Russell Kirkpatrick's Journal
According to a recent survey, New Zealand women have an average of 20.4 sexual partners – the highest in the world.
This may come as a surprise to Kiwi men, who apparently have only 16.8 partners, well short of Austrian men. (That’s Austrian, not Australian.)
The Durex Sexual Wellbeing Global Survey involved questioning 26,000 people in 26 countries.
Right, class, spot the problems with this survey. Think carefully …
I would guess that some New Zealand women are trying to encourage tourism.
There is no theoretical problem if you consider same sex interactions to be part of the numbers. However I suspect that there is a deeper problem with the methodology.
What interested me about the report was the sentence "New Zealand was also unusual for being the only country where women have more sexual partners than their men." Given the relatively high number of women in positions of political/judicial/administrative power in this country, I wonder if there is a correlation to be explored there.
What worries me Russell was what website were you on to find this statistic.
...and buggar the poms bet the french!!!
Given that Durex conducted the survey, the surveyed must have had some contact with Durex which inherently implies that they use their products. Could skew the results a little.
Also, that averages of 1000 people surveyed in each country seems dodgy in and of itself.
Well done, Tsana. Durex clearly had self-interest in uncovering high sexual activity, and one wonders how people identified 'sexual partners'. It is likely that people volunteered for the survey, and so are likely not to represent 'average' activity. There is also a notorious self-aggrandisement involved in such surveys. I doubt the sample was representative.
I wonder, Ross, how careful Durex were to involve same-sex couples in the survey. Linda, this was on Stuff.co.nz, and probably on most major news sites.
When it comes to sex, people lie...they just can't help themselves! Over-estimate, under-estimate, even subconsciously, people say what they think will put them in the best light. It's the same when it comes to those surveys, beloved of current affairs programmes, that ask teenagers about sex and drugs...don't believe a word they say.
There have been so many poorly reported surveys lately. The media sensationalise and simply fail in their public duty to ask questions of those presenting survey results.
The 2007 Food and Nutrition Monitoring Report found that people spend more on sugary snacks per week than on fruit. Of course, the fact that sweets are ten times more expensive per kilo escaped their notice. You can imagine the sensationalist headline blaming parents for kids' sweeties addictions. Yet children may have consumed much more fruit than sugary snacks - we can't tell from the report.
Then there's the proven link between circumcision and a lowered likelihood of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease - this corker from the Christchurch School of Medicine last year. Any chance that the religious rationale often underpinning circumcision might have contributed to the finding? We don't know - the media never asked.
Cardiff University found that marijuana users had a 41 per cent greater chance of developing schizophrenia later in life - which was reported around the world - but the media did not ask whether those who later go on to develop such symptoms might be predisposed to use marijuana.
I lecture third year students on Research Methods in Human Geography. They are expected to organise and conduct their own research project. I expect them to meet higher standards than these.
And sorry Ross, I didn't mean to sound dismissive of your comments. You're right; the methodology is undoubtedly suspect. While we assume they've taken a thousand-strong sample from each country, we have no way of knowing that. For all we know, the NZ sample could have fifty or a hundred in size.
A correlation between promiscuous women (as stuff.co.nz called them) and women in political power? You reckon this is Helen's fault? Or some interesting third factor involved?
While I'm sure your Prime Minister is an excellent leader, honest and hardworking...if *anybody* is thinking of her during sex, they have serious problems (except, obviously, her husband, duh!).
PS. (written in extremely small letters) we won the rugby league, yay!!
When I saw this article on news.com.au I thought of you. I nearly sent it to you. Now I find that you have pounced on it. Laughs heartily.
the real question is not; what were the NZ men drinking to cause them to forget the missing 3.6 sexual partners? No, the real questions raised by this survey is the sheer amount of sexual activities by part humans, and who admits to havin a part percentile partner - and what parts were required?
Thanks, Jo, for reminding us all of the rugby league. Clearly, though, the Kiwis won the national anthem.
I once met someone who took part in a very famous study about schoolboys and smoking in the UK a long time ago. This man told me that they had kids in his school fill in a questionnaire about their smoking habits - or lack of them - and the boys, being boys, had great fun making up outrageous answers about how much they smoked and how they pinched money to buy cigs, or shoplifted them, etc etc. Every time he saw that study quoted in all seriousness, he rolled his eyes...
AP4bl5 <a href="http://lzcehwdtxqad.com/">lzcehwdtxqad</a>, [url=http://qswcphlchzvg.com/]qswcphlchzvg[/url], [link=http://ffowftiyiswp.com/]ffowftiyiswp[/link], http://rbrcqcykctrt.com/