Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-07-2010, 02:19 AM
AllFreedomUnlessDefyingScience is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 203

odds of having 11 children of the same sex


I just watched a TV show that had a woman who allegedly had 11 children, all boys. Am I right in thinking that the odds of this happening are 1 in 2 to the 11th power or 1/2048? Certainly statisticly possible, but also definitively unlikely.

Any replies are appreciated,
AllFree
__________________
If you are the only sane person in the room, everyone else says you are crazy. Have you ever noticed that the world is just one big room?
  #2  
Old 05-07-2010, 02:27 AM
Baffle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern North
Posts: 1,383
Your calculation is correct, assuming the odds of one gender over the other is in fact one in two. Studies have suggested this may not be the case, but it's close enough.
  #3  
Old 05-07-2010, 02:31 AM
AllFreedomUnlessDefyingScience is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 203
How large is the bias and towards what sex? I imagine it must be small.
  #4  
Old 05-07-2010, 02:45 AM
dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllFreedomUnlessDefyingScience View Post
How large is the bias and towards what sex? I imagine it must be small.
About 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. Makes the odds against 11 boys in a row somewhat less unlikely.
  #5  
Old 05-07-2010, 02:57 AM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,928
Your odds are only for all families with eleven children. This has to be multiplied by the odds of a family having 11 children of any sex.
  #6  
Old 05-07-2010, 02:59 AM
grimpixie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 2,911
There also appears to be a small bias toward one gender or another dependent on the gender of previous children - particularly if you have had boys, but only very slightly:
Quote:
The odds of having a girl seem decrease after having each boy, but only very slightly. Even after 3 boys, you are only 6.4% more likely to have a 4th boy than a girl ... The odds of having a boy seem to increase after having girls, except after 2 girls, when a 3rd girl is more likely.
Study reported here

Grim
  #7  
Old 05-07-2010, 05:42 AM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,304
Also assuming that there isn't a biological reason that Y bearning sperm are not being favored for that specific couple.
  #8  
Old 05-07-2010, 05:45 AM
Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
Also assuming that there isn't a biological reason that Y bearning sperm are not being favored for that specific couple.
This is the important point. There are plenty of couples who are biologically incapable of producing children of one sex or the other. Doesn't matter how many kids they have, they will always be all the same sex.
  #9  
Old 05-07-2010, 05:59 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllFreedomUnlessDefyingScience View Post
I just watched a TV show that had a woman who allegedly had 11 children, all boys. Am I right in thinking that the odds of this happening are 1 in 2 to the 11th power or 1/2048? Certainly statisticly possible, but also definitively unlikely.
What do you mean by "definitively unlikely"? I don't know how many women there are in the world who have 11 children, but it wouldn't surprise me if the number were well over 2048. In that case, even if the probability of any one set of 11 children being all boys were 1/2048, it would be extremely likely that some woman, somewhere, had 11 boys.
  #10  
Old 05-07-2010, 06:15 AM
Smeghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 18,812
I knew, even before opening this thread, that it had already degenerated into pointless nitpickery. By any reasonable standard, the answer is 1 in 2^11. Let it go, people. Let it go.
  #11  
Old 05-07-2010, 06:32 AM
racer72 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, WA
Posts: 6,303
My aunt quit after 6 boys.
  #12  
Old 05-07-2010, 06:44 AM
Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 20,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
This is the important point. There are plenty of couples who are biologically incapable of producing children of one sex or the other. Doesn't matter how many kids they have, they will always be all the same sex.
I think we're gonna need a cite for that.
  #13  
Old 05-07-2010, 06:47 AM
Sofis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posts: 703
Actually, it's 1 in 2^10. The odds that your first kid has some sex (1) multiplied by the odds that the next ten have the same sex as the first one (1/1024).

Last edited by Sofis; 05-07-2010 at 06:48 AM.
  #14  
Old 05-07-2010, 06:58 AM
Smeghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 18,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofis View Post
Actually, it's 1 in 2^10. The odds that your first kid has some sex (1) multiplied by the odds that the next ten have the same sex as the first one (1/1024).
Well, the OP asked for the odds of "this" happening. It's unclear whether "this" refers to all the kids being boys or all being the same gender. So it's either 1 in 2^10 or 1 in 2^11, depending on which one he meant.

Dammit, now I'm pointlessly nitpicking!
  #15  
Old 05-07-2010, 07:04 AM
Sofis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posts: 703
If you read the thread title, there's a hint that, I feel, clears up this ambiguity.
  #16  
Old 05-07-2010, 08:35 AM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,468
If daddy, biologically, can't throw that X chromosome, it will be "boy" everytime.
  #17  
Old 05-07-2010, 08:48 AM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 12,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by needscoffee View Post
Your odds are only for all families with eleven children. This has to be multiplied by the odds of a family having 11 children of any sex.
What the heck does this mean? The odds that a family with 11 children has 11 children of any sex is 100%.

Last edited by CookingWithGas; 05-07-2010 at 08:49 AM.
  #18  
Old 05-07-2010, 09:16 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,037
It may be worth noting that the chance of getting on a TV show devoted to the interesting distribution of the sex of your 11 children improves if they are all boys.
  #19  
Old 05-07-2010, 09:27 AM
cjepson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,303
Needscoffee wrote:
Your odds are only for all families with eleven children. This has to be multiplied by the odds of a family having 11 children of any sex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CookingWithGas View Post
What the heck does this mean? The odds that a family with 11 children has 11 children of any sex is 100%.
I think Needscoffee meant something like "What are the odds that any two people who start having kids will end up with exactly 11 kids of the same gender". (I presume that this is a misunderstanding of the original question, which presumably is "Given that a couple has 11 kids, what are the odds that all 11 will be the same gender".)

Last edited by cjepson; 05-07-2010 at 09:28 AM.
  #20  
Old 05-07-2010, 09:28 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,490
My mother was the youngest of nine girls.
  #21  
Old 05-07-2010, 09:28 AM
Keeve is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: NY/NJ, USA
Posts: 5,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by needscoffee
Your odds are only for all families with eleven children. This has to be multiplied by the odds of a family having 11 children of any sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookingWithGas View Post
What the heck does this mean? The odds that a family with 11 children has 11 children of any sex is 100%.
What needscoffee meant is this:

Suppose someone says that "The odds of a family having 3 children who are all boys is 1/8." Taken literally, that would mean that 1/8 of all families ought to have exactly 3 boys and 0 girls. But that's not true. Lots of families have fewer than 3 kids, or more than 3 kids.

A more correct statement would be that "If a family has exactly 3 children, the odds that they are all boys is 1/8." And if X% of all families have exactly 3 children, then the odds of a family having 3 children who are all boys is (X%)*(1/8).
  #22  
Old 05-07-2010, 09:44 AM
Smeghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 18,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofis View Post
If you read the thread title, there's a hint that, I feel, clears up this ambiguity.
You may have a point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilbo523 View Post
If daddy, biologically, can't throw that X chromosome, it will be "boy" everytime.
Sure. But I have never heard of a condition that causes this, in all my years of studying biology. If you have, then by all means enlighten me. I can't think off the top of my head how it would work, though. At least in humans. The dad's X chromosome is obviously viable, or dad would be dead. I suppose you could postulate some sort of extreme meiotic drive mechanism, but that generally only works in polar body-generating females. When spermatocytes go through meiosis, all four products mature into sperm cells, so you'd have to somehow kill off X-bearing sperm, presumably by having the Y chromosome code for some sort of toxic protein which could travel through the shared cytoplasm, but then since it IS shared, how would you prevent the toxic effect from spreading to the Y-bearing sperm? Hmm...

But, as I say, I've never heard of that happening.
  #23  
Old 05-07-2010, 09:45 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,465
More nitpickery:

There is also the issue of identical twins. If some among the 11 are identical twins then they should be counted as a single unit rather than 2 individuals in the calculations.
  #24  
Old 05-07-2010, 10:05 AM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,304
True, but then you have to factor in the probability of twinning.
  #25  
Old 05-07-2010, 10:31 AM
hogarth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeghead View Post
Sure. But I have never heard of a condition that causes this, in all my years of studying biology. If you have, then by all means enlighten me. I can't think off the top of my head how it would work, though. At least in humans.
Here's a link to a New York Times article on the subject, referring to a study published in Evolutionary Biology. Here's the relevant quote:

"Mr. Gellatly found evidence that men carry a gene that determines the percentage of X and Y chromosomes in their sperm, and that the gene comes in three alleles, or versions. One produces mostly X chromosomes, another mostly Y, and the third yields equal numbers of both."
  #26  
Old 05-07-2010, 10:33 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeve View Post
A more correct statement would be that "If a family has exactly 3 children, the odds that they are all boys is 1/8."
Perhaps still more nitpickery: A more correct statement would be "If a family has exactly 3 children, the probability that they are all boys is 1/8." While some people use the words "probability" and "odds" interchangeably, others (see, for example, Wikipedia) do not: they use the word "odds" to refer to the ratio of favorable to unfavorable outcomes, and would say that the odds of all boys would be 1 to 7.
  #27  
Old 05-07-2010, 10:47 AM
yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,912
The question that somebody SHOULD be asking is statistical rather than probabilistic - how many children of identical gender does one couple have to produce before you reject the notion that each conception FOR THAT COUPLE is an independent event with probability 0.5 of producing a child of either gender?
  #28  
Old 05-07-2010, 11:02 AM
Smeghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 18,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogarth View Post
Here's a link to a New York Times article on the subject, referring to a study published in Evolutionary Biology. Here's the relevant quote:

"Mr. Gellatly found evidence that men carry a gene that determines the percentage of X and Y chromosomes in their sperm, and that the gene comes in three alleles, or versions. One produces mostly X chromosomes, another mostly Y, and the third yields equal numbers of both."
I've got no problem with "mostly". I'm questioning the earlier statement of "can't".
  #29  
Old 05-07-2010, 11:09 AM
Balance is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 8,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeghead View Post
Sure. But I have never heard of a condition that causes this, in all my years of studying biology. If you have, then by all means enlighten me. I can't think off the top of my head how it would work, though. At least in humans. The dad's X chromosome is obviously viable, or dad would be dead.
Not quite the same thing, but you could postulate that both parents each carry one copy of a recessive on the X chromosome that causes a very early miscarriage. Both parents are obviously viable, but the father contributes one copy of the recessive to each female embryo. About half the time, the mother will also contribute a copy. As a result, you would expect that roughly half of the female embryos would not be viable. It wouldn't guarantee that all the kids would be boys, of course, but it would definitely change the odds.

That's just a hypothetical case; I don't know of any specific examples of such a situation.
  #30  
Old 05-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Cat Whisperer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lethbridge, AB.
Posts: 49,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by racer72 View Post
My aunt quit after 6 boys.
I come from a family of five girls. Everyone I know with kids has one sex only, no mixed bags. The idea that men produce one sex over the other and resist regular probability seems plausible to me.
  #31  
Old 05-07-2010, 11:22 AM
aruvqan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 16,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
What do you mean by "definitively unlikely"? I don't know how many women there are in the world who have 11 children, but it wouldn't surprise me if the number were well over 2048. In that case, even if the probability of any one set of 11 children being all boys were 1/2048, it would be extremely likely that some woman, somewhere, had 11 boys.
My friends Pat and Tim have 6 girls. They did nothing specific to select for girls, and there were no abortions.
  #32  
Old 05-07-2010, 11:24 AM
Cat Whisperer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lethbridge, AB.
Posts: 49,084
Removed for another thread.

Last edited by Cat Whisperer; 05-07-2010 at 11:25 AM.
  #33  
Old 05-07-2010, 02:11 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,761
Quote:
The question that somebody SHOULD be asking is statistical rather than probabilistic - how many children of identical gender does one couple have to produce before you reject the notion that each conception FOR THAT COUPLE is an independent event with probability 0.5 of producing a child of either gender?
That depends on what you take as the prior for that possibility, which would probably be derived from study of large numbers of families.

Quote:
Not quite the same thing, but you could postulate that both parents each carry one copy of a recessive on the X chromosome that causes a very early miscarriage. Both parents are obviously viable, but the father contributes one copy of the recessive to each female embryo. About half the time, the mother will also contribute a copy. As a result, you would expect that roughly half of the female embryos would not be viable. It wouldn't guarantee that all the kids would be boys, of course, but it would definitely change the odds.
If that were the case, then the father would be already dead. It's not that you need two copies of a recessive gene for it to be active; it's that you need to not have a dominant gene. Since the Y chromosome contains almost nothing, a man with a recessive gene on his X will always express it. This is why hemophilia and colorblindness, among others, are so much more common in men than women.
  #34  
Old 05-07-2010, 02:15 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 81,697
If the parents are biologically incapable of having any kids at all, then the kids they don't have may be of either sex.
  #35  
Old 05-07-2010, 02:35 PM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 12,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
If the parents are biologically incapable of having any kids at all, then the kids they don't have may be of either sex.
If I do that, will my post count get that high too?
  #36  
Old 05-07-2010, 03:27 PM
mnemosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Montréal, Québec
Posts: 8,772
There is a link between the sex chromosome contained in a sperm and its motility, though I'm not well enough versed in the science to really be able to sum it all up. I think X-chromosome sperm tend to live longer (giving a longer window for successfully fertilizing an egg) but also tend to be slower (giving the boys a chance to get there first). Or perhaps it's the other way around.

So it doesn't have to be a matter of certain sperm not being viable, but rather that certain sperm have a lower chance of fertilizing an egg than others based on its "sex". This is probably also strongly affected by the woman as well; the environment the sperm find themselves in will affect their survival and motility.

Anecdotally, I know of a family with 4 boys, but when the man remarried after a divorce, his new wife had 2 daughters by him.
  #37  
Old 05-07-2010, 03:42 PM
Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeghead View Post
I knew, even before opening this thread, that it had already degenerated into pointless nitpickery. By any reasonable standard, the answer is 1 in 2^11. Let it go, people. Let it go.
First we must assume all the children are spheres.
  #38  
Old 05-07-2010, 04:03 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookingWithGas View Post
If I do that, will my post count get that high too?
No, but if you feel the need to follow every joke post you don't like with a post, you'll be up there in no time.
  #39  
Old 05-07-2010, 04:40 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,651
For statistical purposes on a large population, the odds are generally considered 50-50 for either gender. (In actuality, there is a slight (about 5%) bias toward males, and a very small number who fit both or neither category).

But for any specific couple, there can be a significant bias toward either gender. Anecdotal stories of this are common. Personally, I know a neighboring family who had 7 boys, then later 1 girl. Famous families of mostly one gender are numerous: the Andrews sisters, the Jacksons, the Kennedys, etc.

This is well known in horse breeding. One of the common stats considered when evaluating a stallion is the gender percentage of his get.

Last edited by Tim@T-Bonham.net; 05-07-2010 at 04:41 PM.
  #40  
Old 05-07-2010, 05:27 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,588
A friend is the first of 8, 4 boys and 4 girls.
  #41  
Old 05-07-2010, 05:44 PM
Electric Monk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 31
My father was the oldest of 11 boys, no girls. Didn't seem to be a gender bias in the next generation, though.
  #42  
Old 05-07-2010, 05:50 PM
griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,426
This is a common statistical mistake (maybe even has a name, but can't find it right now).

The equation that states "the odds of X occurring are 1:Y therefore the odds of X occuring N times is Y to the power of N", is only correct if the odds are always 1:Y. For most real world cases the odds of X occurring once may be 1:Y but once X has occurred the chances of it occurring again drop dramatically (and likewise for the third, fourth, etc. occurrence).

Most likely as others have pointed out there is a genetic predisposition to producing children of a particular gender, so by the time she had 10 kids that were all boys the chances of the 11th one being a boy are nowhere near 50:50.

Last edited by griffin1977; 05-07-2010 at 05:52 PM.
  #43  
Old 05-07-2010, 07:20 PM
Balance is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 8,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If that were the case, then the father would be already dead. It's not that you need two copies of a recessive gene for it to be active; it's that you need to not have a dominant gene. Since the Y chromosome contains almost nothing, a man with a recessive gene on his X will always express it. This is why hemophilia and colorblindness, among others, are so much more common in men than women.
Fair point. For the sake of the hypothetical, I was assuming that the recessive was something that could be masked by the Y chromosome somehow. It does seem highly unlikely that such a thing actually exists, though.
  #44  
Old 05-07-2010, 09:28 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 81,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookingWithGas View Post
If I do that, will my post count get that high too?
Not have kids? Very likely. You'll have more time for the Dope that way.
  #45  
Old 05-07-2010, 10:32 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,415
WOOOO! I'm not having kids like a motherfuck!
  #46  
Old 05-07-2010, 11:18 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosstone View Post
First we must assume all the children are spheres.
In a vacuum.



Incidentally, if there was some biological mechanism in play, it isn't necessarily on the father's side. I can imagine a woman who spontaneous aborts XY embryos while keeping XX ones (or vice-versa) who may not even be aware of how many rejected embryos she is tossing.
  #47  
Old 05-08-2010, 02:39 AM
Autolycus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ainran
Posts: 11,449
If a woman has 10 male children, what are the odds that the 11th will be Hitler?
  #48  
Old 05-08-2010, 02:59 AM
Hilarity N. Suze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 7,800
I read somewhere--maybe here?--that having given birth to a child of one sex, you are slightly more likely to give birth to subsequent children of that same sex, whatever it is.

In other words, that there are slightly more families with multiple siblings of the same sex than with multiple siblings of both sexes.

This is certainly true in my family. Among my cousins there is a preponderance of boys. But the one who had girls had ONLY girls. The rest had only boys. (I have four.)
  #49  
Old 05-08-2010, 06:46 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze View Post
I read somewhere--maybe here?--that having given birth to a child of one sex, you are slightly more likely to give birth to subsequent children of that same sex, whatever it is.
In other words, that there are slightly more families with multiple siblings of the same sex than with multiple siblings of both sexes.
The second statement doesn't follow from the first, unless you confine the discussion to families with just two children.
  #50  
Old 05-08-2010, 11:34 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer View Post
I come from a family of five girls. Everyone I know with kids has one sex only, no mixed bags. The idea that men produce one sex over the other and resist regular probability seems plausible to me.
You have never in your life met someone with kids of both genders?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017