From fork-admin@xent.com Mon Sep 9 19:27:46 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 1159116F03 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:27:46 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 09 Sep 2002 19:27:46 +0100 (IST) Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89FIvC20754 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:19:01 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168242940E2; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:15:04 -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 762402940C9 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 86095 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2002 15:16:59 -0000 Received: from adsl-63-196-1-228.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO golden) (63.196.1.228) by relay1.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 15:16:59 -0000 X-Pair-Authenticated: 63.196.1.228 Message-Id: <00e701c25813$eec5ab70$640a000a@golden> From: "Gordon Mohr" To: References: <15773384464.20020909103246@magnesium.net> Subject: Re: Re[3]: Selling Wedded Bliss (was Re: Ouch...) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:16:53 -0700 Bitbitch writes: > Listen. If you pull numbers like that without a fact, the automagic > assumption is yes, they were extracted out of your neither orifice. > Point wasn't to conclude otherwise unless you had any relevant bits. > Its not my job to do _your_ bit searching for you, but I figured I'd > humor fork with this bit of finding: > > http://www.thebody.com/bp/apr01/research_notebook.html (Pointing ot > averages of about 13 for every 3 months (for gay men), which totals to > about 52 a year. 52 a year doesn't equal 3000. Or even 300. Er, that study would seem to lend credence to Eugen's estimations, rather than casting fresh doubts. 52 a year *does* exceed 300, in under 6 years' time. The average age of that study's participants was *39* -- meaning some participants may have had 20-25+ years of active sex life. At that age, and further ** HIV+ **, it seems reasonable to think that some the participants may have actually slowed their pace a bit. So while this study's summary info is incomplete, you could easily conclude that the *average* participant in this one study will have had over a thousand partners over a 40-50+ year active sex life, and so the even-more-active tails of the distribution could easily be in the 3000+ range. Of course this says very little, almost nothing, about the overall population behavior, gay or straight, and the relative prevalence of 3K+ individuals in either group. But it does strongly suggest that gay males with 3K+ partners exist in measurable numbers, so people should stop treating Eugen's anecdotal estimation as if it were sheer fantasy. BitBitch's own citation suggests otherwise. - Gordon