Nov 112014

Wolter Seuntjens

Dutch Academy of ‘Pataphysics, Amsterdam

Received 09.10.2014, accepted 03.11.2014, published 11.11.2014

JUnQ, *5*, 1, Views, ### (not final page numbering), **2015**

Sexual promiscuity can be studied quantitatively as a behavior. The qualitative study of the emotions and motives associated with promiscuity is secondary. When heterosexual behavior is studied quantitatively promiscuity is necessarily equal among males and females. In other words, contrary to contemporary popular opinion, the group of human males and the group of human females have the same average number of sex partners.

Read more: [download id=”89″]

The arguments of the article suffer from the assumption that all sexuality is heterosexual. Mathematically the discrepancy in reported average number of partners can be resolved by allowing the excess to be homosexual partners.

We must also ask whether males and females differ in their understanding of what a sexual partner is. Asking about sexual acts rather than about

sexual partnersmight produce different counts. For example, my LGBT friends indicate that many straight males ask them for sex acts but then refuse to consider my friends to have beensexual partnersunless there was penile/vaginal penetration.The article claims a

. Thatmathematical impossibilityclaim replies upon theorems upon bipartite graphs. Those theorems are not valid if the sets involved are infinite (which is not the case for the human population). More of a concern is that those theorems are irrelevant if the edges counted (reported number of partners) are not restricted to being between members of the sets (particular males, particular females). You cannot prove anything mathematically unless the counts are across a closed system<,thesemales partnering withthesefemales. But the surveys are not across closed systems: all those extra women implied from the male reports could have been with women who were not surveyed.You can work Statistically, on the assumption of homogeneity, but you can only deduce by way ofmathematical impossibilitythat people are if you canprovethat assumption of homogeneity. If you couldprovethat assumption, you wouldn’t be needing to do a survey. The idea promoted in this article, that all women lie by one scaling factor, and all men lie by a different scaling factor, is an unjustifiable imposition of homogeneity (you are going to need stronger mathematics if individuals lie by different scaling factors). You would be on safer grounds to abandon the notion that can always be demonstrated by taking Statistics over sampled populations.Nowhere in my article I assume that all sexuality is heterosexual. Explicitly, in endnote 5, I limit the argument to: “heterosexual men and heterosexual women having heterosexual intercourse.” In fact, the word ‘heterosexual’ is superfluous. It should have been sufficient to state: “men and women having sexual intercourse.’ In endnote 4 sexual intercourse was already defined conservatively, excluding oral and anal sex, as penile-vaginal penetration.

It seems Ms Roberson is confused about the primary argument of my article. It is neither about surveys and questionnaires nor is it about statistics. It is more fundamental. The mathematical or – if Ms Roberson prefers – the logical impossibility of differing averages for men and women is the point. And this is completely independent of (1) how people answer questionnaires or of (2) what they regard to be a sexual act or a sexual partner or, indeed, of (3) how they label themselves (male, female or anything else).

Yes, people fib about the total number of sex partners they have had. They fib, of course, about many things. How much exactly they fib about the total number of sexual partners is an interesting matter. But, again, it is not the topic of my article.