Comments on: Running the numbers http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:57:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Thomas http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-648 Thomas Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:14:57 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-648 "different practical definitions of sex partner" Different definitions of "sex" can change my number by a factor of between 3 and 4. Not by three or four -- the number triples or almost quadruples using a broad definition (and truth be told, I can't figure out an exact number; my estimates are plus or minus two) Also, using a broad definition, I move slightly on the Kinsey scale. Kate, I prefer "reasonable attempt on the part of one participant to physically cause orgasm in another." Mutual JO is out, phone sex is out, cybering is out; oral, manual, footjobs, etc. are in. It also has the advantage, at least conceptually, of excluding anything where one is not trying to get one's partner off. “different practical definitions of sex partner”

Different definitions of “sex” can change my number by a factor of between 3 and 4. Not by three or four — the number triples or almost quadruples using a broad definition (and truth be told, I can’t figure out an exact number; my estimates are plus or minus two) Also, using a broad definition, I move slightly on the Kinsey scale.

Kate, I prefer “reasonable attempt on the part of one participant to physically cause orgasm in another.” Mutual JO is out, phone sex is out, cybering is out; oral, manual, footjobs, etc. are in. It also has the advantage, at least conceptually, of excluding anything where one is not trying to get one’s partner off.

]]> By: kate http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-612 kate Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:43:25 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-612 I think to start with the survey needs to be up front with how you define 'sex'. If you took your clothes off, and they took theirs off, or you would have been more comfortable if you had, it was sex. I think to start with the survey needs to be up front with how you define ’sex’. If you took your clothes off, and they took theirs off, or you would have been more comfortable if you had, it was sex.

]]> By: Bruce/Crablaw http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-576 Bruce/Crablaw Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:33:48 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-576 The numbers could differ by different practical definitions of sex partner, or by an imbalance in the proportion of men and women in the social pool (age pool, Alaskan timber or oil drilling village pool, etc.) but not enough to account for the gap. The numbers could differ by different practical definitions of sex partner, or by an imbalance in the proportion of men and women in the social pool (age pool, Alaskan timber or oil drilling village pool, etc.) but not enough to account for the gap.

]]> By: Mighty Ponygirl http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-575 Mighty Ponygirl Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:58:54 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-575 Kate: My number is best expressed in scientific notation. :D Kate: My number is best expressed in scientific notation. :D

]]> By: Dr Zen http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-573 Dr Zen Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:31:12 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-573 And Kate, you weren't lying! And Kate, you weren’t lying!

]]> By: Kate Harding http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-570 Kate Harding Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:48:12 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-570 Mighty Ponygirl, I <i>love</i> that suggestion! I've had 892 sex partners! Oh, wait. This isn't an anonymous survey. Mighty Ponygirl, I love that suggestion! I’ve had 892 sex partners!

Oh, wait. This isn’t an anonymous survey.

]]> By: Mighty Ponygirl http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-569 Mighty Ponygirl Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:20:00 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-569 I'd pointed out in the feministe thread that if we're going to make a big deal about our "number" and use it as a way to dump on other women as being sluttier than we are, we could at least all do ourselves the favor of wildly inflating our number on an <em>anonymous</em> survey so that we can up the average. That way, when you truthfully tell your mate that you've only slept with nine other guys, he can think "wow, she's a really conservative, old-fashiony, chaste girl -- that's no-where <em>near</em> the average of 43!" I mean, it's depressing because we come up with all of these little lies and embellishments and caveats to give ourselves a lower number, when it doesn't matter. At all. So if having a low number is that damn important, what's one more lie? I’d pointed out in the feministe thread that if we’re going to make a big deal about our “number” and use it as a way to dump on other women as being sluttier than we are, we could at least all do ourselves the favor of wildly inflating our number on an anonymous survey so that we can up the average. That way, when you truthfully tell your mate that you’ve only slept with nine other guys, he can think “wow, she’s a really conservative, old-fashiony, chaste girl — that’s no-where near the average of 43!”

I mean, it’s depressing because we come up with all of these little lies and embellishments and caveats to give ourselves a lower number, when it doesn’t matter. At all. So if having a low number is that damn important, what’s one more lie?

]]> By: Zuzu http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-567 Zuzu Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:31:37 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-567 Actually, <a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/08/13/sex_partners/index.html" rel="nofollow">Tracy Clark-Flory</a> spoke to Dr. Gates about his calculations and the whole median/mean blurring. He used the raw data from the CDC study to make his points, and was speaking of the mean (which also showed a huge gender gap). So the point holds together even if the terminology doesn't. Also, the figures given for the British study are means, not medians. Actually, Tracy Clark-Flory spoke to Dr. Gates about his calculations and the whole median/mean blurring.

He used the raw data from the CDC study to make his points, and was speaking of the mean (which also showed a huge gender gap). So the point holds together even if the terminology doesn’t.

Also, the figures given for the British study are means, not medians.

]]> By: Fiat Lux http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-566 Fiat Lux Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:33:24 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-566 Median is not the same thing as mean (or in layman's terms, average). This is a very important point. Although I do think the "lie effect" is also part of the issue here, it is not mathematically impossible for male / female medians to be significantly different from each other. Median is not the same thing as mean (or in layman’s terms, average). This is a very important point.

Although I do think the “lie effect” is also part of the issue here, it is not mathematically impossible for male / female medians to be significantly different from each other.

]]> By: Amanda Marcotte http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-565 Amanda Marcotte Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:23:59 +0000 http://kindlypogmothoin.com/2007/08/13/running-the-numbers/#comment-565 A study was done where subjects were told they were hooked up to lie detectors a number of years ago and it was found that women and men *do* have the same number of sex partners, and men and women both are devious on non-lie detector tests. What was interesting was women lie a lot more---men mostly tell the truth or add one more, but women severely undercount. A study was done where subjects were told they were hooked up to lie detectors a number of years ago and it was found that women and men *do* have the same number of sex partners, and men and women both are devious on non-lie detector tests. What was interesting was women lie a lot more—men mostly tell the truth or add one more, but women severely undercount.

]]>