You are Here: Home

# Sex Poll for the Females of TSR Watch

• View Poll Results: How many men have you slept with per year from 16yo onwards?
I am a female virgin.
26
45.61%
0.0000000001-0.5
15
26.32%
0.5-1.0
7
12.28%
1.0-1.5
5
8.77%
1.5-2.0
1
1.75%
2.0-2.5
0
0%
2.5-3.0
0
0%
3.0-3.5
0
0%
3.5-4.0
0
0%
4.0-4.5
1
1.75%
4.5-5.0
0
0%
5.0-5.5
0
0%
5.5-6.0
0
0%
6.0-6.5
0
0%
6.5-7.0
0
0%
7.0+
2
3.51%

1. Here's the information required:

(number of men you have had full sexual intercourse with) / (Your Current Age - 16)

So if you are 24 and have slept with 9 men that's 9/(24-16) = 9/8 = 1.125

The number will represent the amount of men you have had sex with per year starting from the date at which you were legally allowed to have sex.

This is not a contest.

Be honest.

Choose the lower valued option if your result can be entered in two of the options (eg 5.5 can go in 5.0-5.5 or 5.5-6.0, but please choose 5.0-5.5 in this case)

If you're young and are getting a large value then it isn't a problem, this formula just doesn't work very well for people just over 16 (and doesn't work at all for people <= 16yo). For example if you've slept with one person and are 16.1 then you'll get 10 which is dumb, but I can't really be bothered to fix it atm.
2. Virgin.

Virgin in EVERYTHING to do with boys.
3. Yea I can imagine people not being honest
4. (Original post by The_Last_Melon)
Here's the information required:

(number of men you have had full sexual intercourse with) / (Your Current Age - 16)

So if you are 24 and have slept with 9 men that's 9/(24-16) = 9/8 = 1.125

The number will represent the amount of men you have had sex with per year starting from the date at which you were legally allowed to have sex.

This is not a contest.

Be honest.

Choose the lower one if you're in between ranges.

If you're 16+ take it to some decimal places so we don't divide by zero.
What a stupid system. You should have just asked people how many they've had sex with instead of this circumlocutory maths crap.
5. (Original post by Birkenhead)
What a stupid system. You should have just asked people how many they've had sex with instead of this circumlocutory maths crap.
I can understand why someone might consider the number of distinct sexual partners per year a more interesting statistic than the overall number of sexual partners, but why they couldn't have just asked for that without all the waffle is absolutely beyond me.
6. The closest I have ever been to a boy is when one gave me a hug by surprise. I worship my personal space bro :P I also have ASD so any physical contact is not my thing haha
7. So confusing...but I got 0.3. My real answer is 1 though, I've not had sex with a third of a man.
8. (Original post by DJMayes)
I can understand why someone might consider the number of distinct sexual partners per year a more interesting statistic than the overall number of sexual partners, but why they couldn't have just asked for that without all the waffle is absolutely beyond me.
Asking how many individuals had had per year would have been even worse. Think of all the possibilities that would have to have been put up: 16-17, 1; 17-18, 2 etc. etc. The only sensible poll really is asking how many overall partners, which has already been done a thousand times. I think this is just an attempt to make the idea fresh using obscure mathematical technique.
9. (Original post by Birkenhead)
Asking how many individuals had had per year would have been even worse. Think of all the possibilities that would have to have been put up: 16-17, 1; 17-18, 2 etc. etc. The only sensible poll really is asking how many overall partners, which has already been done a thousand times. I think this is just an attempt to make the idea fresh using obscure mathematical technique.
If this is obscure you need to go back to school.
10. (Original post by The_Last_Melon)
If this is obscure you need to go back to school.
It's obscure in the sense that it is complexifying the simple unnecessarily. If you think that simple = stupid and complicated = clever, it's probably you that needs to 'go back to school'. Intelligence is very often representing complex ideas in simple and understandable language. This poll takes something fairly simple and makes it more complicated.
11. (Original post by Birkenhead)
It's obscure in the sense that it is complexifying the simple unnecessarily. If you think that simple = stupid and complicated = clever, it's probably you that needs to 'go back to school'. Intelligence is very often representing complex ideas in simple and understandable language. This poll takes something fairly simple and makes it more complicated.
That's a rather complexifying choice of word there matey.
12. (Original post by The_Last_Melon)
That's a rather complexifying choice of word there matey.
Now you really need to go back to school if you think that's a complex word !
13. (Original post by Birkenhead)
Now you really need to go back to school if you think that's a complex word !
14. (Original post by Birkenhead)
It's obscure in the sense that it is complexifying the simple unnecessarily. If you think that simple = stupid and complicated = clever, it's probably you that needs to 'go back to school'. Intelligence is very often representing complex ideas in simple and understandable language. This poll takes something fairly simple and makes it more complicated.
No, this poll is asking for a statistic that is perhaps more valid to draw conclusions from. Comparing the number of sexual partners two separate people have had is useless if one is 20 and the other is 50. However, the average number per year is a statistic that you can compare between them and is perhaps more useful for whatever the OP wants it for. It's not a case of making something more complicated for the sake of it, it's a case of the OP wanting a statistic which is more broadly comparable between different age groups and therefore more useful, even if I do agree that the thread is worded poorly. Besides, this is only a mean. It's not as if the OP is asking people to perform a chi-squared test to see whether the number of sexual partners they've had per year can be modelled by a Poisson Distribution and so I do not see where the complaint that this is complicated possibly has any grounding.
15. I have tried to improve the wording.
16. (Original post by DJMayes)
No, this poll is asking for a statistic that is perhaps more valid to draw conclusions from. Comparing the number of sexual partners two separate people have had is useless if one is 20 and the other is 50. However, the average number per year is a statistic that you can compare between them and is perhaps more useful for whatever the OP wants it for. It's not a case of making something more complicated for the sake of it, it's a case of the OP wanting a statistic which is more broadly comparable between different age groups and therefore more useful, even if I do agree that the thread is worded poorly.
How is it more valid? 'More broadly comparable between different age groups'? Nonsense. We have no idea how old people are in this. Look at the question. This question simply raises more questions. The results are ambiguous. 2 per year could mean that a 16 year old had had two partners but it could also mean a 25 year old had had 18. You also have no idea how these partners are spaced. The latter example could have had two per year since they were 16; alternatively, they could have had 9 per year from age 24 including 25. It asks the same question in a complex way but only delivers ambiguous, open-ended results, so I fail to see how it's 'more valid' than asking how many sexual partners different ages have had.

Besides, this is only a mean. It's not as if the OP is asking people to perform a chi-squared test to see whether the number of sexual partners they've had per year can be modelled by a Poisson Distribution and so I do not see where the complaint that this is complicated possibly has any grounding.
Not in itself, as I've said, but it is complicated relative to how it could be phrased to get equally, more, even, useful results. It is complicated in the sense that it is complicating what is simple.
17. (Original post by Birkenhead)
How is it more valid? 'More broadly comparable between different age groups'? Nonsense. We have no idea how old people are in this. Look at the question. This question simply raises more questions. The results are ambiguous. 2 per year could mean that a 16 year old had had two partners but it could also mean a 25 year old had had 18. You also have no idea how these partners are spaced. The latter example could have had two per year since they were 16; alternatively, they could have had 9 per year from age 24 including 25. It asks the same question in a complex way but only delivers ambiguous, open-ended results, so I fail to see how it's 'more valid' than asking how many sexual partners different ages have had.

Not in itself, as I've said, but it is complicated relative to how it could be phrased to get equally, more, even, useful results. It is complicated in the sense that it is complicating what is simple.
But the whole point is that if someone is interested in the relative level of sexual activity between different people then the total amount is not the most useful information - the average amount is a more meaningful statistic. You could have 2 people, aged 22 and aged 72, who both give the same total number, but that number will mean vastly different things for the 22 year old than the 72 year old. 2 per year means pretty much the same thing for both unless you want to get particularly technical about things such as natural variations between age groups in the amount they should be getting etc.

I will agree that a better way of asking the question would be something along the lines of "On average, how many distinct sexual partners have you had per year?" rather than everything the OP has put. However, an average in itself is a useful statistic and doesn't overcomplicate anything.
18. (Original post by Birkenhead)
Yes, but when the overall number is given next to one's age viewers can factor in for themselves the difference between a 22 year old and a 72 year old having the same number. This can't be done here where the age of participant's remains unknown, making them effectively meaningless for shedding light on several questions.

What's the use of an average? They raise more questions than they answer and answer what is also answered by just asking how many partners one has had for one's age. 2 per year for a 20 year old - is that 2 actually per year since 16 or 6 partners between 19 and 20? They answer different questions, I suppose.
An average can give you an estimate for the expected number, for one. I understand what you're saying about the full set of data perhaps telling you more, but if the OP wants to compare different people of different ages then their average per year is the best thing for him to do. However, I can see that we have differing opinions on this so I shall respectfully agree to disagree.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: May 18, 2013
Today on TSR

### Falling in love with him

But we haven't even met!

### Top study tips for over the Christmas holidays

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.