Earlier, @inceleration44 found this article:
https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal...he_Distribution_of_Sex_Partners_in_the.5.aspx
Table 2:
The article proves hypergamy is worsening, because the median number of sexual partners for men is same, but guys at top are getting more, which means guys at bottom are losing out.
__________________________________________
But it also shows a big difference between sexual success by race. Also look at the number of sexual partners in the last year
Table 4:
From tables 2 and 4, you see that blacks get more sexual partners than men of other races, and this is the same across racial success levels (meaning top 5% black > top 5% others, normie black > normie others) The exception is for the median number of sexual partners in the last year, but that's just because the number is so small (1) that you can't see a difference.
You also see that "other" does quite badly. Top 5% "other" has FEWER lays (both last year and total) than top 20% blacks, and top 20% "other" is only equal to the black median (2011-2013) in lays (both last year and total)
________________________________________
Skip to bottom if you don't care about exact numbers
There must be typos in table 2. Top 20% whites getting 123 partners is obviously wrong, as it falls outside of the confidence interval, and average wouldn't work out mathematically.
But more importantly: The slay count for the top 5% of blacks must be way higher than 50. I calculated 100
Firstly, it can't mathematically be an average of 50 if Tyrone gets 50 lays. (My own calculation puts the number at ~100, where whites are 65% of the population, Hispanics 16%, blacks 13% and "other" 6%)
Secondly, the confidence interval for top 5% of blacks is the same as the confidence interval for the average. This makes no sense since the sample size for blacks is much smaller than men in general. The range of the CI should be much larger, suggesting that the authors accidentally and wrongly put the average values as the value for top black men.
Thirdly, the table 2 black men data acts completely differently from the data of the other men. The top 5% for other races gets about triple the lay count as the top 20%. If we do the same calculation for the top black men (3 x 30), you get about 90, which is much closer to my calculated 100 than their published 50. Same if you compare the past-year lay count (table 4) to the total lay count (table 2). The ratio is about 1 to 15. If we used that number to find Tyrone's total lay count, we get 90 (6 x 15) which is again much closer to my calculated value than the published one.
_________________________________________
TLDR: Tyrone >> Chad > Juan > Tyronelite > Chang > Chadlite > Juanlite > black-normie = Changlite > white-normie > hispanic-normie >> "other"-normie
If you're a blackcel, it's not because of your race -- being white wouldn't save you. You would outslay white-normie if you were just normie-tier black.
YOU BLACKCELS ARE INCELS BECAUSE YOU ARE UGLY.
And "other" (ie, ethnics) are screwed as usual.
https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal...he_Distribution_of_Sex_Partners_in_the.5.aspx
Table 2:
The article proves hypergamy is worsening, because the median number of sexual partners for men is same, but guys at top are getting more, which means guys at bottom are losing out.
__________________________________________
But it also shows a big difference between sexual success by race. Also look at the number of sexual partners in the last year
Table 4:
From tables 2 and 4, you see that blacks get more sexual partners than men of other races, and this is the same across racial success levels (meaning top 5% black > top 5% others, normie black > normie others) The exception is for the median number of sexual partners in the last year, but that's just because the number is so small (1) that you can't see a difference.
You also see that "other" does quite badly. Top 5% "other" has FEWER lays (both last year and total) than top 20% blacks, and top 20% "other" is only equal to the black median (2011-2013) in lays (both last year and total)
________________________________________
Skip to bottom if you don't care about exact numbers
There must be typos in table 2. Top 20% whites getting 123 partners is obviously wrong, as it falls outside of the confidence interval, and average wouldn't work out mathematically.
But more importantly: The slay count for the top 5% of blacks must be way higher than 50. I calculated 100
Firstly, it can't mathematically be an average of 50 if Tyrone gets 50 lays. (My own calculation puts the number at ~100, where whites are 65% of the population, Hispanics 16%, blacks 13% and "other" 6%)
Secondly, the confidence interval for top 5% of blacks is the same as the confidence interval for the average. This makes no sense since the sample size for blacks is much smaller than men in general. The range of the CI should be much larger, suggesting that the authors accidentally and wrongly put the average values as the value for top black men.
Thirdly, the table 2 black men data acts completely differently from the data of the other men. The top 5% for other races gets about triple the lay count as the top 20%. If we do the same calculation for the top black men (3 x 30), you get about 90, which is much closer to my calculated 100 than their published 50. Same if you compare the past-year lay count (table 4) to the total lay count (table 2). The ratio is about 1 to 15. If we used that number to find Tyrone's total lay count, we get 90 (6 x 15) which is again much closer to my calculated value than the published one.
_________________________________________
TLDR: Tyrone >> Chad > Juan > Tyronelite > Chang > Chadlite > Juanlite > black-normie = Changlite > white-normie > hispanic-normie >> "other"-normie
If you're a blackcel, it's not because of your race -- being white wouldn't save you. You would outslay white-normie if you were just normie-tier black.
YOU BLACKCELS ARE INCELS BECAUSE YOU ARE UGLY.
And "other" (ie, ethnics) are screwed as usual.
Last edited:
