6 ms·

couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month Could someone check the paper and see what was really meant here? I'm guessing people aren't having negative sex.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tedsanders 13y ago
This is a common error. Usually authors mean that y = x/1.5 rather than y = x - 1.5*x. I think it comes from taking the phrase "1.5 times more" and replacing more with less to reverse its meaning.
- Fishkins 13y ago
  I assumed "times" meant "instances", not multiplication, ie y = x - 1.5
  - drivers99 13y ago
    Yeah it said "fewer times" (subtract 1.5 from that actual count), not "times fewer" (-1.5 x).
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  I cannot tell if your parent post is an arithmetic question or a sex joke...
sanj 13y ago
You might be overthinking this. MachoMan and GirlyWoman had sex 28 times per month EgalitarianMan and EqualityWoman had sex 26.5 times per month. (numbers and names made up.)
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  And if x < 1.5, it was a subtle joke.
- smallerize 13y ago
  Oh, right!
- hedgew 13y ago
  This is wrong. According to the original study, the gender stereotype couple would be having sex 39 times a month if the equal couple has sex 26 times. This is for couples at opposite ends of the spectrum.
CyrusL 13y ago
I read it as y = x - 1.5 The "times" means countable units of sex rather than multiplication.
hedgew 13y ago
Yes. If you read the paper you will find out that not only do such couples have more than 1.5 times more sex, the women are more sexually satisfied. Husband’s share of core housework is very heavily negatively correlated (p < .001) with wives' sexual satisfaction.
bentcorner 13y ago
From the graph on page 40 of the original report, it appears that the couples where men did little of the "core work" (core work being indoor chores like cleaning, cooking, etc.) had sex almost 5 times a month. Couples where men did nearly all of the core work had sex slightly over 3 times a month. So the article really does mean [amount of sex] - 1.5
- japaget 13y ago
  Not necessarily. "Almost 5" could be 4.8 and "slightly over 3" could be 3.2, and 4.8 = 3.2 * 1.5.
  - cynwoody 13y ago
    That ratio is just an interesting coincidence. From page 38 of the report† (page 13 of the PDF), it's plain they are asserting a reduction in frequency from 4.8 times per month to 3.2 times (a delta of 1.6, not 1.5, as in the article): To illustrate the substantive size of these effects, Figure 1 shows predicted values for sexual frequency, varying the share of house- hold labor performed by men while setting all other variables to their means. As the figure shows, shifting from a household in which women perform all of the core household tasks to one where women perform none of the core household tasks is associated with a decline in sexual frequency of nearly 1.6 times per month. Given a mean sexual fre- quency in this sample of slightly over five, this is a large difference. The figure repre- sents two extreme values, but even house- holds in which men do 40 percent of core household task hours report substantially lower sexual frequency than households in which women perform all core housework. †http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tedsanders 13y ago

This is a common error. Usually authors mean that y = x/1.5 rather than y = x - 1.5*x. I think it comes from taking the phrase "1.5 times more" and replacing more with less to reverse its meaning.

Fishkins 13y ago
I assumed "times" meant "instances", not multiplication, ie y = x - 1.5
- drivers99 13y ago
  Yeah it said "fewer times" (subtract 1.5 from that actual count), not "times fewer" (-1.5 x).
BlackDeath3 13y ago
I cannot tell if your parent post is an arithmetic question or a sex joke...

sanj 13y ago

You might be overthinking this. MachoMan and GirlyWoman had sex 28 times per month EgalitarianMan and EqualityWoman had sex 26.5 times per month. (numbers and names made up.)

BlackDeath3 13y ago
And if x < 1.5, it was a subtle joke.
smallerize 13y ago
Oh, right!
hedgew 13y ago
This is wrong. According to the original study, the gender stereotype couple would be having sex 39 times a month if the equal couple has sex 26 times. This is for couples at opposite ends of the spectrum.

CyrusL 13y ago

I read it as y = x - 1.5 The "times" means countable units of sex rather than multiplication.

hedgew 13y ago

Yes. If you read the paper you will find out that not only do such couples have more than 1.5 times more sex, the women are more sexually satisfied. Husband’s share of core housework is very heavily negatively correlated (p < .001) with wives' sexual satisfaction.

bentcorner 13y ago

From the graph on page 40 of the original report, it appears that the couples where men did little of the "core work" (core work being indoor chores like cleaning, cooking, etc.) had sex almost 5 times a month. Couples where men did nearly all of the core work had sex slightly over 3 times a month. So the article really does mean [amount of sex] - 1.5

japaget 13y ago
Not necessarily. "Almost 5" could be 4.8 and "slightly over 3" could be 3.2, and 4.8 = 3.2 * 1.5.
- cynwoody 13y ago
  That ratio is just an interesting coincidence. From page 38 of the report† (page 13 of the PDF), it's plain they are asserting a reduction in frequency from 4.8 times per month to 3.2 times (a delta of 1.6, not 1.5, as in the article): To illustrate the substantive size of these effects, Figure 1 shows predicted values for sexual frequency, varying the share of house- hold labor performed by men while setting all other variables to their means. As the figure shows, shifting from a household in which women perform all of the core household tasks to one where women perform none of the core household tasks is associated with a decline in sexual frequency of nearly 1.6 times per month. Given a mean sexual fre- quency in this sample of slightly over five, this is a large difference. The figure repre- sents two extreme values, but even house- holds in which men do 40 percent of core household task hours report substantially lower sexual frequency than households in which women perform all core housework. †http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf