OkTrends: Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex(blog.okcupid.com)
blog.okcupid.com
OkTrends: Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/
12 comments
The most surprising thing about this post is that 5% of OKCupid males and 10% of OKCupid females think the earth is larger than the sun. WTF?!
I think you also have to take jokers and drunken misclicks into account. I'm willing to bet that the true numbers are significantly lower.
Then again, it's pretty bad for anyone in America in 2010 to answer this question incorrectly.
Then again, it's pretty bad for anyone in America in 2010 to answer this question incorrectly.
That would explain why the numbers are so high, but not why the number for women is twice the number for men. Are there that many more female jokers or drunken misclickers?
When I got this question I answered it incorrectly, just because it was so ridiculous :)
According to a Gallup poll from 1999 18% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth. Another 3% had no opinion. North Western University did a similar poll in 2005 and got a similar result of 20%
I'm rather curious about those who had no opinion.
"Does the sun revolve around the earth?" "Meh, maybe? Never thought about it. I don't really look up or care"
"Does the sun revolve around the earth?" "Meh, maybe? Never thought about it. I don't really look up or care"
What would be interesting to me is if they broke that statistic down geographically, such that we could measure ignorance (or at least the effectiveness of the local education system) by region or country.
[deleted](2)
I wish they had asked more stupid questions. Though I honestly don't care if gay or straight people answered correctly, more curious as to how dumb people in general really are.
They probably have, I just hope the release the information at some point.
Welcome to the real world.
so what is the real world % of people who think the Earth is larger than the Sun? surely OKCupid has some selection bias?
surely OKCupid has some selection bias?
"People who like other people"?
"People who like other people"?
people looking for a date != "people who like other people"
first thing I thought there are much more high school kids than anyone else. Then I found this: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/older_lover/Age-Distribution-With...
and this: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/09/selection_bias_everywhe...
first thing I thought there are much more high school kids than anyone else. Then I found this: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/older_lover/Age-Distribution-With...
and this: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/09/selection_bias_everywhe...
I'm surprised nobody has suggested the possibility of people not interpreting the question literally.
I.e. "larger" in terms of what? Importance? Population? Perceived size from our point of view?
Absolute size is the interpretation that makes most sense to us male geeks, but it is not by any means the only option you could think of.
To me that would explain why more women pick the unusual option, as they are more likely to think outside the rational box. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are ignorant.
I.e. "larger" in terms of what? Importance? Population? Perceived size from our point of view?
Absolute size is the interpretation that makes most sense to us male geeks, but it is not by any means the only option you could think of.
To me that would explain why more women pick the unusual option, as they are more likely to think outside the rational box. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are ignorant.
Probably poor reading comprehension. 100 questions in and it's easy to pick the wrong answer.
They need Google-style auto-correction ;)
They need Google-style auto-correction ;)
It's a curious result, but as a debunking it's a bit of a strawman. Someone (whom I don't agree with, should be noted) wishing to keep gays from teaching don't do so because they worry about the quality of the lectures, but because they don't want their kids to have a gay role model, acting as an endorsement for homosexuality.
No, it's pure "ick factor" and a desire to keep the existence of gay people off their child's radar.
I don't see anyone outlawing morbidly obese teachers or teachers with multiple speeding tickets, although those are not attributes you look for in a role model.
EDIT: It could also be an honest opinion that homosexuals are dangerous; still not related to lesson quality, but more honest than the role model justification.
I don't see anyone outlawing morbidly obese teachers or teachers with multiple speeding tickets, although those are not attributes you look for in a role model.
EDIT: It could also be an honest opinion that homosexuals are dangerous; still not related to lesson quality, but more honest than the role model justification.
Even if it's "ick factor", what does that have to do with lesson quality?
Also, I've found that not assuming the worst possible about people I disagree with helps a lot in creating a world view that isn't completely black and white.
Also, I've found that not assuming the worst possible about people I disagree with helps a lot in creating a world view that isn't completely black and white.
I don't think it's that surprising. Not everyone is scientifically literate, and there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who will come up with the wrong answer when queried on a basic scientific or historical fact. And this group does tend to skew female.
You DO realize that by almost any measure, about 50% of Americans are below-average, don't you?
If there was ever a convincing argument that women are dumber than men, this is it.
First, you are confusing lack of intelligence with ignorance. A person can be intelligent, but ignorant of basic facts. It's not terribly common in our society, where basic education is afforded to most, but it's a distinction that needs to be made.
Second, the fact that more women got the answer wrong doesn't tell you anything about the average intelligence of each gender. What if women's intelligence distribution has a greater variance? There could be a bigger number of women (compared to men) at the extreme ends of the intelligence spectrum. I don't believe that's the case, but the "argument" you present is far from "convincing".
Second, the fact that more women got the answer wrong doesn't tell you anything about the average intelligence of each gender. What if women's intelligence distribution has a greater variance? There could be a bigger number of women (compared to men) at the extreme ends of the intelligence spectrum. I don't believe that's the case, but the "argument" you present is far from "convincing".
It's an individual fact, certainly, but it has greater implications for a person's understanding of the world. A professor I knew in college taught a non-majors general biology class, and every semester he put this question on- order according to size, the following: cell, organism, atom, molecule, organ. Apparently this was a very difficult question for them, and it expresses a fundamental lack of understanding of how things work. If they don't know that the Earth is smaller than the Sun, then how can they understand that the Earth is a satellite of the Sun?
>What if women's intelligence distribution has a greater variance?
Sure. But if anything, it has a smaller variance (if there is a difference; the "greater" male variance hypothesis is a bit under fire recently.)
>What if women's intelligence distribution has a greater variance?
Sure. But if anything, it has a smaller variance (if there is a difference; the "greater" male variance hypothesis is a bit under fire recently.)
If they don't know that the Earth is smaller than the Sun, then how can they understand that the Earth is a satellite of the Sun?
To be completely fair, there are stellar bodies much smaller than earth which an earth-sized planet could easily be a satellite of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole
Then again, if you know about such objects, you probably also know the earth is bigger than the sun.
To be completely fair, there are stellar bodies much smaller than earth which an earth-sized planet could easily be a satellite of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole
Then again, if you know about such objects, you probably also know the earth is bigger than the sun.
Depends on how you define "bigger." If that refers to amount of mass versus volume then a stellar black hole is an extremely large object.
>Then again, if you know about such objects, you probably also know the earth is bigger than the sun.
Tongue-in-cheek?
Tongue-in-cheek?
This suggests another reason why 5-10% of people got the question wrong - they weren't paying attention and clicked/typed the wrong choice.
(Ok, I admit it - I just don't know anything about astronomy. Also, elephants are bigger than the moon, right?)
(Ok, I admit it - I just don't know anything about astronomy. Also, elephants are bigger than the moon, right?)
> If they don't know that the Earth is smaller than the Sun, then how can they understand that the Earth is a satellite of the Sun?
These facts are independent.
These facts are independent.
Not really. Whether or not a system is a satellite relationship is based on their comparative masses and orbits. If the Sun where the less massive we would refer to it as the satellite (well, there would be a lot more consequences, but that's one). If the objects were approximately equal we would call it a binary system with the more massive being referred to as the primary.
The question is actually difficult because an organism can be an microorganism or an animal with organs, so it's impossible to say which ones bigger. Also i'd say if you don't know that the earth is bigger than the sun than you most likely don't know how gravity works, and not that the earth is a satellite of the Sun.
The question is actually difficult because an organism can be an microorganism or an animal with organs, so it's impossible to say which ones bigger.
Only if you allow for comparisons between life forms. If you assume that he's speaking of a single life form that contains all the systems then the question is well-defined.
Only if you allow for comparisons between life forms. If you assume that he's speaking of a single life form that contains all the systems then the question is well-defined.
Actually it's men with a wider curve. More mentally retarded and more geniuses are male. (FWIW)
...and that's the fastest I've ever accumulated downvotes.
Come on guys, I didn't say that women are dumber than men. I just said that this is the single most convincing piece evidence for that. Doesn't say much for the existing evidence given that this is a crappy non-scientific OKCupid blog post, now does it? Knee-jerkers.
Come on guys, I didn't say that women are dumber than men. I just said that this is the single most convincing piece evidence for that. Doesn't say much for the existing evidence given that this is a crappy non-scientific OKCupid blog post, now does it? Knee-jerkers.
> Come on guys, I didn't say that women are dumber than men. I just said that this is the single most convincing piece evidence for that.
You're missing the deeper implication that you're cruising around the Internet looking for, and pouncing on, such evidence. Why is it important to you whether or not women are dumber than men?
> given that this is a crappy non-scientific OKCupid blog post
In my opinion, OKCupid's OKTrends blog posts are second only to MythBusters in putting out interesting, entertaining, scientific answers to questions for which a lot of people are either completely uncertain of the answer or have terrible misconceptions.
You're missing the deeper implication that you're cruising around the Internet looking for, and pouncing on, such evidence. Why is it important to you whether or not women are dumber than men?
> given that this is a crappy non-scientific OKCupid blog post
In my opinion, OKCupid's OKTrends blog posts are second only to MythBusters in putting out interesting, entertaining, scientific answers to questions for which a lot of people are either completely uncertain of the answer or have terrible misconceptions.
You're missing the deeper implication that you're cruising around the Internet looking for, and pouncing on, such evidence. Why is it important to you whether or not women are dumber than men?
Perhaps he is, in fact, cruising the information looking for evidence that women are dumber than men. So what? His desire for knowledge harms no one. You imply (without evidence) that he is biased. What is the point of your comment, besides lowering his status?
Perhaps he is, in fact, cruising the information looking for evidence that women are dumber than men. So what? His desire for knowledge harms no one. You imply (without evidence) that he is biased. What is the point of your comment, besides lowering his status?
The point of my comment was to reply to his comment which was questioning why he was downvoted. I downvoted neither of his comments.
>Why is it important to you whether or not women are dumber than men?
Wouldn't you want to know if you carry within you an inherent deficit or advantage? I do. That's why I got my genome sequenced. Now I know my risk of colorectal cancer. Knowledge is power. Blah blah blah.
Also it's interesting. And clearly it's not just interesting to me, but to HN as a whole. There's a sex-related post on the front page practically every time it loads.
>OKCupid's OKTrends blog posts are second only to MythBusters in putting out interesting, entertaining, scientific answers to questions
So you admit that in terms of one scientific fact that has implications for a person's understanding of size, scale, and space, women are inferior to men.
Wouldn't you want to know if you carry within you an inherent deficit or advantage? I do. That's why I got my genome sequenced. Now I know my risk of colorectal cancer. Knowledge is power. Blah blah blah.
Also it's interesting. And clearly it's not just interesting to me, but to HN as a whole. There's a sex-related post on the front page practically every time it loads.
>OKCupid's OKTrends blog posts are second only to MythBusters in putting out interesting, entertaining, scientific answers to questions
So you admit that in terms of one scientific fact that has implications for a person's understanding of size, scale, and space, women are inferior to men.
Come on guys, I didn't say that women are dumber than men. I just said that this is the single most convincing piece evidence for that.
Well, I think we need to spend a little time agreeing on the definition of "dumber." Does it mean IQ? General knowledge? Something else?
If we can agree on a test of some kind that we can apply to a single person, how do we determine whether a group of people is smarter or dumber than another group of people?
For example, let's say Test "A" is to ask a single question, whether the Sun is larger than the Earth. Let's say that 90% of group "M" gets this question right, while only 10% of group "F" gets this question right. Is group "M" smarter than group "F?" That doesn't make any sense because the group isn't an organism, it isn't smart or dumb.
And we can't extrapolate much about members of "F." What if "F" consists of 100 people, 90 of whom are illiterate and the remaining 10 are Astronomy PHds, while "M" consists of 100 high school seniors. Is "F" now smarter than "M" because ten of its members are more educated than all of the Ms?
Selection bias matters. Remember that the OkCupid sample consists of people who are dating online. The information is interesting, but might be skewed. Perhaps a lot of educated, intelligent women are in monogamous relationships and not dating?
We see this phenomenon in job hunting, where a random sample of programmers looking for a job is a terrible representation of programmers overall.
Well, I think we need to spend a little time agreeing on the definition of "dumber." Does it mean IQ? General knowledge? Something else?
If we can agree on a test of some kind that we can apply to a single person, how do we determine whether a group of people is smarter or dumber than another group of people?
For example, let's say Test "A" is to ask a single question, whether the Sun is larger than the Earth. Let's say that 90% of group "M" gets this question right, while only 10% of group "F" gets this question right. Is group "M" smarter than group "F?" That doesn't make any sense because the group isn't an organism, it isn't smart or dumb.
And we can't extrapolate much about members of "F." What if "F" consists of 100 people, 90 of whom are illiterate and the remaining 10 are Astronomy PHds, while "M" consists of 100 high school seniors. Is "F" now smarter than "M" because ten of its members are more educated than all of the Ms?
Selection bias matters. Remember that the OkCupid sample consists of people who are dating online. The information is interesting, but might be skewed. Perhaps a lot of educated, intelligent women are in monogamous relationships and not dating?
We see this phenomenon in job hunting, where a random sample of programmers looking for a job is a terrible representation of programmers overall.
Sure, selection bias matters. I never said OKcupid was statistically valid. In fact, in my second comment I disparaged it.
[deleted]
Unfortunately this won't help. Homophobes are not such because they looked at a bunch of data and came to a conclusion as a result. As such they will not look at data to the contrary and change their mind.
The basis for homophobia being that straight men are scared that gay men might be out to sleep with them has always struck me as odd.
Extrapolating from my experience with women (only a tiny minority find me attractive), why would I think that all gay men want to have sex with me?
Extrapolating from my experience with women (only a tiny minority find me attractive), why would I think that all gay men want to have sex with me?
If you’re straight, and you’re the sort of man who treats every woman he encounters as little more than a potential sexual conquest, then the thought of another man treating you in that way is a little scary. Reflecting on this emotional reaction, you can either say “gosh, maybe a lot of women get creeped out by the way I treat them, and I should adjust my behavior” or “gosh, I want gay men to be as far away from me as possible”. Alas, many people in this situation take the second option.
Nice armchair psychoanalysis, but how does this fit in with the fact that most homophobes are old married folks, not young playboys? The people I know who do things like vote against gay marriage have been married for 20+ years, go to church, and have 3 kids.
Do you think that marriage and kids stop someone from flirting and having extra-marital affairs?
Do any of you have any evidence that there is even the smallest correlation between a person having negative views of homosexuality and that person treating women poorly?
It's fun to just make up shit about people we disagree with, but it's still dishonest and wrong.
It's fun to just make up shit about people we disagree with, but it's still dishonest and wrong.
Why are you twisting my words and what did I make up? You said something about the homophobes you know and I added the fact that marriage doesn't stop someone from flirting. This might not make him a playboy, but it's close enough in my opinion.
As for cheating, if a man cheats, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's treating women poorly, it means that he's treating a woman poorly.
As for cheating, if a man cheats, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's treating women poorly, it means that he's treating a woman poorly.
Don't extrapolate from your experience with women... extrapolate from your experience with men. Men are far less choosy about who they would sleep with, given the opportunity.
Really? Ok, HN... If you are male and would sleep with me please send me email. I'll keep your details secret, but I'd be fascinated to see some hard evidence for this assertion.
> hard evidence for this assertion
Regrettable word choice.
Regrettable word choice.
pics or GTFO ;)
(I'm straight, and I normally wouldn't say something like this on HN, but it's sooo perfect right here...)
(I'm straight, and I normally wouldn't say something like this on HN, but it's sooo perfect right here...)
Seems like a logical conclusion is that the homophobe is worried that a homosexual will want to sleep with them and that the homophobe will find that situation irresistible. See also: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/2246
On that note, one should be able to easily Google up studies that have shown correlation between homophobia and being aroused by gay porn...
On that note, one should be able to easily Google up studies that have shown correlation between homophobia and being aroused by gay porn...
Actually straight men should encourage other men to become gay: Less competition.
Well... actually I'm surprised no one has questioned this conclusion from the OP. They say this:
"Gay people are not sexually interested in straights"
but in fact, what their data indicates is better stated as:
"Gay people will not attempt to date people they know to be straight"
which is something different.
"Gay people are not sexually interested in straights"
but in fact, what their data indicates is better stated as:
"Gay people will not attempt to date people they know to be straight"
which is something different.
The fear seems to be more that accepting homosexuality will somehow "normalize" it. I realize that begs the question, but I've never claimed that bigots are logical.
"Homophobia" is an odd word for "dislike of homosexuality". None of the people that I know with a negative view of homosexuality are afraid that homosexuals will sleep with them. Rather, they think it is wrong/unnatural/icky.
Interestingly it actually is fairly common for gay men to have a fantasy about converting a straight man to becoming gay. (I learned this tidbit from reading Randy Savage.)
It's the "have sex with an inexperienced virgin" fantasy for gay guys, same underlying idea.
Or the unobtainable person fantasy... btw I hope the parent parent poster means he learned about this from Dan Savage, sex advice columnist, and not Randy "Macho Man" Savage, professional wrestler. Although that stuff is totally homoerotic, so maybe.
Oops, you're right. Dan Savage. blush
That came across like a straw man to me in the OP, especially in statements like this:
> The subtext to a lot of homophobic thinking is the idea that gays will try to get straight people into bed at the first opportunity, or that gays are looking to "convert" straights. Freud called this concept schwanzangst; the U.S. Army calls it Don't Ask Don't Tell.
I haven't really heard any arguments from those people that made any sense, but all the same this came across as an uncomfortably large leap.
> The subtext to a lot of homophobic thinking is the idea that gays will try to get straight people into bed at the first opportunity, or that gays are looking to "convert" straights. Freud called this concept schwanzangst; the U.S. Army calls it Don't Ask Don't Tell.
I haven't really heard any arguments from those people that made any sense, but all the same this came across as an uncomfortably large leap.
The US Army's position is more likely to be "we actually don't care but we can't say that until Congress changes the UCMJ, so, uhh, be all you can be" - that's what don't ask don't tell really means.
My understanding of DADT is that you cannot be openly gay. Not quite be all you can be.
Perhaps it's a moot point now: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/10/12/us/AP-US-Gays-in-...
I'm a little uncertain exactly what part of the quoted text you are objecting to, but there are generally two arguments given for why gays shouldn't be parents, teachers, scoutmasters, etc. a) They will try to convert or otherwise influence children to "turn gay" and, b) they are disproportionately likely to be pedophiles. The arguments for DADT are generally a little different, but there's definitely a thread there that includes the same idea that gays will be unable to resist making sexual advances on their fellow soldiers.
Point A comes from the fear that their children will turn gay because they have a gay person in their life. (Which would imply that children become janitors just because they have janitors around them...)
But for point B, is there scientific evidence for it?
This is highly anecdotal, but I have a few gay friends who served in the military, and they all said that the straight guys had more gay sex than them.
The explanation isn't that weird though. If you're straight you can always dismiss it, it's not "real", it's just because of this weird situation living with only guys for some time, and out in real life you're as straight as they come. But for gay guys, it is real, so you're a lot more careful about something that might develop into a relationship.
The explanation isn't that weird though. If you're straight you can always dismiss it, it's not "real", it's just because of this weird situation living with only guys for some time, and out in real life you're as straight as they come. But for gay guys, it is real, so you're a lot more careful about something that might develop into a relationship.
If I assume women like me, but I'm not getting laid, then I have only myself to blame, and that doesn't feel good. But my pride isn't so attached to the amount of gay sex I'm having.
This is not a true rationale- it's a kneejerk reaction.
The mention struck me as a joke, not a serious comment.
This is already more analysis than the joke deserved.
Ego?
I don't see this mentioned in the other comments, but there is almost certainly more going on here than meets the eye.
From http://www.okcupid.com/faaaq - people get to explicitly filter potential matches according to the answers those matches have provided to these questions. It is not a black box recommender system - people can mandate explicit rejection criteria.
This creates an incentive to lie on the questions.
It would make sense for users to try and make their profile statistically close to what they think the [type of people they would like to date] specify.
For example, Bob wants to go out with a 'good girl' (lets call her 'Alice'). Bob reasons that Alice, being a 'good girl' would probably want to go out with a guy who has never cheated; so Bob will neglect to mention his affair with Eve on his profile.
I would guess that users, even if they don't initially realise the strategic situation they are in, will quickly learn it socially and through feedback, and adjust their profiles accordingly.
The end result being that the answers given on the website, that provide the data being visualised here, should be treated with caution.
I imagine that certain questions such as 'number of sexual partners' comes with large disincentive to lie, due to social pressure.
As such, the conclusions here should be taken with a grain of salt - and that's even before discussing selection bias amoung the users of a particular social dating site. Such services are adopted as they spread through the underlying social network; it is well established that social networks are heavily clustered, and rarely give representative samples until they get very large.
Its still very interesting stuff, but we should be careful about how strongly we interpret it.
From http://www.okcupid.com/faaaq - people get to explicitly filter potential matches according to the answers those matches have provided to these questions. It is not a black box recommender system - people can mandate explicit rejection criteria.
This creates an incentive to lie on the questions.
It would make sense for users to try and make their profile statistically close to what they think the [type of people they would like to date] specify.
For example, Bob wants to go out with a 'good girl' (lets call her 'Alice'). Bob reasons that Alice, being a 'good girl' would probably want to go out with a guy who has never cheated; so Bob will neglect to mention his affair with Eve on his profile.
I would guess that users, even if they don't initially realise the strategic situation they are in, will quickly learn it socially and through feedback, and adjust their profiles accordingly.
The end result being that the answers given on the website, that provide the data being visualised here, should be treated with caution.
I imagine that certain questions such as 'number of sexual partners' comes with large disincentive to lie, due to social pressure.
As such, the conclusions here should be taken with a grain of salt - and that's even before discussing selection bias amoung the users of a particular social dating site. Such services are adopted as they spread through the underlying social network; it is well established that social networks are heavily clustered, and rarely give representative samples until they get very large.
Its still very interesting stuff, but we should be careful about how strongly we interpret it.
I have difficulty believing that there's that big a difference between straight women and straight men in terms of same sex experiences. It's more likely that the stigmas attached to male same-sex experiences led more of them to lie about it.
I've been at numerous parties where I've seen straight women making out with each other... never straight guys. I realize that's not exactly sex, but it's along the path.
Edit: Forgot to mention... there's no real reason to lie to a match question on OKCupid. You can skip the question or answer it while making your answer private.
Edit: Forgot to mention... there's no real reason to lie to a match question on OKCupid. You can skip the question or answer it while making your answer private.
there's no real reason to lie to a match question on OKCupid
Depending on how much emphasis you're placing on "real", sure there is. You could be using it as a proxy to lie to yourself. You could be trying to convince OKCupid that you're the kind of person that should be recommended to the kind of person you want to meet. You could be setting up multiple personas for hook ups vs real dates. Etc, etc.
Depending on how much emphasis you're placing on "real", sure there is. You could be using it as a proxy to lie to yourself. You could be trying to convince OKCupid that you're the kind of person that should be recommended to the kind of person you want to meet. You could be setting up multiple personas for hook ups vs real dates. Etc, etc.
Those are good points. I mainly just wanted to put that information out there for anyone who wasn't familiar with how OKCupid works.
Sure there is. Your answer is still used to match with other people, even if they don't get to read it.
A 1990 Cornell survey of young Americans had 14.4% of women describing themselves as lesbian or bisexual, compared with 5.6% of men describing themselves as gay or bisexual. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientat...) OKCupid’s discovery that straight-identified women are more likely than men to be interested in a same-sex relationship seems consistent with that research.
It's a pretty well-established fact that female sexuality is more "fluid". If you listen to any episode of Dan Savage's podcast, it'll probably come up.
Society reinforces this because women are much more able to make out/hook up without it being considered gay (and often with it being considered hot), but there seem to be physiological reasons as well.
For example, a Northwestern study showed men and women gay male, straight, and lesbian porn and measured their sexual arousal. Men tended to only be aroused by the porn that their sexuality would suggest, but women tended to be aroused by all of it http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.ht...
Society reinforces this because women are much more able to make out/hook up without it being considered gay (and often with it being considered hot), but there seem to be physiological reasons as well.
For example, a Northwestern study showed men and women gay male, straight, and lesbian porn and measured their sexual arousal. Men tended to only be aroused by the porn that their sexuality would suggest, but women tended to be aroused by all of it http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.ht...
You don't think it's likely that the stigmas attached to male same-sex experiences lead fewer of them to have them in the first place?
Or that attraction is more straight-forward with men. I.e. step a, look down: Is your penis erect? Women might be more likely to experiment because they don't have that instant visual cue.
Speaking for myself, I don't get a boner just from looking at an attractive woman (provided she is dressed), and I don't check my penis to see whether I am attracted to someone. Therefore I doubt that the lack of a "visual cue" is realistic, because I doubt that many men use their erection as a technique for determining whether they are attracted to someone.
Yes, but if you couldn't become erect from thinking about any women ever, or seeing a picture of any women ever naked, you could be unlikely to ever try having sex with one in the absence of social pressure. It's a negative filter, not a positive one.
Or, what is even more likely, is that women believe that men are attracted to women who say they have had sex with other women and enjoyed it.
Perhaps its rarity is why there is more of a stigma...
OKCupid statistics posts are often pretty damn awesome. But I'm not wild about this one:
First of all, it attempts to argue that gay people aren't promiscuous on the basis of statistics derived from a dating site. It is perfectly possible that gay OKCupid users aren't more promiscuous than straight OKCupid users, but gay OKCupid users aren't representative of gay people overall. The article doesn't actually mention sample size. It may be possible that they have a very small gay userbase, for instance. It certainly is interesting to know the differences between gay and straight OKCupid users, but it tells us less than they seem to suggest.
First off, it's a dating site, not a hookup site. If you want to find out whether people are promiscuous, you can't work that out simply on the basis of a dating site because dating sites (as opposed to hookup sites) find people who are interested in romance rather than casual sex. You wanna know whether gay people are more promiscuous? Take OKCupid statistics and compare them to statistics from a sites like AdultFriendFinder (or some of the Craigslist sections)...
Secondly, Jim DeMint is not saying gay people shouldn't be teaching in schools because straight people are better teachers. No, he's saying it because he thinks gay people will - I dunno - somehow transmit gayness rays to students. DeMint is bigoted and his suggestion is idiotic, but OKCupid's response is irrelevant because DeMint isn't saying that gay people are less intelligent - he's saying they shouldn't be teachers because they are gay and, you know, they like to recruit people and indoctrinate them into the secret gay liberal agenda (or something equally barmy).
First of all, it attempts to argue that gay people aren't promiscuous on the basis of statistics derived from a dating site. It is perfectly possible that gay OKCupid users aren't more promiscuous than straight OKCupid users, but gay OKCupid users aren't representative of gay people overall. The article doesn't actually mention sample size. It may be possible that they have a very small gay userbase, for instance. It certainly is interesting to know the differences between gay and straight OKCupid users, but it tells us less than they seem to suggest.
First off, it's a dating site, not a hookup site. If you want to find out whether people are promiscuous, you can't work that out simply on the basis of a dating site because dating sites (as opposed to hookup sites) find people who are interested in romance rather than casual sex. You wanna know whether gay people are more promiscuous? Take OKCupid statistics and compare them to statistics from a sites like AdultFriendFinder (or some of the Craigslist sections)...
Secondly, Jim DeMint is not saying gay people shouldn't be teaching in schools because straight people are better teachers. No, he's saying it because he thinks gay people will - I dunno - somehow transmit gayness rays to students. DeMint is bigoted and his suggestion is idiotic, but OKCupid's response is irrelevant because DeMint isn't saying that gay people are less intelligent - he's saying they shouldn't be teachers because they are gay and, you know, they like to recruit people and indoctrinate them into the secret gay liberal agenda (or something equally barmy).
It would be nice if they would tell us what percentage of their site fell into the different gender/sexual orientation categories.
Sure.
Men: 90% straight, 6% gay, 4% bi.
Women: 85% straight, 5% gay, 10% bi.
-Max Shron (Data Scientist, OkCupid)
Men: 90% straight, 6% gay, 4% bi.
Women: 85% straight, 5% gay, 10% bi.
-Max Shron (Data Scientist, OkCupid)
Great, thanks. And what percentage of the site is male/female?
Had to go back and check this. It varies from place to place, but for the site as a whole it's about 55% men, 45% women.
I love that they put this kind of data online. It goes a long way to debunking a lot of popular myths. And utterly fascinating at the same time.
Go OKCupid! Please keep doing this!
Go OKCupid! Please keep doing this!
Yes it's really great that OkCupid take the time to put together those stats and give their results to the public.
Another interesting stats that they release is about how the user profile photo affects the message they get:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
Another interesting stats that they release is about how the user profile photo affects the message they get:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
What about bisexual men and women?
I'd take all of this with a grain of salt. This is a survey from a dating site. The majority of their members haven't been able to get any in other ways and hence use the site - so comparing partners, experiences etc is not necessarily a good subset of general society.
I'm not putting down anyone who uses such a site, in this day and age I certainly would if I was single, but I am not sure the sexual habits of single people who use a dating site is really a good subset of data for this.
I'm not putting down anyone who uses such a site, in this day and age I certainly would if I was single, but I am not sure the sexual habits of single people who use a dating site is really a good subset of data for this.
I'm on OKCupid. I've been able to "get any" in other ways. According to the article, the average number of sexual partners for everyone on the site is 6.
Personally, I'm using the site because I frequently find myself hanging out with friends. Most are male, but there are a few females who are either in relationships or are longtime friends who aren't sexually interested in me. I'm just hoping to meet a few women to go out on casual dates with and to bring into our "friend group." As a 26-year-old who is out of college and whose coworkers are all 35 or older, a dating site seems like a good way to meaningfully meet people.
I think your assumptions of the types of people on dating sites are way off. Based on my chats with women on the site, they seem to be in a similar position to me. With dating sites, not only do you get to meet someone outside the context of a bar, you also know that you're talking to someone else who is looking to meet people. It completely removes the awkwardness of trying to figure out if someone is in a relationship, if they have at all similar interests, or if they're going to just be totally bitchy for no reason.
That aside, the real question seems to be if the site is representative. I would argue that for the age group of 18-35, the site is highly representative.
Personally, I'm using the site because I frequently find myself hanging out with friends. Most are male, but there are a few females who are either in relationships or are longtime friends who aren't sexually interested in me. I'm just hoping to meet a few women to go out on casual dates with and to bring into our "friend group." As a 26-year-old who is out of college and whose coworkers are all 35 or older, a dating site seems like a good way to meaningfully meet people.
I think your assumptions of the types of people on dating sites are way off. Based on my chats with women on the site, they seem to be in a similar position to me. With dating sites, not only do you get to meet someone outside the context of a bar, you also know that you're talking to someone else who is looking to meet people. It completely removes the awkwardness of trying to figure out if someone is in a relationship, if they have at all similar interests, or if they're going to just be totally bitchy for no reason.
That aside, the real question seems to be if the site is representative. I would argue that for the age group of 18-35, the site is highly representative.
How's the 20th century working out for you?
I think that being suspicious of a cohort bias on OKCupid is totally legitimate.
It's reasonable to assume that the subset of people who use OKCupid is not representative of society as a whole. Now im not sure exactly what biases this might introduce, but one should always be aware, especially considering that the OKCupid users are a self selected sample (not a random sample) of society.
It's reasonable to assume that the subset of people who use OKCupid is not representative of society as a whole. Now im not sure exactly what biases this might introduce, but one should always be aware, especially considering that the OKCupid users are a self selected sample (not a random sample) of society.
> "I think that being suspicious of a cohort bias on OKCupid is totally legitimate."
Absolutely, but that's not what DirtyAndy was getting at - he's assigning his own stereotype of an OKCupid user, which he has little data to back up.
It's perfectly valid to be suspicious of population bias in a website - any website for that matter - but to extrapolate and pretend to know just how that bias is tilted (without data) is doing yourself a disservice.
Absolutely, but that's not what DirtyAndy was getting at - he's assigning his own stereotype of an OKCupid user, which he has little data to back up.
It's perfectly valid to be suspicious of population bias in a website - any website for that matter - but to extrapolate and pretend to know just how that bias is tilted (without data) is doing yourself a disservice.
I assign no stereotype to any OKCupid users (I am not even sure I have heard of it before), I do feel perhaps that some peoples insecurities about using a dating website are causing them to take this out of context (I accept my wording may not have been delicate enough). In 1995 I dated a girl I met through IRC or a similar such service, and the few single friends I have I often encourage to at least investigate online services, so I don't fall into any category of people who judge people who use these services. I would say that (at least in the UK) probably a slight majority of the people I know are still uncomfortable with the idea of meeting someone online. It is likely that online dating will become more and more prevalent, will it ever totally eclipse other ways of meeting people, I don't know - and yes I am a dinosaur in that I honestly hope that finding love doesn't come down to a computer metric and getting along via a few emails. The spark of meeting someone special in the flesh, eyes meeting across the room etc is something I hope is never replaced by a computer matching you to someone with similar interests (my wife is amazing, we have an amazing relationship and I am pretty sure no computer would ever put us together - zero interests in common, that is what keeps it interesting).
As for no data, I did write my comment with no data to back it up. I would imagine less than 10% of comments I see on HN are made with solid information to backup someones thoughts. Most people on here are smart people that can make up their own minds and provide information from the world they see around them.
Did you have any data to back your comment up? Here's a start, OKCupid claim the median number of partners for both men and women, gays and straights is 6. I've just gone out and googled for such numbers, and whilst I didn't find anything definitive, I didn't find one median or average as low as 6, in fact looking at 18-35 as another commentator points out as OKCupid being representative of, 9 would appear more likely (my guess would have been 8). So that probably supports my assumption that there is a bias to some degree - OKCupid users appear to be getting less than the average. I have no idea where OKCupid falls in the spectrum of dating sites, I have no idea how many active users there are in the world of dating websites, but I would be staggered to see statistics that extrapolate to the user base of a singles website being indicative of overall society. In 10 years time, maybe, but at this point in time I doubt it. This article is trying to claim it has real facts, all I am saying is take those facts with a grain of salt.
As for no data, I did write my comment with no data to back it up. I would imagine less than 10% of comments I see on HN are made with solid information to backup someones thoughts. Most people on here are smart people that can make up their own minds and provide information from the world they see around them.
Did you have any data to back your comment up? Here's a start, OKCupid claim the median number of partners for both men and women, gays and straights is 6. I've just gone out and googled for such numbers, and whilst I didn't find anything definitive, I didn't find one median or average as low as 6, in fact looking at 18-35 as another commentator points out as OKCupid being representative of, 9 would appear more likely (my guess would have been 8). So that probably supports my assumption that there is a bias to some degree - OKCupid users appear to be getting less than the average. I have no idea where OKCupid falls in the spectrum of dating sites, I have no idea how many active users there are in the world of dating websites, but I would be staggered to see statistics that extrapolate to the user base of a singles website being indicative of overall society. In 10 years time, maybe, but at this point in time I doubt it. This article is trying to claim it has real facts, all I am saying is take those facts with a grain of salt.
The spark of meeting someone special in the flesh, eyes meeting across the room etc is something I hope is never replaced by a computer matching you to someone with similar interests
What does one have to do with the other? They will meet in the flesh at some point, you know.
I've known my wife for 10 years since meeting on Yahoo! I still remember vividly the first time we saw each other. If it wasn't love at first sight, it was certainly love that first night.
What does one have to do with the other? They will meet in the flesh at some point, you know.
I've known my wife for 10 years since meeting on Yahoo! I still remember vividly the first time we saw each other. If it wasn't love at first sight, it was certainly love that first night.
It's a grain of salt take it how you want. Because you yourself are surrounded by networking does not mean that everyone is surrounded in the same way. It's something to consider. Much like OKCupid being a free site vs surveys from say, eHarmony.
I agree. Also it is biased towards people who own computers, have internet, and know about this site. Also biased against for people who aren't currently in a long term relationship or refuse to do online dating. I have never heard of this site and I know people who don't own computers.
Not much of a bias, though. I know people who regularly use dating sites but don't own a computer: they use the one at work. Just about anyone working in an office these days has access to a computer and browsing during breaks/lunch (at least) is considered normal.
I had this idea coming from somewhere that gay-ness is occurred by mind body mismatch (No offense guys).
"In personality traits" chart, gay men appeared to be more feminine (or less masculine) while gay women appeared to be more masculine (or less feminine). But following this line of thoughts, in the "what's bigger: the sun or earth" chart, the gay men and women seemed to have the places switched.
Just something I noticed.
"In personality traits" chart, gay men appeared to be more feminine (or less masculine) while gay women appeared to be more masculine (or less feminine). But following this line of thoughts, in the "what's bigger: the sun or earth" chart, the gay men and women seemed to have the places switched.
Just something I noticed.
Gender dysphoria is pretty thoroughly described and catalogued seperately from the hetero/homo continuum. There may very well be correlation, but the idea that one causes the other is worthless without new data.
How exactly does a really basic general knowledge kinda question have a gender assigned to it?
Straight men and straight women were in opposite ends of the chart. So I thought the sequence is more likely to be straight men, gay women, gay men, straight women. I got it wrong thinking gay women are more masculine than gay men. Actually the chart looks ok to me (in my line of thought) now.