Update! Hard Science!

Turns out Kolata don't know a whole lotta.

In a previous post on the NY Times article on Math, Stats and Sex I facetiously suggested one variable not considered in the statistics used to tabulate the different number of sexual partners between the sexes was the meretricious nature of women and the men who hit it with many of them...at the same time. Surely that could explain the difference between the same population of men and women having significantly varying numbers of sexual partners. If one guy sleeps with three girls at one time, then his numbers soar by 3 while each of the ladies only tack on one, single, lonely notch in their bedposts.

Granted, that's not the most scientific interpretation and I'm a pretty huge idiot so that's, in all likelihood, not a factor responsible for what Gina Kolata described as the difference between the median number of sexual partners of men and women.

Eugene Volokh over at his blog, however, broke the numbers down a little more judiciously and proves why those science articles, even if printed on the venerable presses of the New York Times, are always subject to interpretation and never actually represent hard science.

**Update**

Since some of TV on the INTERNETS readers were humanities majors in college and haven't dealt with an integer since they dropped Calc 2-14 Freshman year, allow us to provide a brief explanation of what Volokh's saying in Lame Man's terms.

Gina Kolata and The New York Times said the median number of sexual partners for men is significantly higher than that of women. Logically, they explain, this is not possible since the population of men and women would not allow for such a large difference of mates between the two sexes. Therefore, men are most likely lying.

Volokh, however, points out the ridiculous slant of the statisticians and their choice to use the median as any indication of sexual activity. For example, if 5 men sleep with 13 women, their average will be 2.6 women per 1 man. If 5 women sleep with 13 men, their average too will be 2.6 men per 1 woman. The two populations are therefore equal in their sexual activity.

However, by using the median as a statistical tool to analyze sexual behavior, Gina Kolata and her "Doctors" just find a way to put a new spin on a very commonplace situation. If, using our original example, 3 of those 5 guys have 3 partners each and 2 of those 5 guys have 2 partners each, then both our average and total stay the same but our median becomes 3.

Still sticking with our original example, if 3 of our women each have just 1 male partner but 2 of the women have 5 male partners then, while our average and total number of men still stay the same (2.6 and 13 relatively) our median becomes only 1.

According to this formula the median sexual partners for our 5 men dwarfs the median sexual partners for our 5 women even though 2 of our hypothetical sluts have more partners than all of our 5 dudes.

The article, therefore, doesn't reveal any new science, just a different way to interpret some pretty standard shit. Thanks Vagina Kolata. Thanks a lotta.

So You Think You Can Dance Predictions: No Homo Edition

After last night's results show for So You Think You Can Dance, I'm well on my way to predicting yet again who the final winners of this year will be. In case you haven't been following along with my interest in the show let me briefly update you. I want to heart hug Sabra beneath a suede duvet filled with tenor saxophones playing sweet arpeggios in a mixolydian scale.

So final prediction: For the first time in the show's history a woman will win, and a black woman at that.

First place - Sabra

Second place - Neil

Evidence for my cause:

1. 
   
   Sabra and Dominic in Generaux's STICKWITU Rumba


2. 
   
   Sabra and Dominic in Shane Spark's lyrical hip hop routine


3. 
   
   Sabra and Neil in Mandy Moore's '80s homage

NY Times: Whole Lotta Kolata

In her article The Myth, The Math, the Sex, New York Times science writer Gina Kolata draws attention to a statistical anomaly that doesn't quite add up. In nearly all studies men admit to having nearly twice the number of sexual partners over the course of a lifetime than women. "How can that work?" researches ask. "It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women."

One statistician attempts to explain his point figuratively, clearly a strength with someone who's dedicated their life to numbers and their relationship to each other.

“By way of dramatization, we change the context slightly and will prove what will be called the High School Prom Theorem. We suppose that on the day after the prom, each girl is asked to give the number of boys she danced with. These numbers are then added up giving a number G. The same information is then obtained from the boys, giving a number B.

Theorem: G=B

Proof: Both G and B are equal to C, the number of couples who danced together at the prom. Q.E.D.”

Hey Dr., I don't mean to quibble with your logic, but, um, it seems like you're missing out on one of the most obvious variables for the discrepancy. What if you sleep with 2 women at the same time?

No wonder Gina Kolata can't have as much sex as a normal dude. She DUMB.

Whoa-Man Studies

A response to "Lunatic Feminist Doesn't Understand Concept of "High Concept"; Attractive Woman meets Attractive Man ≠ Funny" posted at Cosmodrome.

Katha Pollitt's critique on American manhood is nothing new to those familiar with Micaela Deleonardo, Tessie Liu or other members of Northwestern University's Gender Studies Department. What is new is that a movie with the phrase "If we get laid tonight it's because of Eric Bana in Munich!" rouses as much debate about contemporary masculinity as Ellis' in your face satire American Psycho.

Two years ago, yours truly announced the arrival of the under-whelming, under-achieving, under-the-influence twenty-something, the Beta Male in the HTML of Sneer Magazine, which is now unfortunately defunct.

Around the same time, that slacker lothario of yore Benjamin Kunkel, who provided us the convenience of binding all our toilet paper with the publishing of Indecision, became the spokesperson for the listless lad in this Salon article.

And now it's Denby in the New Yorker and Pollitt again at the Nation decrieing the devolution of the alpha male into a castrated stoner who DVR's South Park reruns even though he already owns the DVDs.

What does this mean for dudes, Appatow or the box office of Superbad? Most likely nothing. But props to Judd for wrapping his hairy-ass Robin Williams knuckles around this cultural zeitgeist and ushering in a new panic regarding a slacker who's sperm count is so low he's confident there's NO WAY he can get someone pregnant.

Katha Pollit's not a lunatic and neither are the critics who are honestly concerned about the state of the Ameri-Man. It's a debate that's been raging for the past few years, only now Seth Rogen is the Donald Logue du-jour.

The real question remains, however: What the fuck is Michael Cerra going to do?

Studio 60 Continues Not Sucking Streak

Until I learn the purpose of the TV blog "recaplet" and how to successfully write a good one this will be how I shall address the airings of most recent episodes.

Show: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
Air Date: Monday, January 22, 2007
Title: Monday
Writer: Aaron Sorkin *

Commentary: Without completely losing the Religious Right critique he's been using as the moral center of the show, a schtick a lot of viewers have grown tired of, Sorkin kicked off the second half of the show's first season with a strong story incorporating the finer aspects of his past work: intriguing overarching plot points, richly written women characters and the painful tenderness of unrequited love.

One interesting thing to take away from Monday's episode is Sorkin's maturing exploration of race. Predominantly a non-issue in Sports Night, race became an awkward scepter of self-righteousness which Sorkin used to pat his own back in certain episodes of the West Wing. In Monday's Studio 60, however, the developing story line of Simon Stiles, his race and his relationship with a young, black writer introduces a topic often noticed but rarely discussed - the black identity within the history of American comedy.

Perhaps it was of no oversight of his own that Sorkin wrote the scene between Simon Stiles and the new, black writer for an episode to air 30 years after the premier of that other great institution of American television, Roots.

Maybe the improbable is possible; Sorkin can be topical without being pedantic; maybe someday I'll learn to write a recaplet.

*Sorkin only gets a "created by" credit not a "teleplay by."