In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Math to the rescue: debunking “average number of sex partner” statistics

Back in June, a number of blogs reported on a federal government survey about the average number of heterosexual sex partners for American men and women. The survey also covered drug use and a lot of other aspects of people’s sex lives, but what got the most headline attention (note the cheesetastic graphic above, which accompanied ABC News’s coverage) was the sex-partner discrepancy between men and women:

The median number of lifetime female sexual partners for men was seven; the median number of male partners for women was four.

The survey, released Friday, is based on data collected from 1999 to 2002 for the National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At this point, some of you are thinking “seven? four? Oh my god, I’m statistically such a slut!” But for the time being, let’s talk about the discrepancy between men and women. This would be considered “unsurprising” to many, right? Well, the New York Times reported yesterday that these numbers are mathematically impossible. It makes sense if you think about it. According to the CDC, the survey is supposed to represent the entire American population, with the exception of the homeless, the incarcerated, and the institutionalized. That’s surely a limitation, but not a massive one. The question was also specifically about heterosexual partnerships, so it’s actually impossible for men to have had more female sex partners on average than women’s male partners.

The Times offers some proofs by a professor of math from Berkeley, for the nerds out there:

“Surveys and studies to the contrary notwithstanding, the conclusion that men have substantially more sex partners than women is not and cannot be true for purely logical reasons,” Dr. Gale said.

He even provided a proof, writing in an e-mail message:

“By way of dramatization, we change the context slightly and will prove what will be called the High School Prom Theorem. We suppose that on the day after the prom, each girl is asked to give the number of boys she danced with. These numbers are then added up giving a number G. The same information is then obtained from the boys, giving a number B.

Theorem: G=B

Proof: Both G and B are equal to C, the number of couples who danced together at the prom. Q.E.D.”

Sex survey researchers say they know that Dr. Gale is correct. Men and women in a population must have roughly equal numbers of partners. So, when men report many more than women, what is going on and what is to be believed?

There are two possible explanations offered, although the researchers involved in the study refused to speculate and just said they had no idea why the numbers didn’t make sense. After all, the most likely explanation is that their data was falsified by their subjects! Meaning that men are overreporting the number of partners they’ve had, and/or women are underreporting. This is also not that hard to believe, right? I vaguely recall some asinine “rule” that I remember people talking about in college, that to get the real number of partners you had to divide men’s estimates by three, and multilpy women’s by three. College dorm theorems are much more exaggerated than this survey, but then the CDC also was touting this survey’s methodology (answering questions on a computer by yourself, basically) as a new “method designed to provide complete privacy and produce more honest answers.”

OK, so this possibility, about men exaggerating and women underestimating, is not really that surprising. I kind of suspected the samething when I first saw this survey; Amanda at Pandagon pointed it out too and even knew of a supporting study:

I’m still somewhat skeptical about the huge gaps between men and women that show up on these surveys. On one hand, it’s believable that the social stigma on female sexuality restrains women’s behavior more, but there’s good reason to believe it also restrains their honesty on the matter. I know of one survey that found that when women and men thought they were strapped to a lie detector, the number of admitted partners for men went down and for women it went up, and up more than men’s went down.

What I’m really interested in, however, is the speed with which the media, and probably a lot of other people, are willing to believe these mathematically impossible statistics. After all, the proof offered above isn’t exactly rocket science; if you think about it for more than a few second, it makes sense. There must be something else going on. Part of my theory here is that mainstream media is always very happy to latch onto and popularize any “scientific data” that confirms “common sense” assumptions about men and women. We’ve seen this over and over and over, the tendency to try and find some kind of “hard science” confirmation for the things our society “already knows to be true” about men and women.

But what is the “common sense explanation” for this piece of common sense wisdom, that men have far more female sex partners than women have male sex partners? That men are promiscuous (naturally and biologically, even) and women just aren’t? The answer, I suspect, lies in the other possible answer given by the CDC researchers:

Sevgi O. Aral, who is associate director for science in the division of sexually transmitted disease prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said there are several possible explanations and all are probably operating.

One is that men are going outside the population to find partners, to prostitutes, for example, who are not part of the survey, or are having sex when they travel to other countries.

The math professor, on the other hand, suspects that something like a “prostitute effect” would be negligible. But I’d say that what we’re seeing here is actually the conventional explanation for the discrepancy: women don’t have much sex compared to men, but supposedly there are some women who “make up for the difference” by having LOTS and LOTS of sex with then menfolk. Furthermore, these women don’t count*, at least not for the CDC’s purposes — they’re beyond the pale, outside of society. They’re prostitutes, or as Ms. Aral suggests, they’re foreigners. In the past (of segregation and slavery) and still today in so many cases, they’re women of color. They’re women who have to be left out of the math in order to make the “common sense” 7:4 ratio accurate. They’re the original reference of the shame-word “slut.”

They’re every type of woman who’s been made to to serve as the “whore” of the classic “virgin/whore” dichotomy — to balance this mathematically impossible equation by having all the sex that good marriageable white-wedding girls supposedly don’t. (Even though this is also the survey that pointed out that 89% of Americans have premarital sex.) I could go even further and start talking about how this relates to characterization and exploitation of trans women as sex workers, in the US and around the world, as a kind of ultimate “doesn’t count as a woman” but I’ll save that for another post. You get the idea.

* It’s worth noting that the original survey findings and media coverage about them never mentioned that prostitutes were not included. How does the CDC know that they didn’t survey any? They may have asked this as a screening question, or maybe they’re just assuming that they know what sex workers look like, or that they’re all included under “incarcerated,” or that it’s such a small slice of the population (who apparently could be having half of all the heterosex, to balance the equation) that they would have to track them down to actually include them.


60 thoughts on Math to the rescue: debunking “average number of sex partner” statistics

  1. I still don’t understand the math professor’s explanation, though, because these are medians. What if you had 100 men and 100 women, and 51 men had sex with each of the women and 49 didn’t have sex with anyone? Then the median number of partners for men would be 100, and the median number of partners for women would be 51.

  2. What I would argue (following up on my comment that’s in moderation) is that medians aren’t the best way to represent this kind of data.

  3. I also recall a similar study when I was in grad school which was used in a stats class as an example of the importance of clear questions. Essentially, a significant portion of the difference may be based on different views of what is meant by “sex.” Men might consider a blow job sex, whereas the woman involved might not consider that sex (after all there was no orgasm for her!). In the case study we reviewed, the margin between men and women narrowed when the question was “How many partners have you had intercourse with” rather than “How many sexual partners have you had.”

  4. Anyone know how carefully worded the questions on the survey were? The phrase “sex partner” is actually kind of vague. Does it only count PIV intercourse? Oral sex? I can see women, feeling social pressure to reduce their numbers, not counting certain activities as sex. Men, feeling the opposite social pressure, might be more likely to count every possible encounter. So the discrepancy in numbers doesn’t even require the people surveyed to feel like they lied. They might just be interpreting the question in different ways.

    And I think you’re spot on about this representing the media’s eagerness to report findings that confirm already existing assumptions. Even when a moments thought would make you realize that these numbers are statistically impossible.

  5. I was wondering about how to calculate the average number of sex partners, too. To simplify, imagine a wedding receiving line. Every guest shakes hands with the groom. Let’s say there are 1000 guests. Every guest has shaken hands once. The groom has shaken hands 1000 times. The average number of handshake partners is thus [(1000)1 +1(1000)]/1001, or approximately 2.
    Possibilities:
    1. Three women have had sex with every man in America. They don’t show up in the statistics because the CDC has yet to interview them.
    2. Different definitions of sex partner by gender:
    2a. Different definitions of sex
    2b. Different definitions of “partner”
    3. Men lie to increase their number; women lie to reduce their number.

  6. How careful were they about their survey population? It seems they’d need to include sex workers in the people interviewed. Lying about your number of partners aside, the inclusion of a representative number of prostitutes might just put the female average up closer to the men’s.

    And I don’t buy those numbers for a moment.

  7. It’s sort of sad that cultural pressures are so strong people feel the need to lie on anonymous surveys. Unsurprising, and well-documentedly true, but sad nonetheless.

    On the bright side: Huzzah for math!

  8. I love that the international symbol for male-female heterosexual coupling is very close to the transgender symbol.

  9. Well, the quoted part does specify that seven and four were the medians, not the means, so that makes it at least theoretically possible.

    (A mean is what we typically think of as an average, and a median is the number at the middle of the survey. So if you have a set of five respondents, who have 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 cookies each, the mean number of cookies per respondent is 3.6, while the median is 3.)

    I’m having a hard time coming up with a sociologically plausible distribution that would account for that kind of discrepancy, though.

  10. supposedly there are some women who “make up for the difference” by having LOTS and LOTS of sex with then menfolk. Furthermore, these women don’t count*, at least not for the CDC’s purposes

    Isn’t that a property of using the median rather than the mean (the proof shown applies to the mean, but not necessarily to the median)? It isn’t as if the CDC made some sexist conspiracy not to count women who’ve “made up the difference” by having lots of sex partners. In my example, w3 has had more sex partners, but I didn’t go out of my way not to count w3 … the median, as a statistic just doesn’t consider her.

    Normally this is a good thing … e.g. when talking about economic well-being, it’s better to talk of median incomes/wealth as the mean is swayed overmuch by the very few multi-millionares/billionares in our society. But in this case, the median may very well have the unfortunate effect of effectively not counting certain women.

  11. Ohmygod, thank you, this has been driving me crazy for so long. I thought there was just something in the math that my sad little English-major brain wasn’t comprehending.

    But, as usual, I was right and the MSM blows. It’s going to be a wonderful day. And yes, huzzah for math indeed.

  12. It is possible to have different averages if the sample groups are different sizes, if there are more women in the total population then men.

    So G=B, but to get the average you have to divide it by the number of women and men at the dance, so if there were only 50 men but 70 women, then the average number of dance partners would be higher for the men.

    This is not to say that the survey was right or that any of the mitigating factors discussed above are wrong, because it does seem likely that there was some lying about the numbers or that an unclear definition of “sex” would cause the difference in the averages as well, but it is possible to have differing averages. Especially when you consider that women live longer on average, so in the higher age brackets especially you have more women than men in the population.

  13. Just rambling here, but I don’t know that many guys who rely on prostitutes to get off.. But correct me if I’m wrong (I can only speak for my generation at best). If you took women who aren’t sex workers but correspond to the stereotype of sluts, they would pretty radically increase the average of women (considering the amount of men they have to, er, serve).

    The lie detector experiment should be sufficient to explain the discrepancy, but I like how some resist to it or simply ignore it – like any research that refutes “common sense”. There’s been an experiment performed by Terri Fisher (an Ohio State professor) that showed women tended to change their answers in sex surveys according to how confident they were about their anonimity (they were asked about how often they masturbated, viewed soft- and hardcore porn, etc), while men didn’t care. I think people here would quite appreciate Fisher’s work.

    It’s sort of like that global sex survey, if you guys have heard of it, where the average woman declared she waited about SIX MONTHS to consent to sex. Come on ladies, you’re only fooling yourselves.

    I liked the last part of the post, the study does indeed somehow have some hidden classism/xenophobia in it, or at least imply it.

  14. The report says median which is not the same as average. Two sets of numbers may have the same average and different medians.

  15. I’m not sure the argument against those figures works – after all, the conclusion isn’t that the mean number of sexual partners differs (that would be impossible, I think), but the median. So the difference in numbers is possible if, say, men in general have around seven sexual partners without much variation, except at the ends, and women have in general more variation (so that the mid point sits at four, but the general numbers rise faster from there).

  16. Isabel, nodding:

    Particularly considering how well established it is that women frequently use their “number” to dump on other women and prove that they’re good girls–you’d think they’d lie on the anonymous survey and say that they’ve had 3x as many partners as they did to drive the average higher, so that when they answered “truthfully” to their next potential lover, they could come off as that much more virtuous.

    Why is my mind so evil today? Do I sense an opening as a political advisor to the president?

  17. Hmm, weird. I’ve seen these studies cited as ‘the median number of partners for guys is seven and for gals is four.’ Which is statistically very much possible, if you’re dealing with two populations that have a slightly different skew to them.

    In this case, you don’t have to dismiss the ‘prostitutes’ (eyeroll) from the population: they can be counted and still not influence the median that much. If my population has 5 men and 5 women, the men have had 7 sexual encounters each (sum of 35), and the women have had 4, 4, 4, 10, 13 encounters each (also sum of 35), the median would still be different.

    Don’t see what’s so weird about that. Of course I still believe that many people lie about the number of partners or encounters, but my statistics teacher always taught me that there are many ways of calculating the average, the ‘statistical average’ being only one of them.

  18. The article doesn’t distinguish between median and mean. The means have to be the same (well, actually, they have to be inversely proportional to the percentage of that gender in the population), but the medians don’t have to.

  19. I’m not sure this professor fully understood what the survey results said. For men and women to have different mean numbers of sexual partners would be impossible just as he says, but here we’re talking about the median, which is a different thing altogether, and could easily be different for men and women.

  20. Median/mean distinction aside, I’ve been saying this since the days of alt.romance to people who say heterosexual dating is easier for one gender or the other; assuming equal numbers of men and women with around the same sex drive (and I’ve seen no reason to doubt this, despite the cultural narrative about women’s libido vs. men’s), it can’t be any easier for women as a group to partner with a man than vice versa, and that observations to the contrary tend to be the result of various cognitive biases (e.g., comparing the population of people you’re interested in to your own experience).

  21. ..Okay, over at Ezra Klein’s place, someone just pointed out that the results discuss the median, not the average. Which means that according to the results, half of men have more 7 partners whereas half of women have more than 4. Not the same as the average. The proof doesn’t apply to the median, only to the mean (which makes me wonder why the NYTimes printed it). And now I feel kinda dumb for not picking up on that before.

    Not that the survey results are necessarily perfectly valid, of course, but just wanted to point that out for the sake of accuracy.

  22. I know this has been mentioned on other blogs:

    The slut-outlier effect is actually possible without going outside the surveyed population (to sex workers, foreigners, etc.) because what’s being measured is the median. In other words, even if you’ve got a sample size that looks like this:

    MEN
    1, 2, 7, 8, 9

    WOMEN

    1, 2, 4, 5, 80

    The medians are still 7 and 4.

    This actually isn’t a terribly surprising result (if true–there’s presumably a lot of lying going on one way or t’other), because the dynamics of sexual politics in America assure that women who are interested in totally casual sex will have a much lower strikeout rate than even the most successful men will.

  23. That is to say, it is entirely possible for the median to be 7 and 4 for men and women, respectively, while their mean number of sex partners are the same and nobody is lying about how many people they slept with.

  24. I’m no math wizz but doesn’t median mean the middle number? Assuming 100 kids, 50 boys & 50 girls. if all the girls have sex with the same boy and none of the others then the median number for the girls would be 1 and boys would be 25 (mid-way between 50 and 0).

    Not that the respondents didn’t lie their ass off or that the math is messed up but in my admittedly badly damaged little brain I think this discrepancy is possible.

  25. As a statistics geek, I would like to point out a problem with both this analysis and the New York Times’: There’s a difference between the words “median” and “mean.”

    “Median” is calculated by ranking each respondent by the number of sex partners he or she has had, picking out the one that falls in the middle, and looking at the number that that respondent gave.

    “Mean” is calculated by adding up the number of sex partners each respondent reported, and dividing that result by the number of respondents.

    Thus, suppose we have a group of 5 men and 5 women. The men’s reported # of heterosexual partners is 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The women’s reported # of heterosexual partners is 3, 3, 3, 11, 15. Note that this describes 35 sexual encounters total per group – thus, the men as a whole aren’t having any more sex than women.

    It is true that the “average” # of sexual partners in these groups will be the same: 7. It’s mathematically impossible for it to be otherwise. That is what the mathematicians in the Times were obviously referring to, since “average” is usually interpreted as “mean” unless otherwise specified.

    However, the study was reporting the median numbers. The medians are 7 for men and 3 for women. Thus, it’s entirely possible for the median # of sexual partners for each group to be different. Apparently, the Times didn’t bother to tell their math experts the exact wording of the study, and just asked them if the “average” number of het sexual partners of men and women could be different, which led to their publishing entirely misleading information about statistics. Shame.

    I’m not going to say that the study is a good study – I haven’t seen it. And I don’t care to speculate whether this is actually the reason the medians are so different. But it’s certainly a mathematically possible study.

  26. Yeah, I knew there was something fishy in the NY Times’ reporting with regards to medians and means, but doesn’t it still seem strange that the medians would be that different, in a large study, than the means?

    I guess maybe the mean / median difference MIGHT actually point to the “common sense” explanation I point to at the end of the article, because if you surveyed a group of ten people and there was a huge concentration of sex partners at one end of the scale for women, then you’d have a very different median vs. mean.

    I mean, let’s say there are ten women and ten men. Six of the women only have sex with six of the men, while the other four women have all had sex with every single man. Then you get a situation where the median for women is 1, the median for men is 5, but the mean for both men and women is 4.6… is that right?

    I would be very hestitant to actually draw any conclusions about what mean/median discrepancies mean though, since I was never all that good at averages or statistics.

    Plus, there really is evidence that people are exaggerating in one direction or the other, as Amanda pointed out.

  27. I’ve wondered about this skewed math for years. But seriously, you buried your lede, because this paragraph

    The math professor, on the other hand, suspects that something like a “prostitute effect” would be negligible. But I’d say that what we’re seeing here is actually the conventional explanation for the discrepancy: women don’t have much sex compared to men, but supposedly there are some women who “make up for the difference” by having LOTS and LOTS of sex with then menfolk. Furthermore, these women don’t count*, at least not for the CDC’s purposes — they’re beyond the pale, outside of society. They’re prostitutes, or as Ms. Aral suggests, they’re foreigners. In the past (of segregation and slavery) and still today in so many cases, they’re women of color. They’re women who have to be left out of the math in order to make the “common sense” 7:4 ratio accurate. They’re the original reference of the shame-word “slut.”

    …is where the money is. This is so important to our understanding of what happens to the perception of women; the women who have sex are othered, they “aren’t us.”

    But they are. We are.

  28. Personal Antidote

    When I started having sex decades ago (yes, I am one of the original feminists) I decided to keep a list. Today I know for sure how many men I had, but I only remember about five. The real number was larger by at least a factor of 5. Memory is a funny thing, that.

    I LOVE this site. I’ve only recently found it, (thanks to female writers at Daily Kos), and I am so happy to see radical feminists out there. You go girls, and everybody else too.

  29. Median is not equal to “average.”

    Although I never fully accepted it, in 7th Grade math, they forced us to learn that “average” could mean mean, median, or mode.

  30. Not to defend the numbers — I think they’re a crock, too — but there’s a group of women that are likely both (a) undersurveyed and (b) have a high number of sex partners, thus distorting the median: prostitutes.

    — ACS

  31. I don’t even reach the average given for males, but there are still two people one my list who I’m sure would not count me on theirs. Sloppy definition of “sex” is probably the problem.

  32. It’s sort of like that global sex survey, if you guys have heard of it, where the average woman declared she waited about SIX MONTHS to consent to sex. Come on ladies, you’re only fooling yourselves.

    That could be accurate, though. A) If “sex” means “sexual intercourse,” and you’re not confident of your birth control, spending SIX MONTHS necking and not having intercourse isn’t all that unreasonable. B) Worldwide, at least some women are chaperoned sufficiently that it could take considerable time for mutually attracted parties to find an opportunity to have sex. C) You did specify a global sex survey, right?

    I liked the last part of the post, the study does indeed somehow have some hidden classism/xenophobia in it, or at least imply it.

    I’m sure there are a few more men than women doing sex tours to other countries, but since sex tourism, in any case, is available only to a rich minority, I can’t imagine it’s driving men’s median number of partners up significantly.

    On the whole median/mean distinction, one would think that, out of the many surveys of “average” numbers of sex partners, at least one would have talleyed means rather than medians. So, it’s just a matter of finding that study (or studies), and seeing whether it gives a wildly different result from the ones reporting median partners. If men report more average partners by any definition of average, then we’re back to either lying or different definitions of “sex.”

  33. My vote is for women skewing their numbers lower than they are, not for most “everywomen” types having their allotted, safe 0-4 and then a few “sluts” having, you know, however many.

    For instance, I’ve had 8. This is a low number among my circle, but no more or less than I intended to sleep with so it’s all good. Now, were I inclined to feel slightly ashamed of my number because of some kind of societal pressure, like say if I lived in a part of the country where the culture engages in a lot of heavy slut-shaming, or if for some reason I felt insecure about telling my SO because, say, I knew he was a virgin or only had been with 1 or 2 and I didn’t want to “other” myself from him…I might shave a couple off that number. I am not (ashamed), do not (live in a conservative area; I live in NYC), and would not (feel insecure about my number or anything else; my sexual history is an open book to my husband as it always was to any partner I trusted), but it’s a hypothetical. I imagine it would be very, very easy to, whoops, knock that 6 down to a 4, that 9 down to a 5, if one felt the situation called for it or one might suffer discomfort in society because of a “high” number. And let’s face it, women face lots of discomfort levied in their direction by the culture over their sexuality.

  34. I really think what’s going on is that both men and women have a bimodal (at least) distribution with respect to number of partners – sexual “haves” and “have-nots,” if you will.

    Let’s look at a hypothetical population of twelve men and twelve women.

    Men: 1,2,2,2,3,7,7,8,8,8,9,9 – mean 6.5, median 7
    Women: 2,2,3,3,3,4,4,8,9,9,9,10 – mean 6.5, median 4

    This really is two populations: a “high-sex” population consisting of 7 men and 5 women, and a “low-sex” population consisting of 7 women and 5 men. Within the populations, there’s not much difference – the women in each population group have more sex than the men in the equivalent population group (because there are more men in the “high-sex” population to go around), but the difference in group medians is 1 partner, not 3.

    As for why the distribution might differ between genders, I’m torn between the prevalence of “slut-shaming” and the “we define sex around men getting off, so of course more of them will be into it.

  35. So most women have 1 or 2 partners with a small percentage of women have, like, 40. In comparison to men, who all hover around 7. How different men and women are! Men can all be lumped into one category while women are lumped into two categories (virgin/whore).

  36. It would be nice if mathematics could discredit this survey and support our liberated sexuality, but it can’t. It is trivially easy to devise any number of datasets where the median for the men is 7 and the median for the women is 4. And yes, the way that happens is for a few people in the set to have the majority of the sex partners. I drew a diagram at work today, and would be happy to reproduce it in MSPaint if anyone’s not buying this. 🙂

    Of course, we should always be aware of the potential for under- and over-reporting, but nothing inherent in this data gives us cause to doubt it. FTF, NY Times.

  37. where the average woman declared she waited about SIX MONTHS to consent to sex

    Well, yeah. For having sex for the first time. Or if we’re counting right after we meet the guy, on average, even if we don’t start dating him until five months later.

  38. but there’s a group of women that are likely both (a) undersurveyed and (b) have a high number of sex partners, thus distorting the median: prostitutes

    This is the “sluts ruin the math” argument, but with pay added.

  39. I don’t know what was going on with the median/mean thing in the NYTimes article.

    I’ve seen work done on this discrepancy between how many partners men and women report (including the lie detector tests) and I *think* they are truly working with averages–not mixing up medians and averages as seems to be happening in the NYTimes article.

    Here’s a quote from a press release about some work on this out of a University of Michigan:

    Brown, a professor of psychology at the University of Alberta, and colleagues Robert Sinclair of Laurentian University and Sean Moore of the Augustana College, have conducted several studies of this issue. The largest and most recent is a Web-based survey conducted in fall 2005. The researchers polled a Knowledge Networks panel of 2,065 heterosexual, U.S. non-virgins with a median age in their late 40s. The average number of sexual partners the women reported was 8.6. The average number the men reported was 31.9.

    http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2006/Feb06/r021306d

    Assuming they really mean average here, these numbers are even more absurd than the 4 and 7 numbers reported in the federal survey (which I gather are actually medians).

    The UofM researcher (Brown) being discussed in this press release argues that the difference in male/female reports of average # of partners is mostly a matter of gender differences in styles of counting–men tend to estimate (well say 3 partners a year for 15 years…) while women tend to enumerate (well there was Bob, John, and Tim…). And lo and behold, enumeration tends to lead to under-counting and estimating tends to lead to over-counting. Brown doesn’t speculate (at least not in the press release) about why women tend to enumerate and men tend to estimate. Presumably, though, given how the style of counting so conveniently leads to the #s conforming to gender expectations, I’d say it’s a safe bet that the (conscious or unconscious) choice of what method of counting to use is itself informed by gendered social expectations.

    Interestingly Brown found that over 20% of respondents in the survey admitted to being dishonest in their answers. When he crunched the numbers removing the admitted liars’ data, however, the numbers still did not line up. Hence either there were many more liars who lied about lying or the others did not think they were being dishonest but still gave quite inaccurate counts/estimates.

  40. Ok, but what if a some women have a LOT of sex, and a lot of women have a LEEETLE bit but all men are having a medium line of sex…wouldn’t that just be the distribution of the thing? I have had more sex partners than almost all the guys I know and most have had 4 to 10.

  41. haha I’m one of the skewers. My numbers are waaaay up there but not basketball star up there.

    I hate that it matters so much to people one way or the other. You’re not a stud if you are a male and you have lots of sex and you aren’t a slut if you are female and having lots of sex. You may be a happy human being though. 🙂 Or maybe a sad one. 🙁 Sex feels good. Most seem to have less than they want.

  42. OK, here’s a URL which shows that the difference in reported number of sex partners is not due to a small number of women skewing the median:

    Rather than a small but statistically significant gender difference, the typical discrepancy in men’s and women’s lifetime number of sex partners is large by any definition. For example, in national samples, the mean number of sex partners for men and women, respectively, was 12.3 versus 3.3 in the United States (Smith, 1991), 9.9 versus 3.4 in Britain (Wellings et al., 1994), 11.0 versus 3.3 in France (ACSF, 1992), 10.2 versus 4.2 in New Zealand (Davis et al., 1993), and 12.5 versus 5.2 in Norway (Sundet et al., 1989). In populations that are more or less closed systems with an approximately equal ratio of men and women, such as the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993), this apparent gender discrepancy does not make logical sense (Einon, 1994; Gurman, 1989).

    Note that here we’re getting differences in means, not medians, so the discrepancy occurs by either measure.

    The prostitutes not being sampled theory only works if prostitutes are both so ubiquitous that most men use them (or they wouldn’t be skewing the median as well as the mean) and so easy to miss that numerous surveys in several different countries fail to include them.

    Excess of women over men could explain the discrepancy in some populations, but it turns out that women report fewer sexual partners even in populations where there are more men than women. And here’s a rebuttal of the “sluts sleep with all the men” hypothesis (same URL).

    Hypersexual women and prostitutes. Several authors (e.g., Laumann et al., 1994; Symons, 1979; Walsh, 1993; Wellings et al., 1994) have proposed that perhaps the apparent gender discrepancy in number of sex partners is explained by existence of a small subgroup of women who have had sex with an enormous number of men. To address this possibility of a subgroup of highly experienced women who were not prostitutes, Einon (1994) analyzed data from the national samples collected in Britain (Wellings; et al., 1994) and France (ACSF, 1992). She found no evidence for the notion that there are more atypically “hypersexual” women compared to such men (and actually found evidence for a relatively greater incidence of “hypersexual” men who reported extremely large numbers of sex partners).

    What about professional prostitutes? These women presumably have large numbers of male sex partners, yet may be less likely to be included in studies using typical sampling methodology. Einon (1994) also calculated the number of different male clients that prostitutes in Britain would need to service to resolve the gender discrepancy in self-reported lifetime number of sex partners in that country. Einon considered several levels of estimated prevalence of prostitution and number of different clients serviced per week, and for each scenario, prostitution was an unrealistic explanation for the gender discrepancy. Still, it is unknown what effect, if any, removing respondents who have participated in prostitution might have on the apparent gender discrepancy in self-reported lifetime number of sex partners.

    On the “enumerating vs. estimating” difference, actually, it never occurred to me that anyone would report a number any way other than by enumerating (unless the number was too large to do that). I do suspect at least some of the discrepancy comes from differences in how people figure out what their number is, and not just from outright deliberate lying.

  43. I’m telling you, the stigma against being a slut is such that I doubt women answer truthfully on these surveys. I know that I’d have problems telling the truth, and I’m mostly unabashed.

  44. Yes, you’re all right about what I said, the six months period can be explained by cultural pressures, etc. Before you flash the “ignorant narrow-minded American” card” let me tell you, I’m Brazilian! So flash the “ignorant narrow-minded Brazilian” card instead (if you don’t have it, you can borrow my markers and write one).

    Sorry I didn’t think of my answer more carefully. What precisely irked me about the survey was how the researchers involved implied in their conclusion that this the general answers (for women it was six months, for men it was one week) were absolutely not correlated with culture but somehow related to how quickly, and how often, and with how many people one wants to have sex naturally – that the overall global correlation was “natural” and product of biological inclination rather than numerous cultural factors.

    The survey was target of a lot of criticism, especially by social psychologists – also because it was, erm, self-reported (hence the study by Terri Fisher that I cited). So surveys like that are better at predicting what your average woman and man wants to say about their sex lives rather than what their sex lives are actually like.

  45. So, the math professor wrote to Broadsheet’s Tracy Clark-Flory to clear up the confusion about whether he was talking about medians or means. It turns out the raw data (even the mean) is inconsistent, and therefore mathematically impossible in a relatively closed population.

    I’ve gotten several messages making the same point. If you look at Gina’s article you will see that I never attacked the statement about medians. I tried to carefully avoid saying anything directly about the median statement in the article because, as you realize, it could be correct even with accurate data. What I did was to get a copy of the CDC report and used the data in its tables. It groups people into four groups and gives the percentage of men and women in each group:

    0-1 partner: Men, 16.6. Women, 25.0.
    2-6 partners: Men, 33.8. Women, 44.3.
    7-14 partners: Men, 20.7. Women, 21.3.
    15 or more partners: Men, 28.9. Women, 9.4.

    From these figures you can estimate the total partners claimed by each sex. I got between 40 percent and 75 percent more male than female partners depending on how you guess the average on each interval. Thus, the raw data is inconsistent (so it doesn’t matter whether you take averages or medians or any other statistic). I hope this clarifies.

  46. their conclusion that this the general answers (for women it was six months, for men it was one week) were absolutely not correlated with culture

    True. With a difference of that size, I’d imagine the men and the women were seeing themselves as answering a different question: in the men’s case, how long it takes to know you want to have sex with this person, and in the women’s case, how long it takes to satisfy whatever preconditions you’re obliged to satisfy before you can give in to that desire.

  47. Also, what about the problem of date rape? When I add up my partners I say, “five.” However, I leave out a man who decided to have sex with me when I was drunk and begging him not to. We kissed beforehand though. I just objected because he didn’t have a condom and the alcohol was making me sick. I bet HE counts me as one of HIS partners. Date rape is so common. Couldn’t this be a plausible explanation for a big part of the discrepancy?

  48. My total is high enough that I don’t tend to admit to it in public, because people do assume “total slut” and then that colors your interactions with them in one direction or another.

    But I would admit it to an anonymous test. Hm.

Comments are currently closed.