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