From: fork-admin@xent.com  Wed Sep 11 13:49:29 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82ACC16F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:49:28 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:49:28 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8AKkmC16112 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:46:52 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 47F5B2940AC; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@example.com
Received: from relay.pair.com (relay1.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by xent.com
    (Postfix) with SMTP id C6FF029409A for <fork@xent.com>; Tue,
    10 Sep 2002 13:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 34817 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 20:45:19 -0000
Received: from adsl-67-119-24-188.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO golden)
    (67.119.24.188) by relay1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 20:45:19 -0000
X-Pair-Authenticated: 67.119.24.188
Message-Id: <016f01c2590a$f9a6abf0$640a000a@golden>
From: "Gordon Mohr" <gojomo@usa.net>
To: <fork@example.com>
References: <20020910132951.04720C44D@argote.ch>
Subject: More on promiscuity and word choice Re: Selling Wedded Bliss (was
    Re: Ouch...)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@example.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@example.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:45:17 -0700
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=7.0
	tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,INVALID_MSGID,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,
	      QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,
	      USER_AGENT_OE
	version=2.50-cvs
X-Spam-Level: 

Robert Harley writes:
> >OK, then. Consider a population of 1,000,000. 500,000 men each
> >pair off with 500,000 women. Then, 1 man, let's call him "Wilt",
> >also has sex with the other 499,999 women
> 
> This has never happened.  Its relevance is nil.

It was a extreme contrived example because you glosded over the 
point of the earlier 3-person example. 

But OK, Mr Math, let it be N men and women, for any N>2. They 
all pair off. Then, some number H, N>H>0, of men has sex with 
all the other N-1 women he hasn't yet had sex with. 

Pick any N and H that might be interesting. Any choice of
values results in meaningful differences between the sexes' 
"promiscuity", as commonly understood. It should be more 
obvious with extreme choices of numbers, but it is also true 
for any choice of N and H, if unrealistic totals distract you.

Further, and I was hoping this would be clear without saying
so outright, this model actually approximates the cliche 
"common wisdom" about per-gender sexual behavior, if you 
reverse the male and female roles.

Those stereotypes are: that more men than women seek multiple
partners -- men being "more promiscuous" than women -- and that 
surplus of male interest is satisfied by a smaller number of 
hyperpromiscuous women (often derisively labelled "sluts").

> So I chose not to type "on average" explicitly in my post, since this
> is FoRK and one tends to assume that people have a clue.
> 
> There is no disagreement between us, except that I am more interested
> in typical behaviour and you in extreme. 

Nope, now you've amended the meaning of your initial statement to
make it more defensible. What I objected to was:

Robert Harley:
# >The assumption that females of all species tend to be less promiscuous
# >than males simply does not fit the facts, Hrdy contended.
# 
# Well, DUH!!!
# 
# It is perfectly obvious that (heterosexual) promiscuity is exactly,
# precisely identical between males and females.
# 
# Of course the shapes of the distributions may differ.

If you assumed people on FoRK had a clue, would you have needed
to jump in with a patronizing "DUH!!"? 

If you were talking about fuzzy, typical behavior, would you have 
huffed and puffed with the words "perfectly obvious" and "exactly, 
precisely identical"? 

If your concern was with the "typical", why didn't you adopt the 
typical definition of "promiscuous", rather than a straw-man
definition which allowed you to interject "DUH!!" and mock an
anthrolopology professor's conclusions? 

> Actually, you probably just
> had a bad day and felt like jumping down my throat for the hell of it.

You are welcome to that theory!

But here's an alternate theory: when you jump in with a patronizing 
and overblown pronouncement -- e.g. "DUH!!... perfectly obvious... 
exactly, precisely identical..." -- and that pronouncement is 
itself sloppy and erroneous, then others may get a kick out of 
popping your balloon. 

- Gordon



