I find it funny when men joke about wanting to live in a polygamous society. I've always thought that if a few rich men had all the wives, this meant that the average man would have a harder time finding anyone. Not all men can have 5 wives since there aren't enough women to go around. I'm glad science has backed up my crazy theories.
Eighty-three percent of societies are polygamous? Granted, there's a million different ethnicities/tribes/whatever in the world, but I didn't expect anywhere near that percentage.
Does polygamy here just refer to multiple sex partners(one-night-stand, dating, etc.) in a lifetime, or actual marriage/children with more than one person at a time? Just curious.
What I found most shocking about this awesomely researched and written post (Thanks, Megan!) was the statistic regarding marriages. I had no idea that monogamy represented such a small component of societies and that so many are indeed polygamous.
Also, I'm interested to read more about these societies mentioned in which women have multiple fathers for their children as a part of their constructs.
@JerseyGrrrl: Just remember that even though its a minority of cultures, its still a majority of marriages since even where polygomy is practices, its a minority of relationships.
And there are a lot of communities in the US where having kids with muliple men is the norm too.
I'm confused about how reproductive success serves as an appropriate substitute for reports of sex partners, when contraceptive use and abortion are so widespread in Western societies. I'd expect that most people will have more sex partners than reproductive partners (some having many more), obscuring some potentially important differences.
And I agree that there's probably a strong response bias for males v. females in questionnaire measures, but I don't think that it's entirely logically impossible for there to be a gap in the average number of sex partners between males and females: a difference in how sexual promiscuity is statistically distributed between genders could pretty easily produce such a difference.
@clevernamehere: Right, but if (and I mean IF, I'm not saying that this is what's happening, just challenging the idea that mean differences are statistically impossible) there is a more concentrated population of highly promiscious women (for instance, sex workers) along with a proportionately larger population of highly abstinent women, the average number of sexual partners for the entire gender is going to be dragged down quite a bit by the abstinent ones. Whereas if men are less abstinent and proportionally more of them engage in sexual activity with the very promiscuous subset of women described above, the effect on the entire distribution of men is going to be such that the population mean for sexual partners in men would be higher.
Again, I don't think that this is actually the case, I'd tend to believe that the researchers have it right with the theory about response biases, but I do think that it's statistically possible, given a large enough sample.
@thegogglesdonothing: Assuming that everyone is counted, the mean will be the same.
Let's say the entire population is 100 men and 100 women. Each of the men has had 2 sexual partners. 99 of the women have had one sexual partner. The last women is a sex worker who has had sex with every man. Men= (2x100)/100=200/100= 2 Women= (1x100) + 100/100= 200/100= 2
If you count everyone, the two means will always be the same.
Now, this would be a case where using the mode or median would make more sense statsitically. My point is just that the means will always be equally if you count everyone.
Population size is one such variable: both men and women will be selective about mates when there are lots of options - in a large city, for example. Conversely, neither gender will be choosy in low-population areas. In such a scenario, both men and women will take what they can get.
And either way you're screwed - in a city no relationship gets off the ground, and in the rural areas you settle for less than you should.
i've taken quite a few animal behavior/ human ethology / primatology classes in my day and am hoping to go into the field, but this sounds like a bunch of crap. i started reading it, and they quite conveniently forgot all the evidence that actually has some scientific backing.
i would rant against it, but it would probably fill a book!
@PilgrimSoul: I'm glad you finally understand that making judgments about other people's personal choices is like being a nazi, only much worse. Or at least I would be if I felt like I could judge your perspective but I can't because I'm not a nazi. Actually, I don't judge them either.
@Your Screenplay Sucks: I'm glad you finally understand that making judgments about other people's personal choices is like being a nazi, only much worse.
I wouldn't go so far as to call her a nazi (or at least imply). Is it inappropriate to judge what happens between consenting adults? Sure. But it's also a touch extreme to equate criticizing someone's, anyone's lifestyle with violent uber-bigotry.
@Northernexpatriate: I was being sarcastic re: the popular notion that being "judgy" about other people's personal preferences/choices is unacceptable & oppressive. I actually see nothing wrong with judging what happens between consenting adults & mostly see the "I chose to do this so you can't judge it or have an opinion on it!" argument as a way of shutting down debate.
Let's push all this boring science out of the way and be real- some people are very promiscuous, some are not. Most are probably in the middle. The bell curve is likely applicable to both sexes equally, no matter the societal constraints.
People fuck. Men tend to brag about it, women tend not to.
@cherry_blossom: I brag about fucking ALL THE TIME, as long as I'm in a crowd that won't look down on me for bragging.
Women are socialized to think that female sexuality is somehow not a goal to be achieved, but a status quo to be maintained, while for men, it is the opposite. People spend most of their young social lives with a core group of nonsexual friends of the same gender. Therefore, a person surrounded by men would be more likely to be in an environment wherein they are lauded for their sexual behavior rather than reviled. Women, programmed to judge each other, would be more reserved.
Do these researchers ever consider that people may not remember the EXACT number of people they've slept with? I know mine is past 12, but under 18. I just can't remember them all- and none were one night stands. If I saw the forgotten guys again, I'd probably go,"HOLY-SHIT-I'VE-SEEN-HIM-NAKEDDDD!! But, to just be able to spout off the names,..ermm, no. I'm sure there must be other people who get asked, & they just spit out a number to avoid being labeled as skankadacious. This has to throw research off somewhat (as it relates to number of partners, I mean).
@AuntieBee: From what I got, it means that female fruit flies didn't put out for many male fruit flies, so the diverse genes of their offspring is limited.
Basically, the females were partial cockblocks and would only have certain guys' babies.
04/26/09
04/25/09
04/24/09
Does polygamy here just refer to multiple sex partners(one-night-stand, dating, etc.) in a lifetime, or actual marriage/children with more than one person at a time? Just curious.
04/24/09
04/24/09
Also, I'm interested to read more about these societies mentioned in which women have multiple fathers for their children as a part of their constructs.
Jezebel, expanding my world-view once again!
04/24/09
And there are a lot of communities in the US where having kids with muliple men is the norm too.
04/24/09
And I agree that there's probably a strong response bias for males v. females in questionnaire measures, but I don't think that it's entirely logically impossible for there to be a gap in the average number of sex partners between males and females: a difference in how sexual promiscuity is statistically distributed between genders could pretty easily produce such a difference.
04/24/09
Every time anyone's number increased, it would have to increase someone's number in the other gender, unless they are having same sex relationships.
Now maybe that's because of sex workers or a few really slutty women, but they are still women.
You'd have to use the mean or remove the really active women, which can be misleading.
04/24/09
Again, I don't think that this is actually the case, I'd tend to believe that the researchers have it right with the theory about response biases, but I do think that it's statistically possible, given a large enough sample.
04/24/09
Let's say the entire population is 100 men and 100 women. Each of the men has had 2 sexual partners. 99 of the women have had one sexual partner. The last women is a sex worker who has had sex with every man.
Men= (2x100)/100=200/100= 2
Women= (1x100) + 100/100= 200/100= 2
If you count everyone, the two means will always be the same.
Now, this would be a case where using the mode or median would make more sense statsitically. My point is just that the means will always be equally if you count everyone.
04/24/09
Either that, or I need more caffeine.
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
And either way you're screwed - in a city no relationship gets off the ground, and in the rural areas you settle for less than you should.
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
i would rant against it, but it would probably fill a book!
04/24/09
04/24/09
translated: hey, guys! keep it in your pants!
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
I wouldn't go so far as to call her a nazi (or at least imply). Is it inappropriate to judge what happens between consenting adults? Sure. But it's also a touch extreme to equate criticizing someone's, anyone's lifestyle with violent uber-bigotry.
04/24/09
04/24/09
People fuck. Men tend to brag about it, women tend not to.
Shocker.
04/24/09
Women are socialized to think that female sexuality is somehow not a goal to be achieved, but a status quo to be maintained, while for men, it is the opposite. People spend most of their young social lives with a core group of nonsexual friends of the same gender. Therefore, a person surrounded by men would be more likely to be in an environment wherein they are lauded for their sexual behavior rather than reviled. Women, programmed to judge each other, would be more reserved.
04/24/09
04/25/09
(shamefully, I do)
04/24/09
...female fruit flies had fewer mating partners and their overall offspring had less genetic diversity than male fruit flies' overall offspring
How is there a difference between the male's offspring and the female's? Does it NOT take both to make baby fruit flies? What?
04/24/09
Basically, the females were partial cockblocks and would only have certain guys' babies.
04/24/09
4 partners in a lifetime? Try the first half of 1994.
04/24/09