Sunday, November 05, 2017

Mean gay sex

To conclude this brief foray into faggotry, the following table shows the mean number of sexual partners of the orientation's desired sex in adulthood, by sexual orientation:


Nearly one-quarter of gay men report having 50 or more sexual partners. They're living the lifestyle portrayed at pride parades and in so doing are driving the average up far higher than it is for any other group.

Orthogonally, the issues with reliability inherent in something as personal as self-reported data on sexual experiences being what they are, it's worth noting that among heterosexuals the male mean is 2.8x that of the male median, while the female mean is 1.8x that of the female median. This suggests there is a subset of men who bed an exceptionally high number of women (they pull the mean up without doing much to the median). Alphas, in the Game lexicon, do indeed exist.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(1)(3), SEX, NUMWOMEN(0-949), NUMMEN(0-949)

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Means for straight men and straight women must be equal in reality. The data merely proves that the reporting is inaccurate, not what the reality is. Either men exaggerate up or women exaggerate down, or both, or perhaps both men and women both exaggerate up or down by different amounts. There is no way to tell from the data what real sex rates are, just that they are not what is reported.

DescendInto TheAbsurd said...

Does Gay include Bisexual Men? Should've included Bisexuals and also(Although it's admittedly not a sexual orientation) Trans men and women.

Dan said...

AE, good work, now save and back up this blog asap! Telling the truth is a revolutionary act and the response can be censorship.

Dan said...

The data re number of partners for male vs female heterosexuals does not match. Men are dramatically lying on the upside, or women are dramatically lying on the downside or both. Each new partner for a heterosexual man should be a new partner for a heterosexual woman so the means should match.

Dan said...

Oops repeated the first comment. But it does show that the lying on this topic amounts to about a 300 percent discrepancy.

Dan said...

Right.

Aylok said...

There's probably some exaggeration going on (straight men up, straight women down) but extreme female promsicuity is probably concentrated amongst professional prostitutes, who may be difficult to sample.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon/Dan,

Right, from the previous post addressing that: "It's an artifact of some combination of men overstating and women understating the number of opposite-sex partners they've had."

Although it may not be necessary to be quite that cynical, as the definition of "sexual partners" is not clear. With gay men we're obviously not talking about vaginal sex and what lesbians consider sex and what qualifies as something less than sex is beyond me. Straight men are probably more likely to consider oral sex as sex than women are, etc.

DITA,

No because it would require adding NUMMEN and NUMWOMEN variables together. Not that it's difficult to do, but it makes the graph a little confusing. Bisexual men are similar to hetero men, bisexual women are higher than hetero women or lesbians.

Aylok,

Indeed. Less than half of one percent of female respondents report 100+ partners.

dc.sunsets said...

A better question: why do people lie about sex?
An even better question: why do people even respond to questions about sex?

Audacious Epigone said...

dc.sunsets,

Hey now, I need them to respond to everything they're asked about!

As for the first question, ego is part of it, but it's biologically-informed as much as it is culturally-informed. All other things equal, sexual access indicates higher desirability/status for men and lower desirability/status for women. There's no erasing that. The god of biomechanics has willed it so.

dc.sunsets said...

AE, All I can say is that when I think of other people's sex lives (and trust me, that's not common), all I can think is "Eeew."

As a microbiologist by first degree, that goes double for fudge-packers and anyone who romps in the sack (or rest room, back seat, glory hole, etc.) with a casual acquaintance. There's only one person on the planet I kiss on the lips. The causal sex crowd swaps an astonishing amount of normal and pathological microflora with others...would they as quickly eat food someone spat upon, or rubbed up and down between the cheeks of their ass? Would such people lick the toilet seat in a public rest room?

We live in astonishingly insane times, where the crazy-quotient lottery vies for designation as this week's Leftist Top Dogma.

Audacious Epigone said...

We live in astonishingly insane times

It gets pretty nutty inside the aquarium. When one of the walls inevitably breaks and we spill out into the ocean, though, that lunacy will vanish with stunning rapidity.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Some Math innumerate people here seem to believe there has to be a match between male and female. Au contraire mon frere. There is not a correlation due to mating patterns. Alphas and Sigmas get more and Betas and Gammas fap a lot. The hover patterns of open for business pussy around the Big Dogs is noticeable. The nerds who do the fapping have lots of D&D books and large porn collections. Only egalitarian fairy tales expect direct one to one ratios, pal.
The homosexual pattern is multiplier. Higher males with higher males get high numbers. Lower females with lower females stay low. Lesbians have shorter relationships but follow the norms for female hook up rates. This is what you would expect.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

There are a lot of girls who don't "count" sex as sex sometimes. Tinder hookups, rebounds, vacations, etc. Likely explains some of the disparity between straight men and straight women. I'm sure some men overexaggerate but personal experience says that women tend to not count a lot of hookups that absolutely need to count as sex partners.

Dan said...

I remember during the 2012 election during the primaries Santorum was a big thing, winning Iowa and so on.

The left wing activists worked hard to make sure that when you typed Santorum into Google, the first thing that came up was a definition that they made.

Santorum: "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex"

Reactions:

(1) Google, which sensors conservatives like crazy, refused to deal with this, even though it is huge interference against the man who was then the Republican front-runner and also highly inappropriate for children.

(2) Is there anything grosser under the sun? No. No there is not.


Anonymous said...

Lol at the innumerate retard calling others innumerate. I realize this is some very difficult grammar school math, but mean =/= median, and the mean absolutely has to match in terms of new sexual partners between heterosexual men and women, which should be obvious.

Is it just me or does the PUAosphere attract a decidedly lower intelligence crowd than other parts of the alt-right osphere?

Anonymous said...

*mean pool of sexual encounters with new partners.

dc.sunsets said...

Is it just me or does the PUAosphere attract a decidedly lower intelligence crowd than other parts of the alt-right osphere?

That and the MGTOWosphere. We need a Venn Diagram to sort it out. (Quibble: there's IQ-intelligence and "intelligence," and the Venn overlap between those two sometimes appears quite small. A farmer I knew who had an 11th grade education was smarter on his worst day than most of the people with whom I debated on Colloquy Society's forum.)

I'm in favor of coining the term, CQ, for common sense quotient (hopefully not to confuse radio operators.) The overlap between high IQ and high CQ people seems small, but they make for great dialogue. In Myers-Briggs personality terms, I strongly prefer people who are intuitive and thinking to those who are observant and feeling (the latter kind seem to be herd animals to me.)

It gets pretty nutty inside the aquarium. When one of the walls inevitably breaks and we spill out into the ocean, though, that lunacy will vanish with stunning rapidity.
Epiphany! Open Borders are the Left's way of bringing the ocean into the aquarium. (Chukle....who do they think will fare worst as the carnivores flood in, the fat catfish with blue hair who swim like beached whales spooning each other or the lionfish who the catfish berate for being insufficiently open and tolerant?)

"This aquarium isn't big enough for the two of us, pilgrim."

Audacious Epigone said...

Jonathan/Anon,

The medians do not need to be equal but the means do (or at least close--since women outnumber men in the general population, we could expect a very slightly higher male mean if everyone were 1) operating on a clear definition of what constitutes a sexual partner, and 2) being completely honest).

Random Dude,

I recall Heartiste pointing something out awhile ago finding that the discrepancies are mostly on account of women undercounting rather than men overcounting, but I can't find it atm.

dc.sunsets,

The British academic Bruce Charlton famously labeled those with high IQs and low CQs "clever sillies". Shameless self-promotion alert: the blog is mentioned in the paper.

Audacious Epigone said...

dc.sunsets,

Never mind, this is the one the blog was mentioned in, not the one above (though the one above is the one that is germane).

Jonathan Centauri said...

You're calling me innumerate and quoting "common sense"? Man, that's funny. Math skills are quite uncommon I find. All of you probably have very poor Math skills if you cannot follow what I said. Mean and median is statistical analysis, but the population variation is not the same. Some men have a lot more and some men have nearly none. This explains the difference. If all men had the same score then the women must be lying, but this is hardly the case. The women have more to risk, so they will go for the higher value men. That is why Alphas and Sigmas are the preferred mate. The Betas and Gammas are low value to women and they have to offer more and get far less due to their lesser appeal. Your Math skills seem poor. Or perhaps you just didn't see what I was saying. You can deny the Manosphere, but you can see men scoring large because of higher value to women. Those sad Beta boys with flowers and gifts TRY SO DAMN HARD, and GET SO LITTLE