown sugar has. Personally I prefer it to either brown or white sugar in cases where the molasses content doesn't matter.
ReplyDelete"Keep a glass of ice water on the bedstand, and once you've both climaxed, take a drink, holding and swirling the cool liquid in your mouth before swallowing. Then immediately envelop his balls with your lips, one at a time."
ReplyDeleteAfter a good, long zesty session, it really is quite nice.
My lady friend turned me on to the cool sponge bath aftermath, and I'm tellin' ya, it's absolutely decadent and delightful, laying there, completely exhausted, and being swabbed down, head to toe...
as for the ice water thing, the mouth warms *very* quickly, so it wouldn't be like being doused with a frosty glassful.
R-Patz is the actor who plays Edward Cullen in the Twilight films.
ReplyDeleteRobert Pattinson is an actor who as played a variety of roles, and may continue to.
* * *
If I see two girls making out, if I'd been checking one of them out, I figure "ok, gay ... or possibly bi, but either way, she's not single."
* * *
I thought unsweetened black coffee had close to 0 calories.
how can the average number of sex partners (for straight people) be higher for men than it is for women?
Simpson's paradox.
Not really. But if celibate people are omitted, and there are wildly different numbers of celibate men and celibate women, it's possible or the average straight-guy-who's-getting-laid to have a noticeably different number of partners from the average straight-girl-who's-getting-laid.
But I've felt that "Gee, sex would be nice, I wish I could get horny" thing many many times, haven't you?
I don't understand that. Is there some distinction between "horny" and "wanting sex" that I'm missing?
That's not sarcasm; as I understand the terms, it is meaningless to say "I want to have sex, but I'm not horny." That sentence means "I want to have sex, but I don't want to have sex."
High Fructose Corn Syrup? Cheaper than plain sugar, especially since trade barriers make importing sugar to the United States fairly expensive.
I hate to agree with food-conspiracy theorists, but that doesn't entirely explain it. HFCS is (occasionally) found in foods that you wouldn't expect to find sugar in to begin with.
Is there some distinction between "horny" and "wanting sex" that I'm missing?
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for everyone (although I suspect many people do feel the same way) but for me there's "feeling turned on inside my head" and "feeling turned on in my body" and the two don't always coincide.
"Turned on inside my head" means that I'm thinking about sex a lot and realize intellectually that it would be a fun, pleasurable bonding experience to have some. "Turned on in my body" is (to me) synonymous with horniness. It consists of an actual tingle/throb/wetness thing in the girlbits and has stricken me at all kinds of random times when I haven't been thinking about sex whatsoever.
Do guys not have this distinction?
as I understand the terms, it is meaningless to say "I want to have sex, but I'm not horny." That sentence means "I want to have sex, but I don't want to have sex."
ReplyDeleteHaven't you ever wanted to have sex but couldn't get it up? That's basically what we're talking about.
The other side of the coin: waking up to find yourself humping the bed even though you'd been dreaming about steaming a bag of frozen broccoli.
"papercut on my clitoris" makes me cringe and freak out a little every time I look at it. *shudder*
ReplyDeleteI get the distinction between arousal and desire, and I realize they can be independent (even if they are seldom so for me personally). I just always interpreted "horny" as referring to desire.
ReplyDeleteFrom a man: If women are writing this, then why are they imposing male, linear sexuality onto female, non-linear sexuality?
ReplyDeleteI was not aware I was "non-linear." In fact I'm not sure what that even means.
ReplyDeleteThe average number of sexual partners for heterosexual men is 7; for heterosexual women, it's 4.
ReplyDeleteNo, that's the average number self-reported by these groups. It could conceivably be the median (although that's unlikely), but I can very much guarantee you that on average, men fuck women exactly as often as women fuck men.
I can do you one better: by definition the average number of sexual partners for heterosexual men and heterosexual women MUST be the same assuming an equal number of men and women. Since there are 1% more women than men, you do have a slight variance in this but 1% of 4 is .04 and 1% of 7 is .07 so like yeah.
See, if you have 10 women and 10 men (assuming heterosexual 'cuz that's a long word) and you lock them in a room, there's no way for the average number of sexual partners to be different. Imagine that the 10 men each fuck 4 of the women. Each man has 4 partners for an average of 4 partners each, and the women? Six of them have 0 partners, and 4 of them have 10 partners, meaning that there were an average of 4 partners per person.
If you go through all the combinations it turns out that it's mathematically impossible for the average to come out different for heterosexual men or heterosexual women, assuming only heterosexual encounters are counted. Technically speaking, heterosexual women have to have 1% fewer partners on average than men (if there are 11 guys and 10 girls, then the girls have on average 4.4 partners while the guys have 4 partners... there are 10% more guys, therefore women have to have 10% more partners on average) so if we assume the male report is correct, men have (on average) 7 partners and women have (on average) 6.93 partners.
But hey, 7 and 4 reminds us that men are studs and women are prudes, right?
"A fetus responds to Mom getting it on: It can sense blood-pressure and heart-rate changes, and it feels nonsexual excitement.
I'm pretty sure they threw the "nonsexual" in there just so it wouldn't be weird or anything."
It can "sense" blood-pressure and heart-rate changes? Now I have this mental image of a fetus sitting aroudn going, "Hmmm... bloodpressure increased by about 5 over 5, heartrate up to 110... WOO! YEAH! MOM'S GETTING IT ON!"
@Holly, it means that your sexuality can't be described by an equation of the general form Y = MX + B (or AX + BY = C).
ReplyDelete