Here's my understanding of the "slut overrepresentation" misconception: the squeaky wheel.
Promiscuous women are squeaky wheels. Let's say that promiscuous women are 1% of the population. In my survey, I found that less than 16% of women are on Tinder. However, if all of the promiscuous women are on Tinder, then promiscuous women will *appear* to be 6.25% of all Tinder users.
Next, imagine you're a man swiping right on Tinder. You swipe on 16 different profiles. The first 15 are women without any signs of promiscuity -- no cleavage, no sexual language. However, profile #16 is extremely promiscuous. Because #16 is a squeaky wheel, she stands out more in the man's memory than the 15 other profiles. This biases the man's memory to think that 50% of women are promiscuous.
The other explanation I would put forward is that men tend to ignore ugly women. When men say, "women are promiscuous," they are almost exclusively thinking of and talking about attractive women. Ugly women (femcels) might not be having sex, but as far as men are concerned, these women don't exist.
Attractiveness is difficult to measure in the data, but I would hazard to guess that attractive women have higher body counts than the average woman.
'Let's say that promiscuous women are 1% of the population. In my survey, I found that less than 16% of women are on Tinder. However, if all of the promiscuous women are on Tinder, then promiscuous women will *appear* to be 6.25% of all Tinder users.'
Could definitely be onto something -- I was wondering if something like this could be at play but wasn't quite sure how to frame it. I was also thinking that if these women could also be algorithmically boosted: if men are more keen to swipe right on women that signal sexual openness and those women are less willing to service everyone than they appear, their ranking should end up high. Tbh I think it has to be more than 6% of profiles you see on that app.
I also meant to include something in the previous article about women dressing more provocatively in general and showing more skin in public but it slipped my mind. Not sure how strongly this actually signals more promiscuous inclinations; my guess is not very.
'Attractiveness is difficult to measure in the data, but I would hazard to guess that attractive women have higher body counts than the average woman.'
Interesting, because usually the assumption is the opposite, often justified with evolutionary logic. The idea is that more attractive women due to their greater bargaining power have less motivation to offer uncommitted sex as they can more easily secure commitment from desired partners. In terms of overall sex partners though, more attractive people of both genders might accrue more simply due to staying single for shorter periods. Reminds me that I was going to look into whether the data bore this out; so far it looks like there's probably not much effect either way though.
I think the median bodycount of women using tinder is probably 2-3 per year. But you also have to consider that profiles are displayed according to activity level. If a woman is constantly on tinder, her profile gets boosted over the girl who uses it once a month.
The problem gets worse with matches. A woman may be on tinder, but match with no one. The women who match with 100s of men are the most promiscuous women. From the male perspective, promiscuous women are overrepresented in their matches.
It’s possible that there’s a small percentage of Tinder users who are having dozens of hookups per year, but it’s not a Chadopoly. It’s a Slutopoly, where a small number of highly promiscuous women are having many encounters with a small number of highly promiscuous men. Then incels watch from the sidelines and label the men chads and the women “typical/average.”
'The problem gets worse with matches. A woman may be on tinder, but match with no one. The women who match with 100s of men are the most promiscuous women. From the male perspective, promiscuous women are overrepresented in their matches.'
Is this true? I would've thought if they were more popular they could afford to be more selective. Like I said, I don't think they're actually looking to service a large number of men, and being more selective also boosts your ranking. They might be more willing to service certain men and be more overrepresented among their matches though.
DatePsych has argued that the most attractive women have lower bodycounts because, in contrast to less attractive women who may have to use early sex for mate retention, attractive women have no such need and can afford the pickiness that all women may prefer. And the least attractive women are mostly excluded, rather than chaste by choice, so it ends up being a curvilinear relationship.
“I still don’t understand why people are so desperate to believe this”
Tbh I think this is a much more interesting phenomenon than the data itself. I can think of tons of contributing factors but idk how you could collect data on it:
1) Women’s promiscuity as a topic in media has been increasing for a while and a lot of guys infer this must be a reflection of reality. Women love songs about having sex all the time, and they’re not having sex with me or anyone I know, so they must be all having sex off screen with the same guy. When in reality, women just enjoy it vicariously through these songs/shows in the same way a guy would enjoy a rapper talking about making a million dollars or killing his opps.
2) Dating apps encourage this thinking because it makes them money. They rly shock even attractive men into a scarcity mindset. Men are constantly seeing women on dating apps but being rejected, so they infer that SOMEONE has to be getting accepted somewhere. Why else would the women be on there? Which leads to the next point
3) Bad mental model of women’s behavior. They just assume women act like they would if they had the same power on dating apps, but don’t understand it’s a completely different game for them. If they were women, they would be having sex constantly until they settled down later in life, so they assume this must be desirable for women too. This also leads to valuing quantity of sex over quality, which most women would find ridiculous.
4) They need Chad to exist because it gives them hope that SOMEONE is being fulfilled by the dating app game. Even if they aren’t, it gives them hope that they’re not wasting all their mental energy being resentful over not getting something that won’t even make them happy. If even the men who get sex from dating apps are unhappy and still face constant rejection, they would need something else to blame for why they feel like shit all the time.
Chad is just a sexually attractive man. They do exist. For instance, if you need to take a woman out on a date before sex then she likely doesn't find you attractive.
As someone who’s done that, I can confidently say this isn’t true. If you believe this, you are self sabotaging by setting the bar too high. A woman who wants to hook up without a date is desperate and ashamed
“If she found you sexually attractive, you wouldn't need to take her on some useless date prior to sex”
“No woman is desperate for sex. They can get it whenever they want.”
Neither of these are true. Especially if you are not meeting her from a dating app. Even the sluttiest women will want to meet you in public beforehand to get a sense of who you are. The only ones I’ve hooked up with immediately are ones I had to talk to for over a month beforehand.
This is self sabotaging fatalism and it’s sad to read. You don’t need to live in this incredible cruel world you’ve created.
No offence, but you're not very attractive. If you had to talk to them for a month before anything, then they weren't into you. I've had girls come straight to mine from apps and so have other guys. It's rare but it happens.
These same women you've spoken to a month before anything smashed loads of guys within the first day.
Yeah, because you're not attractive. Women go over to men's houses that they're sexually attracted to. That's just clearly not you.
Where should you take these women out on these stupid dates then? Remember that women use men as free dinner dates all the time and then go straight after to the places of men they are attracted to. I've seen it.
How can you actually claim that women can't have sex whenever they want? Are you insane? They have it incredibly easy.
The numbers show time and time again that women are having less sex than ever. This is not reality, it’s something your low self esteem is inferring from dating apps. It also conveniently absolves you from all responsibility.
I guarantee you that no matter how short, ugly, fat, broke or autistic you are, there are women (even on dating apps) who would be willing to fuck you after a free dates if you demonstrate you’re a sane, amicable guy who won’t make them regret it. Patience and discipline are attractive qualities. You can become unattractive by asking to fuck too quick.
Out of interest, do you think it's a good idea to assume that if a woman doesn't sleep with you after two or three dates she's not attracted to you and therefore you should stop speaking to/seeing her?
If she's not willing to fuck you, then she's not attracted to you. My advice is to move on. Women fuck loads of guys that they're attracted to and don't make them wait, why should you wait?
The goal of dating is not to fuck that’s what I’m trying to communicate. If your goal is just to fuck you’re playing a seperate game with seperate rules
If every redpill/manosphere podcast ecosystem and the entire dating discourse disappeared tomorrow, I think it would reassemble in some very close form with the same talking points within a year from independent (mis)observations and outlier reports and extrapolations. Not only are the Chad harem, stacy body count, and looks/height myths memetic, they’re schelling points for dating opinions. Even normies or those outside of structured dating discourse I think believe it if they are queried, just don’t give it much thought or emotion. People generally do very poorly with estimating small probability and top percentile experiences bc of salience bias, which are magnified all the more with social media and its underlying virality mechanisms and the appearance of normality behind those documented experiences. That’s what you’re fighting against with this moderating and qualifying argument. And you seem to be the only one doing so systemically now that datepsych is less active. Is there any chance you think that this ever gets picked up in the mainstream or at least has some prominent figureheads advocating for … or is this all an exercise for the few?
For sure; well said. Am I able or willing to carry that burden alone? My confidence isn't high, and I don't have much incentive to other than the fact that seeing these memes repeated everywhere triggers me. I'll probably ease off on it, as I feel like I've adequately looked into and covered most of the popular memes by now.
Gay men have opinions on this lol. They hate heterosexual sex. Regular men out here killlin it. Get off the internet nerds. Women aren’t attracted to nerds. In spite of what Reddit tells ya. The men getting laid aren’t online. By getting laid i mean have a girlfriend. Dorks. “But I have the data”. 🤓
Cock Carousel Theroy (CCT) would predict, top x% of males are having a lot more sex, which checks out or otherwise compatible with data you presented (removing 99% percentile of male would be a mistake like in the 2019 paper for this discussion - they also reported male 10% lifetimepaid prostitute use, stuff like that should be removed)
CCT would predict before age of marrige-engagement for men and women(or before/between long term relationships?), non-top x% male sex havers would have lower average sex having than females (excluding female prostitute - who knows what percent) -- your NSFG data doesn't really suggest this without wild assumption but I don't think the rest really apply directly
Need more bogus pipeline condition type studies, for now I'd increase female pre-engagement age partner count by 30% and remove 10% of men for prostitute use to see how it looks if we had between relationship type data that is per age than grouped and without the prostitution stuff.
I wouldn't expect CCT outcome to be true widely for all sorts of reasons but maybe only where there are higher concentration of sex-chads or easier access to them that it should be true. Sex-chads would be an extreme rarity and would be busy with women so chance of other women finding them easily and in the right info/safety-availability-context is low. In the meantime women might be in relationship so when sex-chad do show up, risk of acting on it is higher.
'(CCT) would predict, top x% of males are having a lot more sex, which checks out or otherwise compatible with data you presented (removing 99% percentile of male would be a mistake'
It doesn't start and end there though, it also tends to be accompanied by claims of rising promiscuity (among women and 'Chads') and an increasing skew in men's partner distribution. As mentioned in the footnote (with a link to the graph), there's also no consistent upward trend in the average male partner count when you include outliers reporting over 100 partners. It's just a bit more messy without the cap because there will randomly be a few who report 989 or more partners. I guess I could increase it to 200, which includes 99.7% of men, without as much of an issue. Or will it then become the top 0.1%? You can't just keep pushing Chad into an ever smaller box. Even 1% is going beyond common claims of the top 20% or 5% hoarding an increasing share.
What would you response to the STD argument be?
Increasing female partner counts by 30% would probably just make things line up even more evenly tbh.
“there's also no consistent upward trend in the average male partner count when you include outliers reporting over 100 partners”
CCT isn't incompatible with that though, idk what you mean then. The data can mean regular Joe haivng sex less and sex-chad is having more sex evening it out (lol@2004). Is there a way to see top x% male-sex-havers vs the rest partner count in that tool over the years? There could be a different trend.
“You can't just keep pushing Chad into an ever smaller box”
I think bottom 80% of men and women sex-havers being equal would be good enough for the outcome purpose for that since 80-20 thing is a meme. Although the concern probably won't go away even if all women were found to be virgin before marrige since it's likely about built in unconcious paternal uncertainty risk expectations.
“What would you response to the STD argument be?”
I'd expect "Men who have sex with women only" and "women who have sex with men only" to be equal (excluding clamadya like stuff where it's female biased), if not(as your graph from other article shows) something is missing from data. I'm guessing these are not self reported but data from medical records, so not much upto desirability bias and such.
For STDs you'd also need to remove top x% men and sex worker women and then compare rest of the men's STD rate pre-marrige with non-prostitute women's STDs rates for CCT. Would probably be hard to find such data in research. (Post marrige/long term relationship the STDs are going to even out if CCT is true since they are going to get passed to the beta bucks.)
'CCT isn't incompatible with that though, idk what you mean then.'
Because like I said the CCT is also associated with the narrative that promiscuity is rising. It's not just framed as a zero-sum redistribution typically. This was just about the limit of female promiscuity and how much it can be rising.
'Is there a way to see top x% male-sex-havers vs the rest partner count in that tool over the years?'
Yes, you can look at the partner counts of certain percentiles. I've already done this in the Chadopoly article, finding no evidence for increasing partner counts among the 80th or 95th percentiles.
'I'd expect "Men who have sex with women only" and "women who have sex with men only" to be equal (excluding clamadya like stuff where it's female biased), if not(as your graph from other article shows) something is missing from data'
It wouldn't be if men and women's partner distributions were significantly different in their skew though.
There are other things that can go into STD transmission such as biological factors, but I'm not too familiar with the details.
> I've already done this in the Chadopoly article, finding no evidence for increasing partner counts among the 80th or 95th percentiles.
> 2002 to 2019 lifetime male top 80% going down
that can be from men living longer, there being more younger kids or whatever else
>We can limit the analysis to those between 18–29, separated into 4 bins as lifetime sex partners rise significantly during this period. If the trendy dating app narrative is true, then we should definitely see an increasing skew in the age range that is most active on dating apps and is supposedly embroiled in a ‘hook-up culture’.
I just looked at the pic and some texts around it, so possible I missed something relevant.
male lifetime:
18-20 has downward trend
21-23 has flat trend
24-26 has downward trend
27-29 has upward trend
past year:
18-29 has downward trend
18 of the past is not the same as 18 of the now, people are in 'economic activity' longer, staying with parents longer etc. The down, flat, up etc means the past year data is havily skwed by earlier age and since it's grouped 18-29, not super useful for comparison.
The age also needs to be adjusted for the same life stage for the comparison. There cold be a huge spike at some age messing with the data. The 'how' would be complicated and would need to make assumptions depending on how you decide to. Median first time living alone/having full time job can be used for shift. Or take 100% of male and line up the trend line and see at what age they more or less match up and then use that shift to then seperate to 80 and 20s of past equaivalent of that to now. After that, comparison with bottom 80% male and female to top 20% of male and female should make it clear.
There are other stuff that'd make you annoyed are things like the difference in time people spend with others now vs online and in communicaiton. So sex could be replaced in other medium sort of so what percentage of men are in direct contact with women and their 80-20 trendline. People are spending more time watching stuff and playing games, so net smaller time spending with other people. The time being spent together can be adjusted to past similarly for comparison. Comparisons of how often women get approached irl or online by member of opposite gender and whatnot and lets say that decreases women choosing someone because she has more option to do it later while she tries to get attention of chad to date, so it'd be like a virtual anticipatory poly 🤷.
I don't think any amount of currently available data will let you discount all chad-poly type concerns people could have.
For women, could it be partly due to them finding few men sexually attractive and rarely getting the chance with these types of men? It's important to note that women make rules for men they're not attracted to (going on dates before sex) and break them for the men that they are attracted to.
Here's my understanding of the "slut overrepresentation" misconception: the squeaky wheel.
Promiscuous women are squeaky wheels. Let's say that promiscuous women are 1% of the population. In my survey, I found that less than 16% of women are on Tinder. However, if all of the promiscuous women are on Tinder, then promiscuous women will *appear* to be 6.25% of all Tinder users.
Next, imagine you're a man swiping right on Tinder. You swipe on 16 different profiles. The first 15 are women without any signs of promiscuity -- no cleavage, no sexual language. However, profile #16 is extremely promiscuous. Because #16 is a squeaky wheel, she stands out more in the man's memory than the 15 other profiles. This biases the man's memory to think that 50% of women are promiscuous.
The other explanation I would put forward is that men tend to ignore ugly women. When men say, "women are promiscuous," they are almost exclusively thinking of and talking about attractive women. Ugly women (femcels) might not be having sex, but as far as men are concerned, these women don't exist.
Attractiveness is difficult to measure in the data, but I would hazard to guess that attractive women have higher body counts than the average woman.
'Let's say that promiscuous women are 1% of the population. In my survey, I found that less than 16% of women are on Tinder. However, if all of the promiscuous women are on Tinder, then promiscuous women will *appear* to be 6.25% of all Tinder users.'
Could definitely be onto something -- I was wondering if something like this could be at play but wasn't quite sure how to frame it. I was also thinking that if these women could also be algorithmically boosted: if men are more keen to swipe right on women that signal sexual openness and those women are less willing to service everyone than they appear, their ranking should end up high. Tbh I think it has to be more than 6% of profiles you see on that app.
I also meant to include something in the previous article about women dressing more provocatively in general and showing more skin in public but it slipped my mind. Not sure how strongly this actually signals more promiscuous inclinations; my guess is not very.
'Attractiveness is difficult to measure in the data, but I would hazard to guess that attractive women have higher body counts than the average woman.'
Interesting, because usually the assumption is the opposite, often justified with evolutionary logic. The idea is that more attractive women due to their greater bargaining power have less motivation to offer uncommitted sex as they can more easily secure commitment from desired partners. In terms of overall sex partners though, more attractive people of both genders might accrue more simply due to staying single for shorter periods. Reminds me that I was going to look into whether the data bore this out; so far it looks like there's probably not much effect either way though.
I think the median bodycount of women using tinder is probably 2-3 per year. But you also have to consider that profiles are displayed according to activity level. If a woman is constantly on tinder, her profile gets boosted over the girl who uses it once a month.
The problem gets worse with matches. A woman may be on tinder, but match with no one. The women who match with 100s of men are the most promiscuous women. From the male perspective, promiscuous women are overrepresented in their matches.
It’s possible that there’s a small percentage of Tinder users who are having dozens of hookups per year, but it’s not a Chadopoly. It’s a Slutopoly, where a small number of highly promiscuous women are having many encounters with a small number of highly promiscuous men. Then incels watch from the sidelines and label the men chads and the women “typical/average.”
'The problem gets worse with matches. A woman may be on tinder, but match with no one. The women who match with 100s of men are the most promiscuous women. From the male perspective, promiscuous women are overrepresented in their matches.'
Is this true? I would've thought if they were more popular they could afford to be more selective. Like I said, I don't think they're actually looking to service a large number of men, and being more selective also boosts your ranking. They might be more willing to service certain men and be more overrepresented among their matches though.
It's not about service; it's about matches.
There are also plenty of bots who probably deceive men.
Yeah I got you. Just wasn't really my experience that those kinds of women were easier to match with.
DatePsych has argued that the most attractive women have lower bodycounts because, in contrast to less attractive women who may have to use early sex for mate retention, attractive women have no such need and can afford the pickiness that all women may prefer. And the least attractive women are mostly excluded, rather than chaste by choice, so it ends up being a curvilinear relationship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzw0hfP81bo
Femcels do not exist. Any woman, no matter how unattractive, can have sex whenever she wants. Men typically have very low standards for sex.
incels do not exist, 99% of men can sell their kidneys to afford a prostitute.
And no woman is too ugly to her laid. They run the game. They are the choosers. They don't have to sell or pay anything to get laid.
Prostitution is illegal in many countries. Many men don't have access to prostitution.
I have access to prostitution, maybe it’s idiocy and cowardice that is the problem. I recommend mandatory sterilization of all dumb cowards.
Not all do.
Yet you're the one that thinks ugly women can't be promiscuous and that femcels exist.
“I still don’t understand why people are so desperate to believe this”
Tbh I think this is a much more interesting phenomenon than the data itself. I can think of tons of contributing factors but idk how you could collect data on it:
1) Women’s promiscuity as a topic in media has been increasing for a while and a lot of guys infer this must be a reflection of reality. Women love songs about having sex all the time, and they’re not having sex with me or anyone I know, so they must be all having sex off screen with the same guy. When in reality, women just enjoy it vicariously through these songs/shows in the same way a guy would enjoy a rapper talking about making a million dollars or killing his opps.
2) Dating apps encourage this thinking because it makes them money. They rly shock even attractive men into a scarcity mindset. Men are constantly seeing women on dating apps but being rejected, so they infer that SOMEONE has to be getting accepted somewhere. Why else would the women be on there? Which leads to the next point
3) Bad mental model of women’s behavior. They just assume women act like they would if they had the same power on dating apps, but don’t understand it’s a completely different game for them. If they were women, they would be having sex constantly until they settled down later in life, so they assume this must be desirable for women too. This also leads to valuing quantity of sex over quality, which most women would find ridiculous.
4) They need Chad to exist because it gives them hope that SOMEONE is being fulfilled by the dating app game. Even if they aren’t, it gives them hope that they’re not wasting all their mental energy being resentful over not getting something that won’t even make them happy. If even the men who get sex from dating apps are unhappy and still face constant rejection, they would need something else to blame for why they feel like shit all the time.
Chad is just a sexually attractive man. They do exist. For instance, if you need to take a woman out on a date before sex then she likely doesn't find you attractive.
As someone who’s done that, I can confidently say this isn’t true. If you believe this, you are self sabotaging by setting the bar too high. A woman who wants to hook up without a date is desperate and ashamed
There is no self sabotage in wanting women who find you attractive.
It means she's highly attracted to you. If she found you sexually attractive, you wouldn't need to take her on some useless date prior to sex.
No woman is desperate for sex. They can get it whenever they want.
So what type of stupid "dates" did you take them on? Why should I waste my time and money on unattracted women?
“If she found you sexually attractive, you wouldn't need to take her on some useless date prior to sex”
“No woman is desperate for sex. They can get it whenever they want.”
Neither of these are true. Especially if you are not meeting her from a dating app. Even the sluttiest women will want to meet you in public beforehand to get a sense of who you are. The only ones I’ve hooked up with immediately are ones I had to talk to for over a month beforehand.
This is self sabotaging fatalism and it’s sad to read. You don’t need to live in this incredible cruel world you’ve created.
No offence, but you're not very attractive. If you had to talk to them for a month before anything, then they weren't into you. I've had girls come straight to mine from apps and so have other guys. It's rare but it happens.
These same women you've spoken to a month before anything smashed loads of guys within the first day.
Sorry, bro. You're just unattractive.
Yeah, because you're not attractive. Women go over to men's houses that they're sexually attracted to. That's just clearly not you.
Where should you take these women out on these stupid dates then? Remember that women use men as free dinner dates all the time and then go straight after to the places of men they are attracted to. I've seen it.
How can you actually claim that women can't have sex whenever they want? Are you insane? They have it incredibly easy.
The numbers show time and time again that women are having less sex than ever. This is not reality, it’s something your low self esteem is inferring from dating apps. It also conveniently absolves you from all responsibility.
I guarantee you that no matter how short, ugly, fat, broke or autistic you are, there are women (even on dating apps) who would be willing to fuck you after a free dates if you demonstrate you’re a sane, amicable guy who won’t make them regret it. Patience and discipline are attractive qualities. You can become unattractive by asking to fuck too quick.
Out of interest, do you think it's a good idea to assume that if a woman doesn't sleep with you after two or three dates she's not attracted to you and therefore you should stop speaking to/seeing her?
Depends on the woman and what YOU want
If she's not willing to fuck you, then she's not attracted to you. My advice is to move on. Women fuck loads of guys that they're attracted to and don't make them wait, why should you wait?
If my goal is not to fuck then waiting to fuck is no issue
I mean dating.
The goal of dating is not to fuck that’s what I’m trying to communicate. If your goal is just to fuck you’re playing a seperate game with seperate rules
If every redpill/manosphere podcast ecosystem and the entire dating discourse disappeared tomorrow, I think it would reassemble in some very close form with the same talking points within a year from independent (mis)observations and outlier reports and extrapolations. Not only are the Chad harem, stacy body count, and looks/height myths memetic, they’re schelling points for dating opinions. Even normies or those outside of structured dating discourse I think believe it if they are queried, just don’t give it much thought or emotion. People generally do very poorly with estimating small probability and top percentile experiences bc of salience bias, which are magnified all the more with social media and its underlying virality mechanisms and the appearance of normality behind those documented experiences. That’s what you’re fighting against with this moderating and qualifying argument. And you seem to be the only one doing so systemically now that datepsych is less active. Is there any chance you think that this ever gets picked up in the mainstream or at least has some prominent figureheads advocating for … or is this all an exercise for the few?
For sure; well said. Am I able or willing to carry that burden alone? My confidence isn't high, and I don't have much incentive to other than the fact that seeing these memes repeated everywhere triggers me. I'll probably ease off on it, as I feel like I've adequately looked into and covered most of the popular memes by now.
I guess it was a vague hope that someone important would take notice.. but I never had any intentions to actively seek them out to make requests.
There’s no point in telling the truth because dumb people assume lies?
Gay men have opinions on this lol. They hate heterosexual sex. Regular men out here killlin it. Get off the internet nerds. Women aren’t attracted to nerds. In spite of what Reddit tells ya. The men getting laid aren’t online. By getting laid i mean have a girlfriend. Dorks. “But I have the data”. 🤓
Open to changing my mind! I’ll take a read when I have a chance. Appreciate the thought and research that clearly went into this piece.
My bad for assuming otherwise, then. Looking forward to your feedback.
Cock Carousel Theroy (CCT) would predict, top x% of males are having a lot more sex, which checks out or otherwise compatible with data you presented (removing 99% percentile of male would be a mistake like in the 2019 paper for this discussion - they also reported male 10% lifetimepaid prostitute use, stuff like that should be removed)
CCT would predict before age of marrige-engagement for men and women(or before/between long term relationships?), non-top x% male sex havers would have lower average sex having than females (excluding female prostitute - who knows what percent) -- your NSFG data doesn't really suggest this without wild assumption but I don't think the rest really apply directly
Need more bogus pipeline condition type studies, for now I'd increase female pre-engagement age partner count by 30% and remove 10% of men for prostitute use to see how it looks if we had between relationship type data that is per age than grouped and without the prostitution stuff.
I wouldn't expect CCT outcome to be true widely for all sorts of reasons but maybe only where there are higher concentration of sex-chads or easier access to them that it should be true. Sex-chads would be an extreme rarity and would be busy with women so chance of other women finding them easily and in the right info/safety-availability-context is low. In the meantime women might be in relationship so when sex-chad do show up, risk of acting on it is higher.
'(CCT) would predict, top x% of males are having a lot more sex, which checks out or otherwise compatible with data you presented (removing 99% percentile of male would be a mistake'
It doesn't start and end there though, it also tends to be accompanied by claims of rising promiscuity (among women and 'Chads') and an increasing skew in men's partner distribution. As mentioned in the footnote (with a link to the graph), there's also no consistent upward trend in the average male partner count when you include outliers reporting over 100 partners. It's just a bit more messy without the cap because there will randomly be a few who report 989 or more partners. I guess I could increase it to 200, which includes 99.7% of men, without as much of an issue. Or will it then become the top 0.1%? You can't just keep pushing Chad into an ever smaller box. Even 1% is going beyond common claims of the top 20% or 5% hoarding an increasing share.
What would you response to the STD argument be?
Increasing female partner counts by 30% would probably just make things line up even more evenly tbh.
“there's also no consistent upward trend in the average male partner count when you include outliers reporting over 100 partners”
CCT isn't incompatible with that though, idk what you mean then. The data can mean regular Joe haivng sex less and sex-chad is having more sex evening it out (lol@2004). Is there a way to see top x% male-sex-havers vs the rest partner count in that tool over the years? There could be a different trend.
“You can't just keep pushing Chad into an ever smaller box”
I think bottom 80% of men and women sex-havers being equal would be good enough for the outcome purpose for that since 80-20 thing is a meme. Although the concern probably won't go away even if all women were found to be virgin before marrige since it's likely about built in unconcious paternal uncertainty risk expectations.
“What would you response to the STD argument be?”
I'd expect "Men who have sex with women only" and "women who have sex with men only" to be equal (excluding clamadya like stuff where it's female biased), if not(as your graph from other article shows) something is missing from data. I'm guessing these are not self reported but data from medical records, so not much upto desirability bias and such.
For STDs you'd also need to remove top x% men and sex worker women and then compare rest of the men's STD rate pre-marrige with non-prostitute women's STDs rates for CCT. Would probably be hard to find such data in research. (Post marrige/long term relationship the STDs are going to even out if CCT is true since they are going to get passed to the beta bucks.)
'CCT isn't incompatible with that though, idk what you mean then.'
Because like I said the CCT is also associated with the narrative that promiscuity is rising. It's not just framed as a zero-sum redistribution typically. This was just about the limit of female promiscuity and how much it can be rising.
'Is there a way to see top x% male-sex-havers vs the rest partner count in that tool over the years?'
Yes, you can look at the partner counts of certain percentiles. I've already done this in the Chadopoly article, finding no evidence for increasing partner counts among the 80th or 95th percentiles.
'I'd expect "Men who have sex with women only" and "women who have sex with men only" to be equal (excluding clamadya like stuff where it's female biased), if not(as your graph from other article shows) something is missing from data'
It wouldn't be if men and women's partner distributions were significantly different in their skew though.
There are other things that can go into STD transmission such as biological factors, but I'm not too familiar with the details.
> I've already done this in the Chadopoly article, finding no evidence for increasing partner counts among the 80th or 95th percentiles.
> 2002 to 2019 lifetime male top 80% going down
that can be from men living longer, there being more younger kids or whatever else
>We can limit the analysis to those between 18–29, separated into 4 bins as lifetime sex partners rise significantly during this period. If the trendy dating app narrative is true, then we should definitely see an increasing skew in the age range that is most active on dating apps and is supposedly embroiled in a ‘hook-up culture’.
I just looked at the pic and some texts around it, so possible I missed something relevant.
male lifetime:
18-20 has downward trend
21-23 has flat trend
24-26 has downward trend
27-29 has upward trend
past year:
18-29 has downward trend
18 of the past is not the same as 18 of the now, people are in 'economic activity' longer, staying with parents longer etc. The down, flat, up etc means the past year data is havily skwed by earlier age and since it's grouped 18-29, not super useful for comparison.
The age also needs to be adjusted for the same life stage for the comparison. There cold be a huge spike at some age messing with the data. The 'how' would be complicated and would need to make assumptions depending on how you decide to. Median first time living alone/having full time job can be used for shift. Or take 100% of male and line up the trend line and see at what age they more or less match up and then use that shift to then seperate to 80 and 20s of past equaivalent of that to now. After that, comparison with bottom 80% male and female to top 20% of male and female should make it clear.
There are other stuff that'd make you annoyed are things like the difference in time people spend with others now vs online and in communicaiton. So sex could be replaced in other medium sort of so what percentage of men are in direct contact with women and their 80-20 trendline. People are spending more time watching stuff and playing games, so net smaller time spending with other people. The time being spent together can be adjusted to past similarly for comparison. Comparisons of how often women get approached irl or online by member of opposite gender and whatnot and lets say that decreases women choosing someone because she has more option to do it later while she tries to get attention of chad to date, so it'd be like a virtual anticipatory poly 🤷.
I don't think any amount of currently available data will let you discount all chad-poly type concerns people could have.
For women, could it be partly due to them finding few men sexually attractive and rarely getting the chance with these types of men? It's important to note that women make rules for men they're not attracted to (going on dates before sex) and break them for the men that they are attracted to.
Human sexuality in modern times is a nothingburger