[Basil Ransom]

Should've done this before, but I did some more analysis which throws Walsh's explanation into greater question. I only analyzed the men's responses before, because the women were clearly lying - the male mean reported count was 40% higher than the female one, so I thought their answers were worthless. Despite their lack of credibility, their responses are instructive. See Samseau's link if you need further evidence that it's the women lying.

I did the same technique, computed the number of lays per category, and chose a partner count for the 9 or greater category that would deliver the stated mean of 1.23 for the women.

I said before that the top 2.6% of men were responsible for 29% of the lays. For the same proportion of women, 2.6% (n = 491) are responsible for 18.8% of the lays among women. That means the top guys are taking a much bigger share of the lays than the top girls are. The sluttiest guys are sluttier than the sluttiest girls. The only way that's possible is if slutty guys are banging girls less slutty than themselves. Which is what I have been saying all along, and directly contradicts Walsh's explanation of players banging whores.

You can multiply the women's responses by a factor of 1.4, to make their mean partner count line up with the men's, but it doesn't change the distribution of lays among women either way.

Source: http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-...ll2010.pdf

Here are some charts:

   

[Samseau]

34% of women are virgins?

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Nah, I think the key is in "annual" - thus number of partners within the last year. Although I'm still skeptical about 34% of women having 0 even in that regard, but we've already agreed on the fact that they're lying about (reducing) their number of partners by at least 50%. Great analysis, Basil.

[lavidaloca]

What country were these studies in...to make the top 2.6 percentile you needed 8 partners? That seems really low to me assuming the study is only including unmarried youth.

[Chad Daring]

Using this page here, which is dated but close enough, I figure this:

Of the 100% of the female population roughly:

-26% of to young to bang legally
-24% are to old to want to bang (50+)

That leaves 50% in the 18-49 "Id hit it" range

Of that I'd say another 20% are to ugly/fat to want to bang (the "Wal-Mart" category)

That leaves 30% of the total female population being hot enough and in the right age range to be on the market.

If 1/3 of those attractive young-ish girls are in monogamous relationships that would leave 20% of all women riding the carousel and banging lots of dudes. So yeah, I'd believe that only 20% of women are out there banging dudes like us.

(I only skimmed this thread so sorry if this is some repeated info)

[Basil Ransom]

(02-23-2012 03:46 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Nah, I think the key is in "annual" - thus number of partners within the last year. Although I'm still skeptical about 34% of women having 0 even in that regard, but we've already agreed on the fact that they're lying about (reducing) their number of partners by at least 50%. Great analysis, Basil.

If half of those claiming 0 actually banged 1, it wouldn't make much of a difference overall.

(02-23-2012 03:53 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  

What country were these studies in...to make the top 2.6 percentile you needed 8 partners? That seems really low to me assuming the study is only including unmarried youth.

It's college kids in America.

I mostly believe the numbers, because most of the time I've asked, girls don't rack up crazy numbers in college. 3 a year would be on the high side, for most girls.

[lurker123123]

the numbers make sense as annual numbers. even a 30 year old woman with 15 notches only averaged close to 1 partner per year