3 ms·

I'm not assuming anything, I'm concluding what I must based on the evidence. You have some countervening evidence, then we change the conclusion. Otherwise, Occ

I'm not assuming anything, I'm concluding what I must based on the evidence. You have some countervening evidence, then we change the conclusion. Otherwise, Occam's razor. Just because it could be more complicated doesn't mean we should believe it is without evidence. A metastudy above concludes the same thing using unrelated data anyway [1]. Men masturbate much more than women and the effect size is greater than most all other psychological differences. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182831 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182831

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> I'm not assuming anything, I'm concluding what I must based on the evidence. I believe you have seen in that data a conclusion you are already predisposed to, and a more objective look will tall you that it the amount a market prices something doesn't actually tell you much about why. I am not doubting that it is evidence men are more willing to pay for sex, I am doubting your originally stated conclusion: > The demand for having sex with women is astronomically higher than the demand for having sex with men. Which would only follow from the data in a vacuum. Much the same way I could conclude that voters want corrupt politicians based on the fact that they vote for them. > Men masturbate much more than women If sex and masturbation were equivalent then we wouldn't be having this conversation.