>>27221008
[Missing source]

Double the women's numbers and it's semi-accurate

this is meaningless without information about the spread of the distribution

How is it mathematically possible for the numbers to not be equal?

>>27221941
Guys having sex with each other

>>27221941
Gay men ofc

>>27221978
>>27221984
It says opposite sex partners in the title.

>>27221941
10% of the guys fucking 90% of the women.

>>27222018
>>27221941
It's not, people lied

>>27221941

Making reasonable assumptions about what the picture says, we can suppose that the same entity (natsal) performed three separate surveys at three separate time periods, in an attempt to gauge changes in sexual activity in adults, and heterosexual practices. Simple partner counts as reported by men and women. Obviously, a study on this topic worth its salt would account for the fact that people lie about this stuff, or at least indicated how the data were collected. Self-reporting is really the only feasible way to gather data thus far though, I believe.

Now, since we have a two-dimensional array of data, your question can be interpreted in two different ways. I suppose that you mean that the male-female numbers seem to you like they should be the same in a given time interval, but we can also ask the question of why the numbers change over time. Time is easy to account for in that two different samples may have a lower or higher mean partner count as a function of many variables: time, social mores, economic opportunity, beauty, etc. And we must not be asking the same samples of people again and again, or else like I supposed, the men are (counter-intuitively) lying as their partner count went down in the latter interval. This does not physically happen in individual life courses; sexual experience is a monotonically increasing thing. Or, maybe a person no longer "counts" an ungratifying sexual experience, years later.

cont.

>>27222193
Nah its hygergamy.

You see the same shit in 'polyamory' samples.

Less men, more women.

>>27222235

But your central question is about men vs. women, and as I keep saying: people lie. Men will tend to inflate, and women to diminish, their partner counts in accordance with prevaling social mores and sexual scripts. But /there is a physical way/ for the opposite-sex partner counts to be unequal: group sex (less likely), or the unequal sexual mapping that /r9k/ is so, so familar with. If two women have a three way with a guy (or equivalently in this case, Chad bangs two women back-to-back), each woman gains one net opposite-sex partner (the third woman is mutually excluded), and their average as a sample of two is each one (more) guy from the encounter, again each woman mutually ignoring the other (third) woman in the case of a three-way. Meanwhile, Chad has added two notches to his belt, and the Chad stands alone, so he's (averaging) 2 to the two women's 1. The math would work the same way if the sex roles were reversed, (sluttly women taking furlongs of dick in a brief interval) but this is the less common situation in human culture, due to what Roissy calls: "the fundamental premise": eggs are scarce, and dick (sperm) is plentiful and expendable.

Also, it is possible that the sample is not including many robots. Even beta herbs (lesser normies) manage to bang a few women over the course of their lives.

In short, the inequality of partner count across either sex can readily and mathematically be explained/hypothesized/modeled by a combination of lying, the relative rarity of robots (comprising significantly less than five percent of the population, for discussion) who would bring the average down with truthful reporting, and the (proportional) lesser need for Chad to inflate his partner count. I would imagine that samples included Chads who were perfectly honest about a (modest by /r9k's/ hyperbolic standards, but quite feasible I Actual RL) lifetime partner count of, say, 20, or 25.

>>27222501

The final M/F comparison is especially interesting. It suggests both increased, consequence-free sluttiness of women (holding onto the notion that women will always consistently UNDERESTIMATE their partner count, to another anon's hyperbolic point), the effects of the recession on men, AND the separation of the numbers suggests a "+/- two partner" estimation variance that each sex feels obliged to report/fudge/lie.

It also suggests something about modern western social scripts about partner count and lifetime fulfillment. And now let me make an unscientific statement, a hypothesis. Let's suppose women have access to 6'0" guys with money, a car, education, decent jobs, etc. Maybe one is fat here and there, but made her laugh, or the one was a jerk (and she either kept him, or pined for him for the rest of her life). I would hazard to say that, /as influenced by modern sexual scripts/, if women could have 4-6 such "quality" mates in a life course, trying out different dick, that they would rate themselves as satisfied with their lifetime sex lives. Likewise, if men could bang 10-15 7+ women before they get hagged out and bagged out (or maybe a nice cougar who can actually cook later in life post-divorce or something), that men would likewise report basic satisfaction with their lifetime sex lives.

(one more post)

Obviously, there is data (indeed, nature itself) about women getting divorced as partner count rises, which directly contradicts this hypothesis. This is where you have to actually read what I just wrote, which /r9k/ has a very hard time with on this subject: I was factoring in (degenerate) /modern sexual scripts/ in the above. The TV tells women that they're supposed to take like 10 dicks, or something, and so this influences her unnaturally to an extent. The same is even true of men, albeit in the other direction.

I would imagine that many people have had one or two non-gratifying sexual experiences or one-offs, that did not result in orgasm or another go-around, and so women particularly would privately choose to write one or two of these off, preferring not to think about, or just forget about them, while "honestly" reporting lifetime partner count, while men for the purposes of a simple survey would usually count every last thing as a partner.