ABC News Sex Survey - Average number of Sexual Partners (for a lifetime)
- Thread starter Bob Ross
- Start date
B_chinagirl4u2
Experimental Member
B_chinagirl4u2
Experimental Member
The numbers lie!!
One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.
But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women. Those survey results cannot be correct.
The Myth, the Math, the Sex
One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.
But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women. Those survey results cannot be correct.
The Myth, the Math, the Sex
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Posts
- 1,223
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 800
- Points
- 358
- Location
- New York (United States)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Also, everyone should remember that this was a poll of Americans (only) so the sexual activities of other countries are irrelevant to the numbers they came up with...
I agree with the general consensus here that both numbers seem low but a few thoughts:
1.) If men tend to exaggerate then why does that number seem low too?
2.) If you go to the end of the PDF and check the marital status of the respondents you will see that many were married. I can see this from the angle that the spouse was present and the responses were skewed by what they wanted there partner to think of them. However, I can also consider that most people who were called and asked if they want to take such an intimate survey would probably say no if there was someone else in the room who would be surprised by there "honest" answers.
4.) The sample size is not that large. Extrapolating these results to the entire populous of the country is tricky/innacurate.
3.) If anyone knows of a similar study from another source it would be nice to see what there findings were
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Posts
- 1,223
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 800
- Points
- 358
- Location
- New York (United States)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Cool, Thanks!
Shannon H had brought up that point (or very similar). Although the numbers they found could be "accurate" (in terms of being honest responses) the problem occurs when you say that that is indicative of an entire population (as a closed system).
It is not unusual in the Western world to find women with 6 children who were each fathered by a different man. Do you think this trend will follow soon in China as well?
B_chinagirl4u2
Experimental Member
No, and for a very simple reason..... $$$$$
1.There are no child support laws here
2. education is very expensive
3. healthcare is very expensive
Oh, people there plan pregnancies. Here, people do what they want, then make it the government's problem to sort out the finances.
Some of the comments you have made have been light-hearted, but they have not been received well for some reason by some of the women on this site, it seems. Any idea why?
I find it fascinating that people on LPSG think the numbers are wrong. I would prefer to see the study done over again, than to say the numbers are just wrong.
A huge set of factors with sexual partners is attractiveness. Some men are just plain held down by facial asymmetry, body shape, charisma, etc.
Personally I think these are about right. If you revised the study and asked participants to differentiate oral/anal/frottage and so on, you might see higher numbers too.
But, I still think there is an extremely high amount of people who would be viewed as not very attractive and therefore less likely to snag someone new on a regular basis.
Separately, I didn't realize I was supposed to keep track of partners. Lost count in high school.
A huge set of factors with sexual partners is attractiveness. Some men are just plain held down by facial asymmetry, body shape, charisma, etc.
Personally I think these are about right. If you revised the study and asked participants to differentiate oral/anal/frottage and so on, you might see higher numbers too.
But, I still think there is an extremely high amount of people who would be viewed as not very attractive and therefore less likely to snag someone new on a regular basis.
Separately, I didn't realize I was supposed to keep track of partners. Lost count in high school.
Are you serious?
It's completely unusual to find women with more than even 2-3 children for the most part. Add to that each fathered by a different man? No.
Unless you can provide some statistics or something to back that up, it's just well beyond the bounds of credulity.
Yes of course, same in India. But I was talking about several years ago. You have to remember they are still alive! And the people who are more open about sexuality are too young to have had sex with too many people.
Yes and thats another problem, isnt it? It can depend critically on how you ask the question. The number of guys I have slept with is way way below the number I had sex with. Sleep?
There is no way you can extrapolate average numbers for a whole population from a chat between people who are sufficiently interested in sex they post on websites about it.
Regarding the missing partners, I would guess it is much easier to remember correct numbers if you had only 3 lifetime partners rather than 3,000. Anyone saying 3000 is just guessing. But remember if someone is reporting they had 5 partners with an accuracy of +-1, thats the same mathematical accuracy as reporting 5,000 +- 1,000. However, if there is a natural bias such as men over reporting or women under reporting, it might be affecting the numbers through these high reporters.
Depends what you are trying to measure. You might discount outliers if you are trying to get a figure for the typical individual, but if your interest is something like disease control, then these people with high totals are ones you are most concerned with. The exact numbers are almost certainly not reliable but the order of magnitude likely are. I couldnt tell you how many Ive had sex with, I couldnt even make a real estimate. I do know that if I made an estimate based on average partners now it would be lower than when I made such an estimate years ago, but I have no record even of average number each year to try to make an exact total.
Thats not exactly true. We know there is a discrepancy in the results and we know the size of it. We can therefore say the true number is likely somewhere between the female result and the male result. I have a strange outlook on this perhaps. Someone with a lifetime count of 2 might think 10 a lot and 20 huge. From my perspective all these numbers are tiny.
exactly. SO if in an interview someone asked if you were straight or gay, (not assuming anything) you might say straight if you mainly are. Then the next question is how many partners, and you answer 50, being 7 regular women and 43 one night stands with men. But now on the questionnaire this has become 50 female partners because they didnt ask precise enough questions.
I read a UK sex survey from maybe 10 years ago which also said exactly that there were more occasions of straight men having sex than straight women having sex. But this did have to be viewed thinking about exactly what questions were asked. I reckoned it allowed the possibility from peoples answers that some of the discrepancy could be men with men. I found that quite amusing.
The Uk survey was also done in two parts. They had a short list of questions they asked everyone, and a longer list they asked some. This was partly because of money, but also because they were afraid if they asked too detailed questions many people might refuse to answer. I cant really remember now, but the answers they got on the two sets did not entirely agree. The people doing the survey were very concerned about self-selection bias and tried very hard to persuade randomly selected people to agree to answer questions. The trouble is, the ones who refuse are likely some of the most extremes (any way) who are therefore unwilling to discuss their sex lives.
Last edited:
on these surveys I always think "who are the men fucking?" then I think of those rare chicks who everybody fuck. not to say I'm not calling bullshit on this survey, but its possible. btw - I far exceeded this #, and I know I'm not nearly one of the few at this site (or in my grp of friends) who has.
then you have to take in the consideration of the male (divide by 3) and female (multiply by 3) rule some folks advise. people lie, especially on these surveys. i don't trust them, except if I want to win an arguement with someone impressed by numbers.
Last edited:
I think the % of men who have sex w/ prostitutes is higher than what you think, but no point in arguing about it. The point I was actually making was not that men who sleep with prostitutes would skew the figures (because they probably wouldn't by much even if they did), but that the woman prostitute would skew the figures. If half the survey takers were women (so 750 women) and the average # of partners was 6, that's 4500 or so total partners of the survey-taking women. A longtime prostitute could easily have that amount herself.
Similar threads
