In a large population, most traits fall into a "bell curve" distribution. For example, if a bunch of rich old men were asked to rate how important it was that their partner was a sexy young teenage girl on a scale of 1-10, the average response might be around "7". In other words, some men said it was a "10" on a scale of 1 to 10, but some said it only rated about a "3" or "4".
Find a similar group of rich old women and ask the same thing and the average response might be only a "4"! Some women said it was "0" (not important at all), while a few cougars said it was very important (maybe a "9").
The differences between the two groups are striking and graphed below:
But, there is still substantial overlap. Which is to say, there are still many rich old women who find young nubile partners just as important to them as rich old men even though the average is different:
This overlap is represented by the formula:
It is magnified by the fact that the population of rich old women is greater than rich old men. So the answer obtained above should probably be multiplied by K, where K=ratio of rich old women: rich old men.
Of course the data is going to be skewed by the fact that women are more likely to lie about these things on surveys than men. But, overall, I don't completely discount Ceara's point. I was just trying to poke fun at society's stereotypes of the differences between men and women.
You know what? Some people even believe that women aren't into sex, so any woman who does porn must be a victim, based exactly on the same type of differences between men and women I was talking about in this post.
How ironic, yes?
Previous Topic
Index
