127 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
127 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
From fork-admin@xent.com Wed Sep 11 13:49:29 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 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@spamassassin.taint.org
|
|
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@spamassassin.taint.org>
|
|
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@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: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:45:17 -0700
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|