From: fork-admin@xent.com  Sat Sep  7 21:54:10 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 8ECCB16F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Sat,  7 Sep 2002 21:52:47 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 07 Sep 2002 21:52:47 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g87KAIC31918 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:10:21 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 820932940D3; Sat,  7 Sep 2002 13:07:03 -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 394F429409E for <fork@xent.com>; Sat,
    7 Sep 2002 13:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19746 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2002 20:08:45 -0000
Received: from adsl-67-119-24-60.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO golden)
    (67.119.24.60) by relay1.pair.com with SMTP; 7 Sep 2002 20:08:45 -0000
X-Pair-Authenticated: 67.119.24.60
Message-Id: <005701c256aa$5d12d6e0$640a000a@golden>
From: "Gordon Mohr" <gojomo@usa.net>
To: <fork@example.com>
References: <20020907135257.7E5CBC44D@argote.ch>
Subject: 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: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:08:41 -0700
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=7.0
	tests=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: 

Definitional nit to pick:

Robert Harley writes:
> It is perfectly obvious that (heterosexual) promiscuity is exactly,
> precisely identical between males and females.
> 
> Of course the shapes of the distributions may differ.

You've redefined "promiscuity" above as "total" or "average" 
activity, which seems to rob it of its common meaning: 
activity above some specific threshold (usually "one") or 
norm, or involving extra or indiscriminate variety. 
"Promiscuity" is thus inherently a description of 
distributions rather than averages.

Consider a population of 3 males and 3 females. Let
there be three pairings which result in each person
having sex once. Then, let one of the males also have 
sex with the other two females. 

Sure, the average number of sex acts and sex partners
is equal between the sexes, tautologically. 

But here more women than men are:
 - above the single partner threshold
 - above the overall average 1.67 acts/partners threshold
 - above the overall median 1.5 acts/partners
 - above the overall mode 1 acts/partners

And here women have a higher mode (2) and median (2) 
number of partners.

So in this contrived population, females are more 
"promiscuous" than males, unless "promiscuity" is 
defined uselessly.

- Gordon


