Millionaire Matchmaker gets politically incorrect.

[GracieRuth]

First, I am no lover of Patti Stranger. I think she is a legend in her own mind. In all the time I've watched her show, I haven't seen one marriage happen. And she was nuts to stay with her own boyfriend for six years--a man who wants to marry is never going to take a year to propose.

However, Patti is now being lambasted for essentially making politically incorrect statements. Now, it may be a very stupid business move. But is she wrong?

1. She said, "You can't curb the gay male." It reminds me of a joke my friend from San Francisco told me: when two gays guys get together, the first thing they do is exchange phone books. The first thing two lesbians do is pay for a moving van. These kind of statements are based on a statistical bell shaped curve, so obviously there are going to be SOME monogamous gay guys. But does that make her generalization wrong? I don't think so.

2. She said Jewish men were liars. Sure they are. Men of all groups lie. In general. Every parent teaches their daughters to be careful because there are men who will say anything to get you into bed. Now why Patti singled out Jewish men, I have no idea. Isn't she Jewish?

3. She said men prefer women who are not brainy. Again, we are talking the bell shaped curve. If a woman has an IQ of 145 and the man has an IQ of 120, he is most likely going to feel intimidated. At least, that is how *I* have found things to be. Just because stuff is ugly doesn't mean its not true.

 

[Feelings]

Depends on interpretation of her words, and her insinuations. When she states that virtually ALL people of a certain group are a certain way, that's not only politically incorrect, it is incorrect. If she had more precise wording, like "gay males tend to be very promiscuous" that would be more correct AND more generally acceptable. Or "people lie". Or "men are easily intimidated by women who are more brainy than them".

 

[hush]

First, I am no lover of Patti Stranger. I think she is a legend in her own mind. In all the time I've watched her show, I haven't seen one marriage happen. And she was nuts to stay with her own boyfriend for six years--a man who wants to marry is never going to take a year to propose.

However, Patti is now being lambasted for essentially making politically incorrect statements. Now, it may be a very stupid business move. But is she wrong?

1. She said, "You can't curb the gay male." It reminds me of a joke my friend from San Francisco told me: when two gays guys get together, the first thing they do is exchange phone books. The first thing two lesbians do is pay for a moving van. These kind of statements are based on a statistical bell shaped curve, so obviously there are going to be SOME monogamous gay guys. But does that make her generalization wrong? I don't think so.

I think it does make her generalization wrong. I've met some non-monogamous gay males, but that didn't have anything to do with their sexuality, just who they were as people. My brother, and the vast majority of gay men I know, on the other hand, are firmly affixed to the notion of monogamy. In fact, I'd say that the heterosexual females and males I've come across stray far more, it's just that their sexuality is accepted so no one isolates them and points fingers at their relationship habits.

... Could you show me this statistical bell-shaped curve, drawn from a reputable source? Most people keep their habits to themselves, anyway, so I'm not so certain about how reliable the data would be.

2. She said Jewish men were liars. Sure they are. Men of all groups lie. In general. Every parent teaches their daughters to be careful because there are men who will say anything to get you into bed. Now why Patti singled out Jewish men, I have no idea. Isn't she Jewish?

Everyone lies, whether you have a penis, a vagina, or anything else between your legs. She kind of sounds like a bigot. As you probably know, a popular stereotype used by anti-Semites is that Jewish people are liars and greedy.

3. She said men prefer women who are not brainy. Again, we are talking the bell shaped curve. If a woman has an IQ of 145 and the man has an IQ of 120, he is most likely going to feel intimidated. At least, that is how *I* have found things to be. Just because stuff is ugly doesn't mean its not true.

I've heard other people say this before, too.

 

[hush]

Depends on interpretation of her words, and her insinuations. When she states that virtually ALL people of a certain group are a certain way, that's not only politically incorrect, it is incorrect. If she had more precise wording, like "gay males tend to be very promiscuous" that would be more correct AND more generally acceptable. Or "people lie". Or "men are easily intimidated by women who are more brainy than them".

Exactly, and by saying something like "you can't curb the gay male," then she's making a generalization about all gay males. She didn't say "you can't curb that gay male over there," or "Well, some are."

And, please. Seriously people? Sexuality has nothing to do with promiscuity, there are far too many promiscuous people from all walks of life to make such an unfounded correlation. I'd say it's more so a human/animal thing.

 

[Feelings]

You can't curb [MENTION=4598]hush[/MENTION].

I'm so politically correct.

 

[GracieRuth]

I... Could you show me this statistical bell-shaped curve, drawn from a reputable source? Most people keep their habits to themselves, anyway, so I'm not so certain about how reliable the data would be..

I'm assuming you know what the statistical bell shaped curve is, and that what you are asking for is a study showing the generalization. If I'm mistaken and you need to know what the bell shaped curve is, let me know.

Here is the first one that came up on google, on WebMD. "PROMISCUITY DIFFERS BY GENDER.'

"We don't say men and women always opt for short-term strategies," Schmitt says. "What we are talking about is that when they go for infidelity or promiscuity, men focus on large numbers and women focus on quality."

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/promiscuity-differs-by-gender

If you analyze that information, you realize that it is the presence if a woman that pushes a relationship into being monogamous. That's why we get the joke about the gay guys and the lesbian chicks: The gay guys have only the male pattern to follow, while the lesbian chicks have only the female pattern influencing their relationship. IN GENERAL.

 

[hush]

You can't curb [MENTION=4598]hush[/MENTION].

I'm so politically correct.

Don't even try. My ravenous sexual desires that lead to my wandering eyes can't possibly be squelched (or at least, that's how I interpret your use of "curb" given the context of the situation, heheh).

 

[hush]

I'm assuming you know what the statistical bell shaped curve is, and that what you are asking for is a study showing the generalization. If I'm mistaken and you need to know what the bell shaped curve is, let me know.

Here is the first one that came up on google, on WebMD. "PROMISCUITY DIFFERS BY GENDER.'
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/promiscuity-differs-by-gender

I know what a bell-shaped curve is, thanks. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have requested information on something of which I had no understanding.

I was hoping for a scholarly article from a journal, for instance where you could actually verify the credentials of the author other than "medical writer, editor, and communications consultant." Journalist, basically, trying to sell a story. Scholarly articles actually cite their sources fully within the article and at the end, don't have ads running along the sides of the page, and are written by people who are experts in the field. If, for instance, I cited this article for one of my psychology classes, it would be rejected as an unreliable source, and I would be prompted to find a better one. Google searches wouldn't be my first choice; I would attempt to find some periodical or journal entry from, say, PsycINFO. In doing so, the journal article I found would also provide all the statistics for the experiments and studies undertaken, instead of just providing "results" so that I could analyze the graphs, charts, and findings for myself.

If you analyze that information, you realize that it is the presence if a woman that pushes a relationship into being monogamous. That's why we get the joke about the gay guys and the lesbian chicks: The gay guys have only the male pattern to follow, while the lesbian chicks have only the female pattern influencing their relationship. IN GENERAL.

Perhaps, it would seem that way. I kind of think that does a disservice to the promiscuity I've seen in females, though. I'm not really interested in generalizations, at all - I'm more interested in getting to know individual people, as generalizations erase the complexity that each individual has within them.

 

[Peace]

I agree with her. I think she was trying to be funny and vent a little frustration but she is certainly entitled to her opinion. Nobody has a right not to be offended. Gay men are generally more promiscuous than other groups, especially gay men in the cities. I also know that men are often not attracted to women who are clearly smart because being smart tends to hurt their sex appeal. Men who have a lot of money often want women who they feel they can control and that means they are generally attracted to less intelligent women. As far as Jewish men lying, I imagine there is some sort of cultural thing in that, but I agree with the previous poster in that most men lie to women to get what they want.

 

[GracieRuth]

I was hoping for a scholarly article from a journal,

How about a book? "Christian Klesse is Lecturer in Cultural Studies at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. His research interests fall in the areas of sexuality, gender, race/ethnicity, social movement politics, power, social identities, body modification, research methodology, and social theory. "
http://books.google.com/books?id=_U...&q=promiscuity demographics women men&f=false

I'm not really interested in generalizations, at all - I'm more interested in getting to know individual people, as generalizations erase the complexity that each individual has within them.

Well there is the rub. There are certain advantages to noticing statistical liklihoods, and there are disadvantages. You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.

 

[Peppermint]

This is not a scientific journal, but they have a hefty sample of participants and the advantage of online anonymity, and since most of the people behind OkCupid have math and computer science degrees I think they know a thing or two about data analysis.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/gay-sex-vs-straight-sex/

 

[Sriracha]

Lookeeee: http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18912

Are men more promiscuous than women or are women more promiscuous than men?

Men are more promiscuous.

Are unmarried heterosexual men or unmarried homosexual men more promiscuous?

I'll be a little more detailed with this one since gay men are getting a bad rap in this thread.

The average number of partners for gay men is 6 and the average number for unmarried heterosexual men is 5. 87% of gay men display levels of promiscuity that are parallel to those of unmarried straight men. There is a group of approximately 13% that has significantly higher rates of promiscuity (20+ partners).

Are unmarried heterosexual women or unmarried homosexual women more promiscuous?

No significant difference. However, married lesbians are the least promiscuous group.

Do married people or unmarried people have more sex?

Married people have nearly twice as much sex as unmarried people.


Also, while researching this I found out from Wiki that the Finnish and British are the most promiscuous people.

 

[InvisibleJim]

The average number of partners for gay men is 6 and the average number for unmarried heterosexual men is 5. 87% of gay men display levels of promiscuity that are parallel to those of unmarried straight men. There is a group of approximately 13% that has significantly higher rates of promiscuity (20+ partners).

I always find these statistics amusing when I bother to think about them. Surely each one of those straight men has slept with a female partner...

My personal belief is that both either men exaggerate their partners and females pretend they don't sleep with as many people as they do

It takes two to tango after all and therefore the average number of partners per sex should be the same. This is simple mathematics.

I would deposit a simple anecdote. Whilst living in Dubai with a house of similar expats we had one gentleman who every weekend would go out to a nightclub and bring back home a new girl and sleep with her. During this time I had 3 sexual partners; most of the other gents had 1-4 sexual partners and he had about 50.

I would also deposit that a proportionately larger number of females are just 'too unattractive' to men and therefore don't get any whereas men tend to be more average with a few exceptions.

Therefore there are two groups of females, haves and have nots and 3 groups of males, a much smaller group of have nots, a very large group of haves and a small group of get zounds of ladies.

Sociality is complex.

Post Edit: @Peppermint got it in one

Median Reported Sex Partners

• straight men: 6
• gay men: 6
• straight women: 6
• gay women: 6
• 

What I did find amusing was this poll:

Q) What is bigger, the earth or the sun?

Roiiiggghttt.

 

[DevilDoll]

And she was nuts to stay with her own boyfriend for six years--a man who wants to marry is never going to take a year to propose.

I know his is off topic, but do you really believe that? Are you going to date someone for a year and the expect a ring? I think that might be a little hasty for some people. At this point in my life I don't know if I will ever marry, but I certainly wouldn't want someone I had only been with for a year to propose to me. That's far too quick. I think everyone works at a different pace. Personally, I'd be happy being with my partner for the rest of my life and never marrying him. So, what's wrong with her staying with someone for 6 years without a wedding? Can't you just love someone and be with them?

Like I said, off topic, but still...

 

[barbad0s]

I don't think she's meant to be taken seriously.

Once you start acting and wearing makeup like Ronald Mcdonald on national television, you probably know where you stand in this world. She knows that the more politically incorrect stuff she says, the more attention she's going to get. Negative or positive, it equals to profit for her.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I don't think she's meant to be taken seriously.

Once you start acting and wearing makeup like Ronald Mcdonald on national television, you probably know where you stand in this world. She knows that the more politically incorrect stuff she says, the more attention she's going to get. Negative or positive, it equals to profit for her.

We need to bailout Patti Stranger.

 

[hush]

How about a book? "Christian Klesse is Lecturer in Cultural Studies at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. His research interests fall in the areas of sexuality, gender, race/ethnicity, social movement politics, power, social identities, body modification, research methodology, and social theory. "
http://books.google.com/books?id=_U...&q=promiscuity demographics women men&f=false


Well there is the rub. There are certain advantages to noticing statistical liklihoods, and there are disadvantages. You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.

Meh, just because a book is published doesn't mean it has worthwhile content. These days, the main goal of books is to sell, to sensationalize. When they're edited, it's not necessarily, or sometimes at all, to judge the content of their character, it's to edit for grammar and all that. The merit of scholarly articles is that they have to undergo intense peer-review and scrutiny and to have substantial findings, and usually to incorporate properly and well-conducted experimental, correlational (etc.) studies.

Books have the capacity of doing that as well, it's just that it can still be difficult to ascertain the validity of their claims if they fail to support them, and if the worth of the author's opinions/intelligence/wisdom can't be verified. Or maybe that's just because I'm too entrenched in skepticism.

Also, kudos to [MENTION=751]Peppermint[/MENTION]'s post. Like I said, it's a human thing, lol. As the consensus in that link was

Gay people aren't promiscuous.

Another common myth about gay people is that they sleep around, but the statistical reality is that gay people as a group aren't any more slutty than straights.

Good point from [MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION], too - for whatever reason, men do tend to over-report their sexual escapades, and ladies to minimize them - though that could be because in our society, if a woman sleeps around she's called "slut/whore" and if a guy does the response is "lol, dude's such a player. High five, man!" Ah, societal expectations of gender roles.

 

[GracieRuth]

I know his is off topic, but do you really believe that? Are you going to date someone for a year and the expect a ring?

Since my goal is to marry, I only date men who are looking to marry. What would we know about each other in six years that we wouldn't already know in a year?

I'd actually prefer a shidduch. This is where your family, religious community, and/or matchmaker have your "list" of what you are looking for in a spouse, and they only set you up with someone who meets your criteria. So, I'd know before I even met him that he was emotionally balanced, has a stable career, wants a Jewish home, is done having kids, etc. The ONLY thing that *I* need to worry about is whether we have chemistry. The unofficial "rules" of a shidduch is that you will know by the third date whether there is sexual attraction. If not, you stop seeing each other immediately, so as to not waste each others time. If you ARE attracted to each other, then you enter into an engagement that only lasts long enough to plan the wedding. Now that may or may not be YOUR bag of tricks; it is VERY attractive to me. Couples in shidduch marraiges have a divorce rate down in the single digits, and are very happy.

 

[AzulSoul]

If a woman has an IQ of 145 and the man has an IQ of 120, he is most likely going to feel intimidated. At least, that is how *I* have found things to be. Just because stuff is ugly doesn't mean its not true.

I can understand you sentiment, but, my dear, IQ is a load croc. I say this as a fully qualified psychologist. The most accurate assessment of intelligence we have is the multiple intelligences test, but even that is pathetically inaccurate. Hell, we don't even agree on how to define intelligence. You can find people of IQ 170 that are lack common sense and basic life skills. In other words, they would die in the tribal society that our brains are adjusted for.....

 

[GracieRuth]

Oh, I know all about the short comings of basic IQ test and all about multiple intelligence tests and all the rest. I just find it fascinating, so I keep up with the latest news. But if I were to try to encorporate ALLLLLLL of that into a sound bite? I can't. So I chose a short cut to make my point. See the forest without picking at the trees. So which degree do you have? PhD or PsyD? The PsyD came out around my first year of college, and I considered it. In the end, I was too wrapped up in my music.