From fork-admin@xent.com Sun Sep 8 23:50:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B0816F16 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 23:50:25 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 08 Sep 2002 23:50:25 +0100 (IST) Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g88KrDC10175 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 21:53:14 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A291F2940E8; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 13:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org Received: from relay.pair.com (relay1.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by xent.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 525372940DA for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 13:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 98324 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2002 20:52:07 -0000 Received: from adsl-67-119-24-60.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO golden) (67.119.24.60) by relay1.pair.com with SMTP; 8 Sep 2002 20:52:07 -0000 X-Pair-Authenticated: 67.119.24.60 Message-Id: <011e01c25779$96151aa0$640a000a@golden> From: "Gordon Mohr" To: References: <20020908113331.15383C44D@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@spamassassin.taint.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 13:52:02 -0700 Robert Harley: > Gordon Mohr wrote: > >Definitional nit to pick: > >You've redefined "promiscuity" above as "total" or "average" activity, > > I think it's clear that I'm talking about averages, so I'm not sure > why that nit needs to be picked... It was clear you were talking about averages. But it should be equally clear that that isn't what people mean when they use the word "promiscuity". > >which seems to rob it of its common meaning: > >activity above some specific threshold (usually "one") > > In that case, "promiscous" is a vacuous term in modern Western > societies (but we knew that :), where people average 7 partners or so > in their adult lives. Not at all. There are still people who only have one partner. There are many more whoe only have one partner over "long" periods of time. So it is far from "vacuous" to describe some people as "promiscuous" and others as "not promiscuous", especially over a set period. ("He was promiscuous in college. He is no longer promiscuous.") The word has a clear meaning, despite your continuing tendency to gloss that meaning over with population averages. > >Consider a population of 3 males and 3 females. > >[...] > >so in this contrived population, females are more "promiscuous" than males, > > So 1 girl gets 1 guy, 2 girls get 2 guys, 2 guys get 1 girl, 1 guy > gets 3 girls. Sounds like six of one versus half a dozen of the other > to me. 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. 499,999 women have had more than one partner. 499,999 men have only had one partner. It is now "perfectly obvious" that in the common meaning of the term, among this contrived population, that women are "more promiscuous" than men -- even though the single "most promiscuous" person, Wilt, is a man. "Promiscuity" is not "exactly, perfectly identical between males and females", except under a degenerate custom definition of "promiscuity". > >unless "promiscuity" is defined uselessly. > > Ain't nothin' useless about averages. Averages are useful, sure -- but much more so if called by their actual name, rather than conflated with another concept. - Gordon