[hv123]

A thread the other day got my thinking about this situation. Always you see statistics with the number of sexual partners men and women have had. Now the mean average for men is always way higher than for women.

however, any one with a slight bit of logic in their head will tell that that is mathematically impossible. What is known as the high school prom theorem.

It always blows my mind that it's presented in the MSM as somehow factual or that people who are supposedly statisticians put their names to such utter drivel.

[jbo]

Men: "I touched her boob, I will count this as a notch"
Women: "I'm not a slut. Those 5 times don't really count as sex"

People lie and make all kinds of rationalizations.

[General Stalin]

Statistics gathered from surveys are always suspect as you are relying on people being honest and/or having a good memory.

[Wahawahwah]

Read the thread title and got excited about someone compiling and analyzing a ton of relationship data. Not much "mathematics" in the post. Disappointed.

[idane]

It depends on the sample size: Lets imagine the following. Men on average had more sexual partners than women. But if the sample size is small, there is a big chance that the survey missed a lot of the female sluts who bang everyting.

[Rudeman]

Lying is certainly part of it.

Another part is probably outlier girls. Mega sluts and straight up prostitutes. I wouldn't be surprised if 1% of the female population ends up with a 500+ notch count. I mean, how many guys does a prostitute bang over a decade career? I just googled it and there are an estimated 1 million prostitutes in the US. That doesn't count strippers and other shady ladies. If a prostitute's average career is a decade and the average life span is 70 years, that means that 7 million US women who are alive today will be, are, or have been prostitutes in their lives. With a population of 320 million and half are female, that means that 4.4% of women will be prostitutes during their lifetime.

Of course that doesn't reconcile the mathematics. But those outliers might get thrown out, not captured in data, normalized in statistical modeling, or they lie down to a more normal number. Like say from 1200 to 20.

And the fact is that women don't go to sex workers like men do, and men's sluttiness is limited by their SMV and game, whereas even nasty, fat, blue hair girls can find a willing hookup in 20 minutes on tinder.

I think overall in the normal range of number of partners guys probably do average a couple more bangs because so many of them resort to the megaslut or the sex worker.

In high school I lost my virginity to a 14 year old. I was her number 57. Mega sluts are going to megaslut.

[david.garrett84]

(09-16-2016 01:25 PM)Rudeman Wrote:  

I just googled it and there are an estimated 1 million prostitutes in the US. That doesn't count strippers and other shady ladies. If a prostitute's average career is a decade and the average life span is 70 years, that means that 7 million US women who are alive today will be, are, or have been prostitutes in their lives. With a population of 320 million and half are female, that means that 4.4% of women will be prostitutes during their lifetime.

That's a formal prostitute definition - meeting strangers on the streets etc. You'd have to treble that figure to 21 million to account for official and unofficial sugar babies (it's online now but always existed), payment-in-kind relationship sluts, sleeping for career prospects gals, and the like. These are usually repetitive behaviors, too. It's not like "Oh, that one time we did blow in Cancun."

And I am excluding here wives who overtly marry wealthier men but generally settle in with the marriage and the obvious transactional nature of almost every romantic relationship.

[hv123]

(09-16-2016 01:25 PM)Rudeman Wrote:  

Lying is certainly part of it.

Another part is probably outlier girls. Mega sluts and straight up prostitutes. I wouldn't be surprised if 1% of the female population ends up with a 500+ notch count. I mean, how many guys does a prostitute bang over a decade career? I just googled it and there are an estimated 1 million prostitutes in the US. That doesn't count strippers and other shady ladies. If a prostitute's average career is a decade and the average life span is 70 years, that means that 7 million US women who are alive today will be, are, or have been prostitutes in their lives. With a population of 320 million and half are female, that means that 4.4% of women will be prostitutes during their lifetime.

Of course that doesn't reconcile the mathematics. But those outliers might get thrown out, not captured in data, normalized in statistical modeling, or they lie down to a more normal number. Like say from 1200 to 20.

And the fact is that women don't go to sex workers like men do, and men's sluttiness is limited by their SMV and game, whereas even nasty, fat, blue hair girls can find a willing hookup in 20 minutes on tinder.

I think overall in the normal range of number of partners guys probably do average a couple more bangs because so many of them resort to the megaslut or the sex worker.

In high school I lost my virginity to a 14 year old. I was her number 57. Mega sluts are going to megaslut.

The "mode" as its known in statistics is very import and often what we tend to think of as "average". I.e most common value in a data set. mr blue balls average maybe in this context. It's actually a useful bit of data as say if you take salary and one guy in 50 is a millionaire the mean average would give you a false impression of say the spending activities of the group.

Imho the mode for guys is lower than girls because of the 80/20 rule. I.e most girls are getting a fair amount of cock or somewhere near the cock they want to get. And most guys aren't getting much if any pussy. only the top 20% are. The 80% are the mr average (mode in the data).

Outliers and megasluts don't matter to mean average because it's still impossible for the numbers not to be the same, on average, in hetro sex. Obviously you can introduce numbers from the outside like holiday bangs and foreign pros but nonetheless the mean average has to be the same, globally, between men and women, not discounting the fact that there aren't the same number of men and women in the world.

Megasluts can however definitely effect the median average, which is the middle point of a set of data. Outliers will slew things.



On a graph like that the male outliers on the right hand side would bring up the mean and the median but the mode for betas would be pretty low IMHO. I.e the number or bangs or partners for Joe Mode is pretty low.

I think the female graph would have some major outliers, the aforementioned ultrasluts/pros, but the mode would be closer to the mean as 80% of girls are getting a fair amount of cock.

i.e the female data, if you think of it like salary, would be most earning 50k pretty much with few rich ones (sluts) but the male curve would be most people earning 20k with a few millionaires/billionaires. I guess you could make the counter argument as pros will out bang any man, but I think it holds generally true with regards the mode average.

[GreyFFM]

the shape of that curve is going to be different for men and women.

the curve you have there is for men.

the one for women will look similar except the hump in the middle will be lower and the tail on the right will be incredibly tall.

[hv123]

(09-16-2016 03:41 PM)GreyFFM Wrote:  

the shape of that curve is going to be different for men and women.

the curve you have there is for men.

the one for women will look similar except the hump in the middle will be lower and the tail on the right will be incredibly tall.

Yes it would definitely be different. It's not a male curve it's just a curve as pictorial representation of what I'm talking about.

[XPQ22]

(09-16-2016 08:41 AM)hv123 Wrote:  

A thread the other day got my thinking about this situation. Always you see statistics with the number of sexual partners men and women have had. Now the mean average for men is always way higher than for women.

however, any one with a slight bit of logic in their head will tell that that is mathematically impossible. What is known as the high school prom theorem.

Statistics isn't all lies and damn lies. I'm not a statistician, but I do have a STEM education. There are methods that can be used to model underreporting/overreporting and self-selection bias to obtain more accurate figures.

Whether the studies on # of sexual partners use them, I do not know. But I don't think it's necessarily mathematically impossible for men to legitimately have, on average, more lifetime partners than women.

Hang out on "game" forums long enough and you might get the impression that the whole world is sluts, players, and incel betas. It's probably not actually like that. I think the majority of people, men and women alike, simply don't have that much sex, or with that many people. Sort of like the "dirty secret" of the alcohol industry is that they make the majority of their income off alcoholics putting down 50+ drinks a week and 80% of Americans have 5 or fewer (for all intents and purposes don't drink)...most people are simply sexual teetotallers.

[Delta]

^The OP is mostly correct, it is mathematically impossible for men to have more average lifetime partners, assuming only hetero sex is counted.

Think about it this way:

Every first sexual encounter between a man and a woman adds one new partner to each side. There is no way for a [strictly straight] man to add a notch without also adding a notch for a woman, and vice versa. Therefore, the aggregate number of sexual partners for all [strictly straight] men = the aggregate number of sexual partners for all [strictly straight] women.

As we know, the number of men alive is roughly equal to the number of women alive.

Average sexual partners = (aggregate # of partners)/(population size)

Both the numerator and denominator are roughly the same for [strictly straight] men and women, therefore their averages must be roughly equal.

So how do the numbers come out the way they do? Either gays are part of these surveys (and gay men have a shit ton more sex than lesbians), or there's lying/misreporting.

And how does all this get overlooked? I think the statisticians themselves are well aware of everything I just wrote, but these surveys are being reported on by innumerate journalists who couldn't think critically if their lives depended on it.

[XPQ22]

(09-16-2016 08:40 PM)Delta Wrote:  

^The OP is mostly correct, it is mathematically impossible for men to have more average lifetime partners, assuming only hetero sex is counted.

Think about it this way:

Every first sexual encounter between a man and a woman adds one new partner to each side. There is no way for a [strictly straight] man to add a notch without also adding a notch for a woman, and vice versa. Therefore, the aggregate number of sexual partners for all [strictly straight] men = the aggregate number of sexual partners for all [strictly straight] women.

As we know, the number of men alive is roughly equal to the number of women alive.

That equality would hold in a static population. But the population isn't static. In a dynamic model where people are born, die, immigrate and emigrate, and fuck people significantly older and younger than themselves, it's easy to think up contrived examples where men can have on average more partners than women.

But I don't think even when accounting for that it's possible for the spread to be as large as 7 vs. 4.

Quote:

So how do the numbers come out the way they do? Either gays are part of these surveys (and gay men have a shit ton more sex than lesbians), or there's lying/misreporting.

And how does all this get overlooked? I think the statisticians themselves are well aware of everything I just wrote, but these surveys are being reported on by innumerate journalists who couldn't think critically if their lives depended on it.

One would hope that statisticians are using models that in some sense represent the real world. But a likely explanation could be simply that journalists are confusing the median vs. mean.

[DonnyGately]

I think it's somewhat possible because new 18-yr old girls are entering the sex population every day, but guys don't really age out of it. Even when you're 70, you can be fucking a 45 or 35 year old if not younger. 45s are fucking 19s. Etc.

But women do age out! Starting at age 30-35 for the vast majority - they can only find a life partner to fuck them now. After 40? Hell, she better look like Kate Moss to have guys asking her out regularly.

So, back to that mode/mean/median problem that many datasets deal with, the new mix of sexual partners drags the woman's total down. And the younger guys are lying about their experience. So the 'HS Prom' example is a poor one, not applicable.

And as many women will tell you, "Drunk/stoned and on vacation doesn't count!"

Prostitutes are to blame for the skewness and kurtosis in the female results as noted. Any sex workers really - strippers and the like.

[Delta]

^XPQ, You bring up some valid points, but one comment: if they were confusing median for mean, then it would almost certainly be females with the higher median. I hate using manosphere lingo, but it's hypergamy; the distribution of notch count among males is much more tail-heavy.

[Khan]

I think we're missing an important question: in all those surveys, do you count virgins and people who haven't had sex in years?

What I believe often happens is that only answers from people who've actually had sex count. And in any given population, there are more male virgins than female ones.

But enough theorizing, here's an example. Imagine a desert island with a population of 20: 10 men and 10 women. They've been living there for 2 years. One of those men is an alpha, while the remainder are beta schmucks. During those two years, the alpha banged all the women on the island, while his buddies got nothing.

Now, send a social scientist on the island to make a survey about the average number of sex partners in the population. If he only counts people who've had sex within a given time period, he'll find out that the average number for women on that island is 1, and the average number for men is...10. Because only one guy had sex.

I believe this is what happens in all those surveys. The first question asked is most probably "Did you have sex during the last year/two years/etc.?". And then only the answers from those people who had sex within the designated time period are counted. Since men who are either virgins or haven't had sex in years make up for a considerable fraction of the male population, it's clear why from the studies it may seem that men on average have more sex partners.

And another interesting thing - surveys like this only perpetuate the myth of men being naturally more promiscuous than women...if only people knew.

[Dalaran1991]

I can vouch that what Khan said above is probably correct, speaking from 4 years of Sociology major.

Kinda heinous from an academic moral to present data like this because it is very misleading. Simplu put: among people who actually have had sex (recently or ever), men on average have more sexual partners than women. Old rule of 80/20.

Then again, never take those surveys seriously. Once you realize that people lie to themselves more than they do to the interviewer, you learn to not trust data from social science at all.

Edit: Also this, but nothing new:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comm...untry_age/

Quote:

The number of sexual partners a woman reported nearly doubled when women thought they were hooked up to a lie detector machine.

Really what do you need to know? Women simply have more sex than men on average. And as a man you need to work 10x harder to have the same notches as your female equivalent. Get used to it.

At least you dont get a period.

[Kid Twist]

^ No doubt.

As also has been brought up before, I'm beginning to re-think the word or descriptor "virgin" for a male. It's meaningless in a sense, from a biological and even familial or societal point of view in that if you are saying "monk", say monk. If you are saying loser, say loser. If you are saying promiscuous, hedonist, or sex fiend, use that term. Right?

[bacan]

Right, disappointed as well. Not much math here

[hv123]

(09-19-2016 07:43 PM)Delta Wrote:  

^XPQ, You bring up some valid points, but one comment: if they were confusing median for mean, then it would almost certainly be females with the higher median. I hate using manosphere lingo, but it's hypergamy; the distribution of notch count among males is much more tail-heavy.

Agree the female median is higher than the male median. Mean the same.

[hv123]

(09-20-2016 04:56 AM)Khan Wrote:  

I think we're missing an important question: in all those surveys, do you count virgins and people who haven't had sex in years?

What I believe often happens is that only answers from people who've actually had sex count. And in any given population, there are more male virgins than female ones.

But enough theorizing, here's an example. Imagine a desert island with a population of 20: 10 men and 10 women. They've been living there for 2 years. One of those men is an alpha, while the remainder are beta schmucks. During those two years, the alpha banged all the women on the island, while his buddies got nothing.

Now, send a social scientist on the island to make a survey about the average number of sex partners in the population. If he only counts people who've had sex within a given time period, he'll find out that the average number for women on that island is 1, and the average number for men is...10. Because only one guy had sex.

I believe this is what happens in all those surveys. The first question asked is most probably "Did you have sex during the last year/two years/etc.?". And then only the answers from those people who had sex within the designated time period are counted. Since men who are either virgins or haven't had sex in years make up for a considerable fraction of the male population, it's clear why from the studies it may seem that men on average have more sex partners.

And another interesting thing - surveys like this only perpetuate the myth of men being naturally more promiscuous than women...if only people knew.

That's an interesting point, but that would represent poor practice, as a decent sample methodology should not be self selective, or it's pointless. Well it is in this context because these type of surveys are talking about the whole population of men and women as an indicator of the different behaviour of the genders.

It would not be pointless say if the analysis was how many yards rushing is average in football (obviously should only apply to actual players).

[hv123]

(09-21-2016 04:46 AM)bacan Wrote:  

Right, disappointed as well. Not much math here

Where you would get the data from? My whole point is that the statistical analysis provided by large organisations is obviously flawed, so I'm not sure how one would "do math", when logic tells you it's wrong.

It's not just me saying it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekin....html?_r=0

Good quote from this article:
The problem, he said, is that when such data are published, with no asterisk next to them saying they can’t be true, they just “reinforce the stereotypes of promiscuous males and chaste females".

That was really the core of what I was trying to get to. I didn't make that clear enough. I.e women bang just as much as men contrary to popular belief.

[Dalaran1991]

(09-21-2016 05:25 AM)hv123 Wrote:  

That's an interesting point, but that would represent poor practice

No, it just shows and proves all these kinds of survey have a specific anti-men agenda. Men are portrayed as being powerful and more promiscuous, while women are still the more chaste of the sexes, while in fact the average man has been wanking it for times uncounted while the average girl has been slutting it up to tripple digits but is still getting married as a virgin girl.

It is very very difficult to get data on anything sex-related because even if the researchers are objective AND competent, there's the aforementioned flawed of people lying to themselves and buying it. Who were those PUA gurus with 500+ notches and no STD again?

Like I said, do not trust anything put out in the social sciences these days. Its populated with feminists and cuckolded men. The science-minded or red-piller guys either dont become Phd, or most are teaching in tech fields.

Makes me miss my old grumpy Sociology of war professor. he tried to really stick it up to the establishment and those feminists just try to hack him down.

[hv123]

(09-21-2016 06:39 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 05:25 AM)hv123 Wrote:  

That's an interesting point, but that would represent poor practice

No, it just shows and proves all these kinds of survey have a specific anti-men agenda. Men are portrayed as being powerful and more promiscuous, while women are still the more chaste of the sexes, while in fact the average man has been wanking it for times uncounted while the average girl has been slutting it up to tripple digits but is still getting married as a virgin girl.

It is very very difficult to get data on anything sex-related because even if the researchers are objective AND competent, there's the aforementioned flawed of people lying to themselves and buying it. Who were those PUA gurus with 500+ notches and no STD again?

Like I said, do not trust anything put out in the social sciences these days. Its populated with feminists and cuckolded men. The science-minded or red-piller guys either dont become Phd, or most are teaching in tech fields.

Makes me miss my old grumpy Sociology of war professor. he tried to really stick it up to the establishment and those feminists just try to hack him down.

modern social science is a joke . I agree with your point in general and that was what I was trying to get at. Women being portrayed in MSM as superior moral beings, when logic alone should tell us that's not the case.

[DonnyGately]

Women like sex just more than men, but they can get by more easily on being celibate and masturbating than 90% of guys. Hell, the number and kinds of vibrators today are stunning. And some of them are not cheap at all.