In a heterosexual population consisting of equal numbers of men and women, the average numbers of sexual partners for men and women are (perhaps counter-intuitively) *exactly the same*, since each pair of partners makes the same contribution to both averages. A result such as that in the article implies at least one of the following conditions: a) Men greatly outnumber women in England b) Wildly promiscuous lesbians are raising the female average c) English women are having a great deal of sex with foreigners d) Someone's lying.
Take into account the similar studies which illustrate that when women are questioned of such things, they tend to understate while men tend to overstate...
There are many more studies out there that are far more disgusting. Take, for example, the amount of young women who stay single until 30+ before marrying, and average a few partners per year (averaging - say, one year she has a steady/one lover, and in "single years" she has casual sex with a partner every three months or so... well, by the time she is thirty, say, over 15 years of sexual activity = 37.5 partners = complete slut range).
Then, look at STD's by gender, and you will indeed see that women are FAR more infected than men, illustrating that we are indeed humping like animals again, with 20% of the males who are alpha, diddling 80% of the women. (Yes, I know, some STD's show up in women more because of women's internal features - but it does not account for THAT much extra).
As per the claim that 50% have cheated, that seems rather consistent with another study I seen long, long ago, which discussed "sperm competition." (A woman having 2 different men's sperm inside of her within 48hrs). The study (from Britain - U of Manchester, I believe), suggested that by the time a couple had copulated 50 times, sperm competition had occured in 10% of the couples, but by the time they had copulated 500 times, sperm competition had occured in nearly 50% of the cases. Wow!
Also interesting is how the male's body is apparently designed to combat female infidelity - or so the Manchester study suggested. Apparently, semen is hostile to foreign sperm, and, there is some thought that the shape of the glans (head of the penis), is designed also for the function of injecting sperm deeper than another man's on the way in, and removing another man's sperm on the way out... as well as the whole "size of the penis" thing, where it is true that during sperm competition, a longer penis has a better chance in sperm competition wars... plus, as has been studied many times, when a man is away from his wife for a period of time, his sperm count is far higher than if he is in her constant company.
Maybe our bodies are telling us something that our thick noggins aren't, eh?
Maybe all of this nonsense about men being stunted sexual idiots who think about sex every X seconds is all BS. (All they did was find out out that men think about sex for, say, an hour a day, and then divided it by the amount of seconds in a day to make it seem like men are completely out of control rapists in waiting).
Of course women want sex. Duh. Men and women are two halves of the same coin - or we once were, anyway. Nature would not create such an imbalance - it sure doesn't anywhere else. The problem comes in that we tend to only view "sex drive" in male terms - but, women's "sex drive" is different than a man's, and we don't really have a proper frame of reference in our language. It is the same way that, until very recently, we had a word for "woman hater" (misogynist), but here was no word for "man hater." (misandrist). If there is no word called "jaywalking" to indicate what a person doing (something illegal), then what are you left with? (Simply crossing the street).
40% marrying for money or willing to sleep with their boss for a promotion is rather telling as well, isn't it? Since any man allowing a subordinate sleep with him would be destroyed professionally, financially, and legally... well... obviously MANY of those sexual harrassment law-suits are complete bunk.
I keep hoping that men, en masse, will wake the heck up one day and start throwing ropes over branches... but, it seems that men refuse to see what is going on - in much the same way that women refuse to see what is going on when their own children become monsters. There are natural "blinders" built into us so that we "see women as we wish them to be, not as they actually are."
Gak!
Time to legalize prostitution, so that young men who's hormones are raging quit being screwed out of life and home, trying to score with creatures who are obviously hostile to them. Legalize prostitution for men, and then make readily available anonymous (and non male wallet attached) sperm banks for women, so that THEIR irrationally equal sex drives are also placated at their peak. Ever wonder why so many women hate using condoms? It desensitizes a man, but, it doesn't for the woman? Hmmm. It makes no sense unless...
Magazine surveys are inherently statistically flawed by the time they're presented.
Take the "slept with more than 10 people" statistic. It's 1 in 4 for women versus 1 in 5 for men. That's 25% versus 20%. That sounds like it means something, but does it?
If they split the total sample evenly, the margin of error on a sample of 1000 is around 3%, plus or minus. So take take 2.5% from the women's value and add 2.5% to the men's value, and what do you get? A statistical tie.
As for this line...
"In addition, half of those questioned admitted they had been unfaithful, whereas only a quarter said they had been cheated on by a boyfriend."
How about "only a quarter said they KNEW that they had been cheated on by a boyfriend." How many were cheated on but didn't catch him?
I would say, simply because there are more musicians playing popular music in clubs and bars who are male, that men (musicians) have had more partners than women - on the one hand. On the other hand, any woman who wants to get laid only has to step out for the night, and it will happen if she desires. It is more difficult for a woman to return home alone after a night on the town considering her choices. A woman can "pick up" a man at an Ace Hardware or a burger doodle for crying out loud. It is literally up to her. And as the Brits have proved famously, you don't even need to have great teeth.
I took Guthrum's advice and thought mathematically. The phrases "half of those questioned admitted," "the majority," and "More than half said" strongly suggest that the most provocative claims in the article are based on median values, not averages. The results that puzzle Guthrum and others here are unsurprising when one considers that 80 to 90% of women are chasing the 10 to 20% of men who are considered by women to be the best catches. So, mystery solved. Most women are having some sex but mostly with a minority of men, while most men remain -- as Dr. Warren Farrell observed in Why Men Are the Way They Are -- sexually invisible to most women.
Interestingly, 35 years ago George Gilder noticed that most young women were having more sex than most young men and put that fact into his 1973 book Sexual Suicide. Gilder didn't rely on the unscientific sort of polling for his conclusion that the story in the Telegraph does. Still, that the obvious conclusion that could be drawn by anyone who takes the time to simply "look around you" (as a main character in the feminist novel The Women's Room advised) and think mathematically is Big Shocking News to the readers of the women's magazine More and a large-circulation newspaper like the Telegraph shows that most people are substituting sexist prejudices -- most of which are man-bashing -- for facts and clear thinking.
You have a different distribution of sex patterns between men and women.
Women are all chasing after the "alpha male", so you hear things like pro basketballers sleeping with 20,000 or 30,000 women (like one or two different ones a day, and they are lining up to sleep with them).
Most men, obviously, don't come anywhere near those numbers.
Among women, though, there is a much broader range that sleeps around A LOT. Just not with the numbers of Wilt Chamberlain or Earvin Johnson.
Plus, YOUNG woman very definitely have more partners than YOUNG men because women not only sleep with partners in their age range, they go upwards in age (more than men do). Sometimes quite a bit upwards in age if the guy has money.
I've long observed that among sexual active teenagers, girls are more sexually aggressive than guys. (One theory; guys just want to get laid; girls want to get laid by someone specific.)
That said, I question the statistical claims being reported. Besides the obvious problem of selection bias, I suspect the averages are actually among the group reporting being sexual active and not across the entire demographic. (Reports of sex studies often make this mistake--they find that x% of y% have a titillating behavior, but the "of y%" goes magically missing in the articles.)
My wife and I are NOT sorry about bringing any of these kinds of averages down! Human sexuality is like fire. When it practiced as the Maker designed it, it fulfills a wonderful role. When let out of control, it destroys virtually everything in its path.
Rob Fedders say correct things above. (All except his final statement about 'anonymous sperm banks'. I'm againt sperm banks and adoption for anyone no less single fem parents. Children need to be raised by creatures that sense their aptitudes and characters.)
Rob is also lonely in his aptitude. (Thats why I say death to democracy)
------ Others also are right when they say "80% of dames doing 20% of dudes". This is the key thing. And yes it is the core of all 'inequality', discrimation, competition, health, caste and oppression. It is Not easy to solve though --especially when our society is born and bred full of dunces who can't begin to contemplate on that philosophical plane for genetic reasons.
----- Lastly, studies ARE inherently bogus and unneccessary (pointing at the obvious or trying to muddy it up). But beware the sophisters who deconstruct the [pro 'your-side' studies] while ignoring the deconstruction implications of the [pro 'their-side'] studies.
Think about this mathematically for a moment.
ReplyDeleteIn a heterosexual population consisting of equal numbers of men and women, the average numbers of sexual partners for men and women are (perhaps counter-intuitively) *exactly the same*, since each pair of partners makes the same contribution to both averages. A result such as that in the article implies at least one of the following conditions:
a) Men greatly outnumber women in England
b) Wildly promiscuous lesbians are raising the female average
c) English women are having a great deal of sex with foreigners
d) Someone's lying.
I know which condition I suspect.
I left out one fairly plausible possibility, actually:
ReplyDeletee) Sex with partners outside the age range of the sample.
But my money's still on (d) :)
Guthrum -
ReplyDeletef) Women in england will sleep with just about anything that moves.
I have no problem accepting what this says. Since the sexual revolution in the 70's, sex now means very little to a lot of the western world.
When single parenthood is glorified and abortion is accessible, and schools hand out birth control, there is no reason to be responsible and abstain.
Here is an NYTs article about how much you can believe about a sexual partner survey.
ReplyDeleteTake into account the similar studies which illustrate that when women are questioned of such things, they tend to understate while men tend to overstate...
ReplyDeleteThere are many more studies out there that are far more disgusting. Take, for example, the amount of young women who stay single until 30+ before marrying, and average a few partners per year (averaging - say, one year she has a steady/one lover, and in "single years" she has casual sex with a partner every three months or so... well, by the time she is thirty, say, over 15 years of sexual activity = 37.5 partners = complete slut range).
Then, look at STD's by gender, and you will indeed see that women are FAR more infected than men, illustrating that we are indeed humping like animals again, with 20% of the males who are alpha, diddling 80% of the women. (Yes, I know, some STD's show up in women more because of women's internal features - but it does not account for THAT much extra).
As per the claim that 50% have cheated, that seems rather consistent with another study I seen long, long ago, which discussed "sperm competition." (A woman having 2 different men's sperm inside of her within 48hrs). The study (from Britain - U of Manchester, I believe), suggested that by the time a couple had copulated 50 times, sperm competition had occured in 10% of the couples, but by the time they had copulated 500 times, sperm competition had occured in nearly 50% of the cases. Wow!
Also interesting is how the male's body is apparently designed to combat female infidelity - or so the Manchester study suggested. Apparently, semen is hostile to foreign sperm, and, there is some thought that the shape of the glans (head of the penis), is designed also for the function of injecting sperm deeper than another man's on the way in, and removing another man's sperm on the way out... as well as the whole "size of the penis" thing, where it is true that during sperm competition, a longer penis has a better chance in sperm competition wars... plus, as has been studied many times, when a man is away from his wife for a period of time, his sperm count is far higher than if he is in her constant company.
Maybe our bodies are telling us something that our thick noggins aren't, eh?
Maybe all of this nonsense about men being stunted sexual idiots who think about sex every X seconds is all BS. (All they did was find out out that men think about sex for, say, an hour a day, and then divided it by the amount of seconds in a day to make it seem like men are completely out of control rapists in waiting).
Of course women want sex. Duh. Men and women are two halves of the same coin - or we once were, anyway. Nature would not create such an imbalance - it sure doesn't anywhere else. The problem comes in that we tend to only view "sex drive" in male terms - but, women's "sex drive" is different than a man's, and we don't really have a proper frame of reference in our language. It is the same way that, until very recently, we had a word for "woman hater" (misogynist), but here was no word for "man hater." (misandrist). If there is no word called "jaywalking" to indicate what a person doing (something illegal), then what are you left with? (Simply crossing the street).
40% marrying for money or willing to sleep with their boss for a promotion is rather telling as well, isn't it? Since any man allowing a subordinate sleep with him would be destroyed professionally, financially, and legally... well... obviously MANY of those sexual harrassment law-suits are complete bunk.
I keep hoping that men, en masse, will wake the heck up one day and start throwing ropes over branches... but, it seems that men refuse to see what is going on - in much the same way that women refuse to see what is going on when their own children become monsters. There are natural "blinders" built into us so that we "see women as we wish them to be, not as they actually are."
Gak!
Time to legalize prostitution, so that young men who's hormones are raging quit being screwed out of life and home, trying to score with creatures who are obviously hostile to them. Legalize prostitution for men, and then make readily available anonymous (and non male wallet attached) sperm banks for women, so that THEIR irrationally equal sex drives are also placated at their peak. Ever wonder why so many women hate using condoms? It desensitizes a man, but, it doesn't for the woman? Hmmm. It makes no sense unless...
Magazine surveys are inherently statistically flawed by the time they're presented.
ReplyDeleteTake the "slept with more than 10 people" statistic. It's 1 in 4 for women versus 1 in 5 for men. That's 25% versus 20%. That sounds like it means something, but does it?
If they split the total sample evenly, the margin of error on a sample of 1000 is around 3%, plus or minus. So take take 2.5% from the women's value and add 2.5% to the men's value, and what do you get? A statistical tie.
As for this line...
"In addition, half of those questioned admitted they had been unfaithful, whereas only a quarter said they had been cheated on by a boyfriend."
How about "only a quarter said they KNEW that they had been cheated on by a boyfriend." How many were cheated on but didn't catch him?
I would say, simply because there are more musicians playing popular music in clubs and bars who are male, that men (musicians) have had more partners than women - on the one hand. On the other hand, any woman who wants to get laid only has to step out for the night, and it will happen if she desires. It is more difficult for a woman to return home alone after a night on the town considering her choices. A woman can "pick up" a man at an Ace Hardware or a burger doodle for crying out loud. It is literally up to her. And as the Brits have proved famously, you don't even need to have great teeth.
ReplyDeleteI'm almost certain the hetero discrepancy is due to the mutual proclivities of older men and younger women as the age range was constrained to 21.
ReplyDeleteI took Guthrum's advice and thought mathematically. The phrases "half of those questioned admitted," "the majority," and "More than half said" strongly suggest that the most provocative claims in the article are based on median values, not averages. The results that puzzle Guthrum and others here are unsurprising when one considers that 80 to 90% of women are chasing the 10 to 20% of men who are considered by women to be the best catches. So, mystery solved. Most women are having some sex but mostly with a minority of men, while most men remain -- as Dr. Warren Farrell observed in Why Men Are the Way They Are -- sexually invisible to most women.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, 35 years ago George Gilder noticed that most young women were having more sex than most young men and put that fact into his 1973 book Sexual Suicide. Gilder didn't rely on the unscientific sort of polling for his conclusion that the story in the Telegraph does. Still, that the obvious conclusion that could be drawn by anyone who takes the time to simply "look around you" (as a main character in the feminist novel The Women's Room advised) and think mathematically is Big Shocking News to the readers of the women's magazine More and a large-circulation newspaper like the Telegraph shows that most people are substituting sexist prejudices -- most of which are man-bashing -- for facts and clear thinking.
Guthrum and others:
ReplyDeleteYou have a different distribution of sex patterns between men and women.
Women are all chasing after the "alpha male", so you hear things like pro basketballers sleeping with 20,000 or 30,000 women (like one or two different ones a day, and they are lining up to sleep with them).
Most men, obviously, don't come anywhere near those numbers.
Among women, though, there is a much broader range that sleeps around A LOT. Just not with the numbers of Wilt Chamberlain or Earvin Johnson.
Plus, YOUNG woman very definitely have more partners than YOUNG men because women not only sleep with partners in their age range, they go upwards in age (more than men do). Sometimes quite a bit upwards in age if the guy has money.
Perhaps the women are counting inanimate sex partners, while the men aren't.
ReplyDeleteI've long observed that among sexual active teenagers, girls are more sexually aggressive than guys. (One theory; guys just want to get laid; girls want to get laid by someone specific.)
ReplyDeleteThat said, I question the statistical claims being reported. Besides the obvious problem of selection bias, I suspect the averages are actually among the group reporting being sexual active and not across the entire demographic. (Reports of sex studies often make this mistake--they find that x% of y% have a titillating behavior, but the "of y%" goes magically missing in the articles.)
My wife and I are NOT sorry about bringing any of these kinds of averages down! Human sexuality is like fire. When it practiced as the Maker designed it, it fulfills a wonderful role. When let out of control, it destroys virtually everything in its path.
ReplyDeleteRob Fedders say correct things above. (All except his final statement about 'anonymous sperm banks'. I'm againt sperm banks and adoption for anyone no less single fem parents. Children need to be raised by creatures that sense their aptitudes and characters.)
ReplyDeleteRob is also lonely in his aptitude. (Thats why I say death to democracy)
------
Others also are right when they say "80% of dames doing 20% of dudes". This is the key thing. And yes it is the core of all 'inequality', discrimation, competition, health, caste and oppression. It is Not easy to solve though --especially when our society is born and bred full of dunces who can't begin to contemplate on that philosophical plane for genetic reasons.
-----
Lastly, studies ARE inherently bogus and unneccessary (pointing at the obvious or trying to muddy it up). But beware the sophisters who deconstruct the [pro 'your-side' studies] while ignoring the deconstruction implications of the [pro 'their-side'] studies.
A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道a片免費視訊聊天室微風成人免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂免費 a 片85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天sex383線上娛樂場sex888sex520免費影片sex999免費影片情色視訊sex85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費 a 片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片aaa片免費看短片aa免費看aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片5278論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片sex520免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片
ReplyDelete視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
ReplyDelete383視訊影音城視訊交友web365kiss168下載a視訊聊天室v6 0台灣成人網免費線上歐美av美女美女美女遊戲無碼a片美女寫真xxx383美女寫真日本美女寫真集玩美女人a片網aio交友愛情館tt1069同志交友網情色交友0401成人交友拓網交友pc交友小魔女免費影片sex383線上娛樂場xvediox
ReplyDelete