[Greek kamaki]

I have noticed that the percentage of virgins and totally aloof women in a given population is the same as the number of the very easy ones who sleep with multiple partners.The average 65% displays the same pattern of relative difficulty to approach,bang.Do you believe the easiness of females follows a predicted mathematical formula aka Gauss curve which is of course skewed to the right in countries like Poland Russia?Does it correlate to female sex drive?Does it pay off to search for the second standard deviation and above in terms of easiness?(5% of population)

Normal distribution

[tapanar]

That is a very good conjecture, but individual opinions won't be so useful. Sounds very plausible, the question is how and can you gather data to prove it/disprove it, and how do you determine the "easiness" of a woman? A single woman might be considered an easy lay by one man, but very difficult for another, etc. I think the discussion is easily circlejerk-able without defining proper terms.

[WestIndianArchie]

Women easiness is definitely black swan territory.


- The event is a surprise (to the observer).
- The event has a major impact.
- After its first recording, the event is rationalized by hindsight, as if it could have been expected (e.g., the relevant data was available but not accounted for).

[storm]

(04-15-2012 05:50 AM)Greek kamaki Wrote:  

I have noticed that the percentage of virgins and totally aloof women in a given population is the same as the number of the very easy ones who sleep with multiple partners.The average 65% displays the same pattern of relative difficulty to approach,bang.Do you believe the easiness of females follows a predicted mathematical formula aka Gauss curve...

It's a hard question to answer even how hard a single girl is to approach,bang with any confidence. You'd need to approach her many times (independently) and use a central limit theorem argument. This is a rudimentary monte-carlo method. Then you'd have WIA's arguments about the unreliablility of your measurements. You could square that away with even more approaches but at this point it's a purely theoretical question.

Even assuming we can accurately measure the data, there's nothing non-generic I can say about it without seeing it. No information in = no information out. If you have data, post it and I'll run some calcs.

Quote:

Does it correlate to female sex drive?Does it pay off to search for the second standard deviation and above in terms of easiness?(5% of population)

I'd be especially interested in seeing how it correlates with hotness, venues, your clothes/spending, solo or not, etc. etc. To do this we would need a simple and agreeable guideline on easiness. Crowdsourcing.

[iknowexactly]

I dozed through a research method class or two, enough to fudge data, and can think of some accessible, objective variables (IV/DV)

1) Someone once said if she makes eye contact more than once it's not a mistake.
There's an IV accessible in cafes. Not applicable to the help.

2) Sustained eye contact in a street face-to-face "drive-by" of more than [1.0/1.5/whatever you want] seconds.
Another IV.

3) DV: Will she give you her phone number.

Interesting additional IV would be your subjective rating of her compared to the hottest chick you ever made out with
using an ordinal scale. (not deciles)

[Yams]

No because in the US at least there is a big difference between the average number of partners (8.6) and median number of partners (3) a women has. My statistics is a little rusty but such a large gap doesn't happen in a normal distribution. I'm sure these numbers would be more normalized if prostitutes were fully accounted for but I think its not that far off.

http://phys.org/news10824.html

[OnlyMarryInTajikistan]

Yes and no.

What makes a woman bangable/non-bangable at any given point in time are her personal circumstances, mostly as they relate to recent experiences and mindsets. Therefore, assuming a minority subset that are permanently unbangable (deep religious beliefs, etc.) of maybe 5-10%, it is safe to assume that the standard set will have a distribution based on an exchange between the categories of bangable and non-bangable as a function of time.

Therefore, it is a function of irregular oscillation, between + (bangable) and - (non-bangable), without factoring in difficulty of banging. There would be a statistic maximum (around which there is a maximum amount of bangable women at any given point in time) and a statistic minimum (around which there is a maximum amount of non-bangable women at any given point in time). This would give us intervals that could define the easiness of girls by country.

For example, using guesswork simply to illustrate comparative values, we could say that Sweden could be (70-60), Poland could be (65-55), Greece (35-20) etc. When you meet a girl there will be a X chance of her being in one set or another, which would be calculated by finding average values of the function of time in the last 5-10 years.

If you factor in level of difficulty, as you suggest in your first post, you would have to form a three-dimensional function with variables x=population distribution, y= time, z= ease of banging as a fraction of 1.

[Sonsowey]

I found some interesting data for the USA:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

The data basically show this:

There are more males who are not getting laid than women not getting laid.

There are more males fucking 4+ people a year than there are females fucking 4+ people a year.

There are more famales fucking 1 or 2 people a year than there are males.

So women are more likely to be fucking consistently, and on average 1 or 2 people a year. Men are more likely to either not be fucking or be fucking a higher amount.

So the top players are effectively sharing a larger pool of women.

Here's the data for the 20-24 age range:


Women with X sexual partners in the past year...
0: 4.7%
1: 57.8%
2: 14.1%
3: 5.1%
4+: 4.6%

Men with X sexual partners in the past year...
0: 5.9%
1: 49.8%
2: 12.2%
3: 6.8%
4+: 9.5%

The thing is, this doesn't ask about NEW sexual partners in a year. Many of these people, male and female, are probably in some sort of LTR so their sexual partner for the past year is the one they've been with forever.

Either that or they're just only getting one-off sex once a year. So let's just discount people who only have 1 sexual partner a year and see who is a bit more active:

Women...
2: 14.1%
3: 5.1%
4+: 4.6%

Total = 23.8% of women aged 20-24 with more than 1 partner a year.

Men with X NEW sexual partners in the past year...
1: 12.2%
2: 6.8%
3: 9.5%

Total = 28.5% of men aged 20-24 with more than 1 partner a year.

So men are indeed on both extremes. More likely than women to be virgins, more likely than women to be not getting laid in a given year, but also, more likely to be getting more than 1 sexual partner a year.

So, roughly speaking, 28.5% of young single men are chasing after 23% of young single women.

Hence, sausagefests.