Granted. But such distortions aren’t exactly prevalent in society, which has a near 1:1 gender ratio, and relatively insignificant departure rates (they’re going to be less than the error margin in any honestly-conducted study).
Interesting. That would work in the opposite direction from the two effects I was thinking of, and it could well be stronger than either of those effects.
Anyway, it strengthens the point that the numbers don’t need to match.
In the Cracked article I first saw this in (can’t say if OrphanWilde got it from elsewhere) they admitted that there could be a gender ratio imbalance (they also pointed out that homosexuals exist) but noted that the evidence was being interpreted strictly as evidence for promiscuous males. (And … whatever the opposite of promiscuous is … females.)
There is a slight unevenness in population, and it tends to favor the females (to the tune of 0.5% in the US), so effect 1, though exaggerated above, does exist.
The second objection is not even marginal—indeed, it is very pertinent, especially when one considers the long tail of female sexuality. Most women will have few partners, and then you get the 1% who have over 100 times as many.
In particular, streetwalkers: they are the tippy tip end of that tail, and they face greater dangers than other women—largely from the effects of criminalization, but partly from the factors that put them in such a circumstances in the first place (since streetwalking is one of the least attractive sex work options, let alone work options, and has a very low barrier to entry, an elevated fraction of them will be in dire straits to begin with).
Similarly, highly promiscuous amateurs have much higher STD rates than usual. Since transmission from male to female is much higher rate than female to male, the women will bear the brunt of that too.
Even in this case, you could have a minority of men who have sex with 100 women very quickly, then die, surrounded by other men who have sex with either 0 or one woman but live for a long time. Women in this scenario all live a long time. Then the average for men will be lower than the average for women.
a minority of men who have sex with 100 women very quickly, then die
Actually, this seems to fit some subset of criminals: make some bold crimes, have a lot of money, be attractive (courageous and rich), have as much sex as possible, and die young (during the next crime, or killed by competition).
The numbers don’t need to match, even if everyone was counted and reported accurately.
To take some extreme examples:
The population is Alex, Betty, Carrie, Daphne. Alex hooks up with each of the others. Mens’ average: 3. Womens’ average: 1.
Now take Alice, Bob, and Cindy. Alice hooks up with Bob and then leaves the population (emigrates or dies) Womens’ average: 0. Mens’ average: 1
Granted. But such distortions aren’t exactly prevalent in society, which has a near 1:1 gender ratio, and relatively insignificant departure rates (they’re going to be less than the error margin in any honestly-conducted study).
Older men are consistently attracted to younger women. Consider implications.
Interesting. That would work in the opposite direction from the two effects I was thinking of, and it could well be stronger than either of those effects.
Anyway, it strengthens the point that the numbers don’t need to match.
In the Cracked article I first saw this in (can’t say if OrphanWilde got it from elsewhere) they admitted that there could be a gender ratio imbalance (they also pointed out that homosexuals exist) but noted that the evidence was being interpreted strictly as evidence for promiscuous males. (And … whatever the opposite of promiscuous is … females.)
Chaste. (Traditionally, chastity includes both celibacy outside of marriage and fidelity within.)
That objections disappears if you assume an equal gender ratio in the population at large, which is usually the case.
There is a slight unevenness in population, and it tends to favor the females (to the tune of 0.5% in the US), so effect 1, though exaggerated above, does exist.
The second objection is not even marginal—indeed, it is very pertinent, especially when one considers the long tail of female sexuality. Most women will have few partners, and then you get the 1% who have over 100 times as many.
In particular, streetwalkers: they are the tippy tip end of that tail, and they face greater dangers than other women—largely from the effects of criminalization, but partly from the factors that put them in such a circumstances in the first place (since streetwalking is one of the least attractive sex work options, let alone work options, and has a very low barrier to entry, an elevated fraction of them will be in dire straits to begin with).
Similarly, highly promiscuous amateurs have much higher STD rates than usual. Since transmission from male to female is much higher rate than female to male, the women will bear the brunt of that too.
So no, it doesn’t actually disappear.
No, it’s still a legitimate objection to my statement that the numbers -have- to match. You can still have differing departure rates.
Always try to say yes rather than no :)
Even in this case, you could have a minority of men who have sex with 100 women very quickly, then die, surrounded by other men who have sex with either 0 or one woman but live for a long time. Women in this scenario all live a long time. Then the average for men will be lower than the average for women.
Actually, this seems to fit some subset of criminals: make some bold crimes, have a lot of money, be attractive (courageous and rich), have as much sex as possible, and die young (during the next crime, or killed by competition).