House of Eratosthenes

Our good friend in New Mexico told me I should lower my blood pressure by paying less attention to dimwits. He’s not the first to say so. We, here, see Buck as an exceedingly sensible gentleman, one who possesses a past different from ours but is united with us in the future. In other words, throw us into a time machine, crank it ahead by a couple decades, out pops Buck. And it certainly does make good sense to monitor issues related to the systolic and diastolic when one is in one’s early forties, than in his late fifties, so we did what he suggested.

And paid more attention to intelligent, sophisticated people.

Like Dr. Helen.

Crap. More nonsense. Being a lady of class and dignity, she does not endorse, she just points, but there it is, getting me all worked up. Got any more wonderful ideas, Buck? The idiocy, it would seem it surrounds us on all four sides.

Young women ‘have more sexual partners’ than men
Young women are more promiscuous than men, according to a survey that claims the average 21-year-old has had nine sexual partners compared with seven for men.

The poll of 2,000 by the magazine More also found that one in four young women has slept with more than 10 people, compared with one in five men who had done the same.

In addition, half of those questioned admitted they had been unfaithful, whereas only a quarter said they had been cheated on by a boyfriend.

It comes just a week after an academic study branded Britain one of the casual sex capitals of the Western world, with residents having more one-night stands and more liberal attitudes than those in Australia, France, the Netherlands, Italy and the US.

Lisa Smosarski, the editor of More, said: “Our results show that after decades of lying back and thinking of England, today’s twenty-something women are taking control of their sex lives and getting what they want in bed.”

First of all, there are problems with statistics…which I’ll get to later on.

But before that — whoomp, there it is. Lisa Smosarski puts a voice behind this thought that’s usually just rolling around out there, contemplated but unspoken. The five thousand years of oppression, by thoughtless, piggish men against the innocent, doe-eyed women, continues throughout this day and beyond…until girls start screwing like minks, and then that will somehow magically bring it to an abrupt end and it’ll be time for the ladies to start dancing like Ewoks at the end of Return of the Jedi (or Obamatons on January 20, but let’s keep the awkward metaphors to a minimum).

Captain Obvious is availed the luxury of dropping a single paragraph and then bailing out to attend to more pressing matters. Here’s his contribution: When you screw, you have a good chance of getting pregnant whether you use contraceptives or not. And a big round belly has very, very little to do with power. Or freedom. And it damn sure doesn’t have much to do with taking control of your sex life. More like surrendering same for a couple decades.

The floor is thus yielded to the owner of The Blog That Nobody Reads, so he can again bewail — with his blood pressure topping out — the continuing progress of all the civilized world, seemingly, past the second milestone on the way to complete insanity, which is the act of feeling your way around challenges rather than thinking your way through them. This doesn’t make any sense. The picture of a lady who has taken charge of her sex life, doesn’t have much to do with sleeping with lots of guys. Such a lady more likely sleeps with one guy. Think about it. Whether you’re a male or a female, cheating means lying. It means sneaking around. It means all the encumbrances that come with deceiving someone. And there’s nothing liberating about that.

Now, on to the statistics.

And Guthrum has put forward a decent, although somewhat incomplete, attempt to field this one. It comes down to a simple rhetorical question: With whom are these young ladies doing their fornicating? The study doesn’t seem to have much to do with lesbian sex, foreigner sex, or with a male-heavy domestic population. By process of elimination he determines someone is lying.

Well, I have another explanation, since Guthrum’s explanation would have to controvert the conventional wisdom of boys lying upward and girls lying downward. And this is a piece of conventional wisdom I believe…at least…when alcohol is not involved.

Here’s my explanation. And if it is true, it is not at all helpful to the study, or Ms. Smosarski’s idiotic conclusion(s), which is why it was left out of the article.

The fellas are subject to more of a 80/20 rule when it comes to frequency of sex and number-of-partners: Among those who are young and available, twenty percent of them are having eighty percent of the sex. This is not necessarily true of the women, since this would only take effect if there was some personal attribute that would make it likely for any particular instance to have more sex than her sisters. That would be physical beauty — which I think we should take into account only if we want to presume, when an appealing young lady is presented with lots of opportunities, she takes advantage of all of them. Let’s give the fairer sex the benefit of the doubt here.

So if you were to draw a graph about how much sex each person is having, and with how many partners, and draw two graphs on two pieces of paper for two genders — the female graph would be more of a flatline and the male graph would be all spikey.

And these “Alpha Males” who are screwing anything with a skirt, don’t participate in polls.

It’s just that simple. It fits in well with my philosophy about polls: They separate themselves from reality, when it is presumed, too casually, that that which was tested, extrapolates safely into that which is the universe. There are lots of things, generally, that confound this, and the tendency among study-makers and poll-takers is to not check those things out too carefully. Whether you buy it or not — Guthrum’s beef with the study makes good sense. With whom are these freewheeling strumpets doing their cavorting? Smosarski doesn’t seem to possess the mental horsepower to seriously entertain the question…which I find unsurprising.

Finally, my blood pressure trickles a little bit upward when I consider the issues of time and history. Those who cling to this notion that women will finally be free of male oppression the day they’ve finally done enough screwing, after all the other transgressions they’ve committed against responsibility and common sense, have failed to make use of long-term memory and allowed history to slip out of their mental fingers. Has this not been a doctrine that has already been put in practice for four decades or more? Free-love and all that shit?

Aighh…it’d be funny if nobody was listening to it. But congratulations to Editor Smosarski and those like her. Your next generation of urban-sprawl welfare queens, and all their litters of whelps, is comin’ right up. And half those whelps will be girls…whom you’ll tell to have lots of sex with lots of guys so you can sell your shitty magazine.

Their mommas who’ve spent so much of their lives with swollen ankles, big round bellies, and no man hanging around long enough to handle the extra work — somehow, for reasons I still fail to grasp — will, for the most part, fail to take the time to set ’em straight.

Who cares about any of it.

Women are having lots of sex. More sex than guys. That means they’re “free.” And empowered.

Yeah.

++sigh++ Blood pressure not coming down yet. I’m off to stare at my own Things That Make Me Smile page, to put me in a better mood.

I’m confused about the first part of your post. You seem to be arguing against the study while agreeing with it. ? Given what the social disease numbers and blood typing have shown us, this study is not “breaking new ground”, but confirming what we knew but didn’t want to believe.

As to your end point, you’re right. We had a imperfect system which worked. Then the women got all fussy and demanded change. And there was no fighting, or oppression, the men just rolled and rolled and rolled. I think the idea was that if they got what they were whining for, they would see what a mistake they had made and knock it off. Much like your plan to let the Democrats have everything they want. Do you think the women have learned their lesson?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/12/2008 @ 11:53
Morgan,

At the not inconsiderable risk of contributing to your BP angst, all of the cited data (and you) have left something out:

Under the reigning fantasy, pre- (or post-) marital fellatio no longer counts as “sex”, remember?
- rob | 12/12/2008 @ 12:35
I think most of them have. It’s an age thing. As you get down to a lower age, the fraction of girls who “get it” dwindles to somewhere around fifty percent.

What’s true of people, in general, is also true of women, since they are people: The “prevailing viewpoint,” in addition to not being the most sensible one, is often not even in the majority. It is simply what is loudest.

As for the first part of my post — well, there must be some data to support this, right? So I think they circulated some questionnaires among a bunch of wimpy guys and slutty girls. I disagree with the last step, which is to take what was learned about this sample group, and project it over any larger community.
- mkfreeberg | 12/12/2008 @ 12:38
Have what? “get it”? Did i miss a post?

I don’t know about that. From what I’ve seen how women in groups operate, I would say that the majority is what is loudest, with the minority as scapegoats and chew toys. Peer pressure seems to be more a female problem.

As to the data collection, I think you have it wrong. I think it was the “Alpha males” and the leaders of women who filled out the questionnaires. From what I’ve seen, these studies are done at colleges, and take their samples from the student body. I remember college, and the men who were happy to talk about sex were the minority “getting some”. And I have seen the “regenerating virgin” stunt with women of that age.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/12/2008 @ 13:13
Thanks yet again for the mention, Morgan, and kind words those were, too! And no… I don’t have any more “great ideers.” 😉

About promiscuous young women… I really, rilly, LOVED the concept as a young man. But… consider my age; I was one of the few, the proud, the fornicators, during that oh-so-brief window in time that occurred post-Pill and pre-AIDS. And life was very, very good during that time. My ideas on the subject (i.e., young women screwing around) have changed now that I’m a gin-u-wine Ol’ Fart. Funny how that works.

Nope… these days I’m looking for an older woman who likes to screw around. Particularly one who took advantage of that same “window in time” as I did. And got through it unscathed. Experience matters. 🙂
- Buck | 12/12/2008 @ 15:41

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Power and Freedom Mean Pounding Your Verginer Like a Pork Chop Under a JackhammerFriday, December 12th, 2008

Power and Freedom Mean Pounding Your Verginer Like a Pork Chop Under a Jackhammer
Friday, December 12th, 2008