Yes. So I think the truer comparison is “more men would have casual sex than women”, which allows for what you are saying above while still admitting the possibility that a lot more men are unwillingly going without.
I’ve seen several situations where he was just having casual sex, while she believed marriage was just ahead, and he allowed her to hold that belief in order to facilitate what to him was casual sex. But I see your point.
Sure, you can make up any numbers you like. But that doesn’t make them true.
Men report, on average,less than two to not quite four times the number of sexual partners than women report. Which is ridiculous, because even if there were “promiscuous women” in play, the *averages *would be identical. Unless for some reason, the researchers *never *stumble across these mythic “promiscuous women” in their sample groups, which beggars belief, the numbers don’t add up, literally.
From this, we can reveal this shocking truth: people lie about the number of sexual partners they’ve had. Men exaggerate, and women underreport. One researcher found that men exaggerate because they estimate a ballpark figure, and women underreport because their report is based on the names they can remember when asked.
But not even the lying liars are claiming that most men are sleeping with 10 times the number of women than most women. The liars claim an average threefold difference, not a tenfold difference.
Which nicely explains why prostitution is mostly a straight female and/or gay male profession.
And again, hypothetically: Suppose 50% of men are willing or indeed eager to have casual sex while only 5% of women are. Then, necessarily, only 5% of each gender are actually having casual sex, but that statistic doesn’t prove anything about how many of them wanted it, nor could it possibly have done so.
As to reports about what women would do under some imaginary circumstances, if you’re saying “The rewards just aren’t there” then the fact of the matter is that they do not, in fact, want it as badly as all that.
This math doesn’t work, because those 5% of women can hook up with more than 5% of the men if they so choose.
So where are the sluts when researchers gather groups of people to ask them about their sex lives?
Too busy fukkin’.
The math works just fine, because all you’ve done is emphasise what my hypothetical was postulating: that far more men can want casual sex than women do. I’ve said there can be lots of frustrated men, you’ve said those 5% of women can be total bikes, there may be room for some middle ground - all without ever establishing that as many women want casual sex as much or as often as men do.
It doesn’t work because you said that if 5% of women are having casual sex, then only 5% of men are. These numbers are unrelated – 5% of women could be having casual sex, and 5 or 50% of men could be having casual sex – they would just all be having casual sex with those 5% of women (assuming the women choose to cooperate).
You’re kind of overlooking my major point though - the fact that although it takes two to tango, it doesn’t necessarily follow from the gender mix needed to tango that both sexes actually want to with the same frequency. I allowed for your last point with the last sentence of post #49 and I don’t understand why you’re ignoring it.
I didn’t understand your last sentence in post #49, but I don’t think this disagreement is worth much more effort.
Possibly global warming may reduce shrinkage problems for men.