Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ogdibus]

You're not accounting for same sex pairing.

[Reelya]

No, I've seen the data for heterosexual pairings and it has the same issues.

Here, it's 9 for men and 4 for women:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/sexual-health-and-advice/8958520/Average-man-has-9-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-women-have-4.html

Maybe gay sex accounts for the difference, except that gay men don't report statistically significant larger numbers of lifetime partners than straight men (extra slutty gays is a myth).

“More women than men reported having sexual intercourse with only one partner of the opposite sex in their lifetime (24 per cent of women compared with 17 per cent of men), and conversely more men than women reported having sexual intercourse with 10 or more partners of the opposite sex (27 per cent of men and 13 per cent of women).”

Among older women, monogamy was even more common with 40 per cent of those aged between 55 and 69 saying they had only ever had one sexual partner.

[Vector]

CDC doesn't differentiate by sexuality (ninja'd by Ogdibus). Regardless: I AM doing the math, but the point of that was not whether the female and male numbers matched, but to grab a number that would let us round to the nearest three and find out how many times a man would be raped on average. We can assume, anyway, that the true number is somewhere between the male and female numbers in a heterosexual population, since men tend to overreport and women to underreport. Reported male and female number of partners is similar enough to get the desired result which is: by that report, all of the men posting on this forum will most likely be raped at least once in their lives through an alcohol vector.

Is that true, or not?

That's kind of interesting. We need to train everyone in proper personal boundaries.

Two of the women were trying to get me to sleep with them, and one of them was trying to impress a boyfriend Bisexual women have like a 50% likelihood of being raped, so, uh, eh.

[Rolepgeek]

Reelya, there is such a thing as a false equivalency. But regardless, rape is a terrible thing, and my point was that the discussion about rape culture and whatnot pretty much deserves it's own thread to keep it from causing meaningless disputes and whatnot in a thread about feminism(or rather, about a single Feminist's videos) and being tainted by counter viewpoints applying gender-bias to it.

Though that data is pretty weird. Underreporting, or different concepts of sexual intercourse? It doesn't really make sense to me.

[Ogdibus]

No, I've seen the data for heterosexual pairings and it has the same issues.

My point was that your method was faulty because it's based on the false assumption that the partners will always be male and female pairings.  Don't try to worm out of that by making it sound like I'm gay bashing or slut shaming.

[Reelya]

"worm out"?

the average man reports more than double the number of sex partners as the average women. I was just saying that homosexual pairings can't explain that unless we also assume gays have a large excess of partners, or the average man has more same-sex partners that other-sex partners. Which are logical absurdities. This is reductio ad absurdum, not "worming out" of anything.

You brought up same sex pairings, not me, i was just responding to that. I was just showing how the argument can only logically hold if we also assume a counterfactual extreme belief. I never once said YOU personally hold that extreme view: in fact my argument (a form of reductio ad absurdum) hinged entirely on my expectation that you would reject that belief.

reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate debating form, and it does NOT imply that your opponent holds the view. "If X is true, then Y must be true, but Y is clearly false, hence X is false" does not imply "you believe Y".

with the thing about "sluts" i was working under the impression that everyone rejects it, including you, because it is absurd and goes against observation, rather than accusing you of any opinion on "sluts". Again this is reductio ad absurdum, and the entire strategy of that argument hinges on the expectation that the parodied belief is not believed by the person you are debating with.

Nothing I wrote made any insinuation on your personal beliefs whatsoever, now, you're making direct personal attacks on me rather than debate the issue.

===

To boil it down: heterosexual men and women must have almost exactly the same number of mean lifetime sexual partners - because it's a symmetrical relationship (and the total number of males and females in the world is pretty close). But there isn't a single study, regardless of sexual orientation, that shows this (and the CDC study is only one of many studies).

At the same time, same-sex couples / coupling can't skew figures too much since homosexual men report pretty similar lifetime partner figures to heterosexual men.

Hence, we're left with the implication that the data on gendered promiscuity is wrong, because it just cannot be right, in a basic physical logical sense. Someone, perhaps everyone, isn't telling the truth on those surveys.

[Vector]

Because maybe there's more gay men than there are lesbians, or maybe men tend to act on their bisexuality more than women do. There's a number of possibilities.

[Ogdibus]

All we know is that men report more lifetime sexual partners than women, and that this is a logical impossibility: make a graph with 10 female nodes and 10 male nodes. Draw lines between each man and 6 women. Regardless of how you draw the lines, each woman will have an average of 6 links to a man.

This does not account for same sex pairings.  I didn't even dispute anything else.


When I said "worm out", I meant that it looked to me like you were trying to distract people from my argument by implying that I was making an assumption based on a negative stereotype. I didn't consider the possibility that you might have shifted from addressing to my to a broader scope.  In the context of speaking to me, it looks bad, but now that I look at it in the context of the whole conversation, it doesn't.  I could explain why I thought that way, but I don't think it would advance the conversation. 

[Reelya]

Dude, i wrote the thing about "sluts" before you had even entered the discussion. It's literally impossible that you were targeted by "slut shaming" accusations, since you hadn't even directed any posts my way at that time.

And my only possible "attacking statement" was this:

Maybe gay sex accounts for the difference, except that gay men don't report statistically significant larger numbers of lifetime partners than straight men (extra slutty gays is a myth).

Which completely baffles me how it can be construed that this is a statement that you, Ogdibus, personally have anti-gay sentiments. All I did was show that the explanation that same-sex pairings massively skewed the number doesn't work unless we play into harmful and incorrect stereotypes.

This does not account for same sex pairings.

I don't need to account for them since my argument was never about them. It's just a complete derail from the points I was trying to raise. I have specifically said a couple of times that I was talking about the data for heterosexual pairings, which I was referencing, is what I was talking about, and that I have seen this data. Here's nytimes on the matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html

One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.

But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women. Those survey results cannot be correct.

The same sex pairings issue you keep bringing up is a red herring.

I never directly referenced the CDC study, I was thinking about this data. So, yeah my only error was to assume the CDC data was broken down by orientation like every other cited study on this issue, and not specify I was actually talking about the mass of studies of heterosexual people.

[Ogdibus]

I never directly referenced the CDC study, I was thinking about this data. So, yeah my only error was to assume the CDC data was broken down by orientation like every other cited study on this issue, and not specify I was actually talking about the mass of studies of heterosexual people.

That's really the only thing I meant to point out.  I'm sorry that it caused such a mess, and I'm sorry that I didn't use the situational awareness that I'm capable of to see that you weren't trying to implicitly malign me.

[Phmcw]

Hu, everyone, that's the median number, not the average number of partners.

[DJ]

I wouldn't dilute the word "rape" by including giving consent and then regretting it. Sure, alcohol can make you bad decisions, but if you drank it of your own free will you are still fully responsible for those decisions. If you get behind a wheel and kill someone, saying "I was drunk" isn't really going to help you much in a court. You can't just take the good from mind-altering substances and wave away the bad.

[Phmcw]

Alcohol is a rape drug because it can be used to make you unconscious/incoherent.

I won't dare to speak for America because I don't know Americain drinking culture, but in Belgium peoples drink to give themselves courage/carelessness. Calling drunk sex rape would be nonsensical since college feast are pretty much drinking -> flirting -> fucking. You'd cockblock half of the student population, male and female.

[DJ]

Well yeah, if you so drunk that you are physically unable to give consent it's rape, because you didn't actually give consent. But if you're "normal" drunk and can and do give consent, it's simply a bad decision.

But if you are drunk to the point of passing out, you have more immediate concerns, such as death from alcohol poisoning.

[Phmcw]

But if you are drunk to the point of passing out, you have more immediate concerns, such as death from alcohol poisoning.

Hu, no? You can easilly pass out and not be remotely close to death by alcohol poisonning.
I brought a lot of peoples back to their houses/dorms while they were constantly passing out/collapsing. We worry only when they are totally unresponsive, which rarely happen.
NB we rarely let anyone alone with a girl in such a state. Better safe than sorry.