Skanks on Sluts

skanks · Post by **skanks** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:10 pm

CDC has a new publication on sexual behavior:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/p ... /ad362.htm

On page 29 you can take a look at how many female partners the typical male has in various demographics. There are actually far fewer men getting laid than one might suspect, confirming my belief that America is generally a barren sexual no-man's-land.

On page 30 you can see the results for women. You'll probably notice immediately that the median woman in all demographics has sex with far fewer partners than the median man. Since sex is (generally speaking) a 1-to-1 pairing, this suggests that some women are really picking up a lot of the slack and having way more sex than is statistically expected, Namely, sluts. Sluts are the way to go. If you're not having sex with sluts, you're not having sex. Statistically impossible.

Actually I need to go further into details and determine whether or not the total numbers of sexual partners men and women are reporting add up. It may be the case that men are exaggerating their number of sexual partners while women are understating. A doctor once told me that they always subtract 20% from a man's stated number of partners and add 20% to a woman's to estimate the true value.

Peijen · Post by **Peijen** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:51 pm

skanks wrote:If you're not having sex with sluts, you're not having sex. Statistically impossible.

Sounds like a PhD thesis to me. Jon maybe you should do your PhD in sexual statistics.

Post by **Jonathan** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:42 pm

When performing this study, we must be careful not to neglect the effects of girl-on-girl action, because at 12% lifetime it is ridiculously high.

skanks · Post by **skanks** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:41 pm

Dwindlehop wrote:When performing this study, we must be careful not to neglect the effects of girl-on-girl action, because at 12% lifetime it is ridiculously high.

The CDC accounted for this and only reported opposite sex partners on pages 29 and 30.

Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:05 am

skanks wrote:There are actually far fewer men getting laid than one might suspect, confirming my belief that America is generally a barren sexual no-man's-land.

This whole topic is bullshit. Why does number of partners matter? As we all remember, previous studies have indicated that Americans get more than everyone else.

Updated results for 2004 show that while America is still ahead of the average, we have slipped to 111 times per year. I blame Bush.

Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:13 am

Tellingly, the Japanese have had tons of sexual partners (12.7, good enough for third place world-wide) but very little actual sex (46 times per year, for dead last). It's all about priorities.

Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:16 am

Also, WTF is up with the Chinese? 19.3 partners, on average?

skanks · Post by **skanks** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:56 am

Dwindlehop wrote:This whole topic is bullshit. Why does number of partners matter? As we all remember, previous studies have indicated that Americans get more than everyone else.

Updated results for 2004 show that while America is still ahead of the average, we have slipped to 111 times per year. I blame Bush.

I don't know what Durex's methodology is, but according to their research Brazil is having less sex than the United States. Do you actually accept that as fact?

Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:38 am

In the absence of countervailing evidence, I will accept Durex's data. I won't mind stipulating a high margin of error. Let us say that Americans receive a roughly average amount of sex.

Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:49 pm

Confidence in Durex's data or lack thereof makes no difference to my central point, which is that number of partners does not matter. Frequency is what matters.

George · Post by **George** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:03 am

Dwindlehop wrote:Confidence in Durex's data or lack thereof makes no difference to my central point, which is that number of partners does not matter. Frequency is what matters.

I dunno; I'd say lots of partners is the definition of sluttiness.

Post by **Jonathan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:19 am

We're talking past each other. I'm addressing Neal's points:

skanks wrote:There are actually far fewer men getting laid than one might suspect, confirming my belief that America is generally a barren sexual no-man's-land.
...
If you're not having sex with sluts, you're not having sex.

My assertions are
1. Nuh-uh.
2. BS.

Plenty of people are having sex, and they're doing it without sluts.

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:10 am

Neal, meet monogamy. Go.

Post by **Jonathan** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:21 pm

http://www.slate.com/?id=2126643&nav=tap2/

There's your news right there. Increase in anal. (About as NSFW as the original CDC link.)

Peijen · Post by **Peijen** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:05 pm

I thought we knew about this for a while, you know 'technical virgins'

Girl: I am saving it for marriage
Guy:

Girl: but you can fuck me in the ass
Guy:

Post by **Jonathan** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:46 pm

Like the article says, I had seen media coverage of the increase in oral due to "abstinence" education, even prior to the release of the CDC study. I wasn't aware there was a corresponding increase in backdoor access.

skanks · Post by **skanks** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:50 am

Dwindlehop wrote: I wasn't aware there was a corresponding increase in backdoor access.

sucks to be you

Mohtalim

Skanks on Sluts

Skanks on Sluts

Re: Skanks on Sluts

Re: Skanks on Sluts

Re: Skanks on Sluts