111 lines
4.5 KiB
Plaintext
111 lines
4.5 KiB
Plaintext
From fork-admin@xent.com Sun Sep 8 23:50:39 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
|
|
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B0816F16
|
|
for <jm@localhost>; 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 <jm@jmason.org>;
|
|
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 <fork@xent.com>; 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" <gojomo@usa.net>
|
|
To: <fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
|
|
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: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
|
|
List-Post: <mailto:fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
|
|
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: 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|