Not having sex causes STDs

[Dooey Jo]

Just to dash apart that retarded scarcity theory, here's some actual statistics.

According to Census 2000, 281.4 million people were counted in the United States — 143.4 million of whom were female and 138.1 million male.1 The former made up 50.9 percent of the population, compared with 51.3 percent in 1990.

Females are rarer? I think not.

NationalAtlas.

It could be that they are rarer in places where most people pick other people up, though, such as clubs and bars. I'll just note that they tended to outnumber the men quite a bit at the places I've visited (but I don't know how it is in the US)... Of course, I haven't seen any statistics about where most people hook up, and the national average might be very much applicable.

[TheKwas]

I missed all the above posts, so I'll address them now.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this model. That distribution has nothing to do with sex. Are you seriously this retarded? This model is applicable to cases where people have sex without condoms, or where people can potentially spread STDs through sex even with the use of condoms. Needle sharing is completely irrelevent.

If the model has limited to no practical applications outside of its very narrow scenario, then the model is effectively worthless for preventing the spread of STDs on any type of large scale. This should be obvious.
.

Yes, it is obvious. I've admitted that. There's no real way to get the Martins to fuck. It's a bloody brain exercise.

It's called a biological imperative dumbass. Humans want to have sex, and the biological drive to do so is a powerful one, it has absolutely squat to do with availability. But I'll take your refusal to provide actual evidence as a concession on this claim.

...Just to dash apart that retarded scarcity theory, here's some actual statistics

Yes, and Males are alot more willing to have sex than girls are. There's a scarcity of sexually willing girls, not of girls in general. The issue in question is BOOTY, not females. That is obvious to, seemingly, everyone but you. A pretty girl can get any guy to fuck her at her wish, a handsome guy still has to compete and work for his girls. In just about every mammal society, males compete for females. Why on earth would they be competing if there wasn't a scarcity of some sort? If there's enough for everyone, no one fights. Reading comprehension, or just plain comprehension, is not your strong point.

But how do you know that this is at all applicable to reality? You can't just factor out human variables here. Those Martins that don't fuck a lot tend to have certain characteristics, and it's quite possible the type of woman that would have sex with such a person would not want to have sex with a Pete type of guy. Thus, the total amount of unprotected sexual encounters could well increase, and the infections with it (since the amount of fucking Maxwells get is unaffected by how much sex uninteresting women have. I supposed you'd say that it is an unrelated resource). It's never a simple "either or" situation.

A good point. There will certainty be divergence in the sort of females each person is interested in, but there will also be a pretty big overlap. The most successful players are those that can hide their assholeness. This overlap, however slight or large (I'm banking on large) will make this model valid, just to a different degree. To some degree, Martins and Maxwell's will compete with each other, and sometimes Martins will win. That is all the model needs.

If so, you are forgetting that it isn't all about life expectancy. They don't just die young, they suffer a lot, and they drain medical resources in doing so, and if the average life expectancy is reduced by two years, that's a lot of suffering. And even if it is mostly children that drags the number down, dying children cause massive suffering to their grieving families. If "lots of sex" is somehow economically good, then surely "lots of suffering" must be bad.

I think few people die without suffering, but point taken. This would distort my 'individual-to-society' tool's predictions, without doubt, but I never meant it to be an absolute tool. At any rate, you have to admit that a balance can be found, it in atleast hypothetical conditions, it is possible for the epidemic to be larger, but social utility to be greater.

[Sturmfalke]

It is this quote that got Dooey offended, and I tried to illustrate his error through a little trick using a model (which failed because he didn't really play along). But the model does provide an illustration of how the risk of harmful things can be balanced out.

I'm sorry that took so long, but I couldn't think of a good way to show how the model works from the individual level to the social level. The actual situation that the individual is in is drastically different than the situation that society is in. But if you view both society and individuals as mere entities regardless of scale, you will find that you generally want the same things in your individual life that you want for your society.

Does that help?

Not so much, because it is not a valid way to get from a disaggregate to an aggregate level. What you employ here is the representative agent model, which is flawed (the falacy of composition is a major problem).

If you sit in the cinema and you can't see the screen because there is a tall person sitting in front of you, it is clearly in your interest to stand up (as that enhances your welfare). Applying this to the society means that everyone should stand up - obviously the total welfare is decreased. Individual preferences are not a good way to determine a way to increase total welfare.


As you said, the article was written with the goal in mind to show that economics applied to a topic of interest can lead to counterintuitive results and give a little insight into how economic thinking works. This is a good idea, but the author carries it too far when he pretends that his model actually has practical implications (especially when he says that free condoms would offer an incentive). Are we agreed so far?

As to the rest of the discussion, I have the impression that it is running in circles:
TheKwas: "When the assumptions are true the model gives an entirely impractical recommendation what could be done."
Dooey & Zod: "It isn't applicable to reality."
...
...

[General Zod]

Yes, and Males are alot more willing to have sex than girls are. There's a scarcity of sexually willing girls, not of girls in general. The issue in question is BOOTY, not females. That is obvious to, seemingly, everyone but you.

So it's my fault you weren't specific enough?

A pretty girl can get any guy to fuck her at her wish, a handsome guy still has to compete and work for his girls. In just about every mammal society, males compete for females. Why on earth would they be competing if there wasn't a scarcity of some sort? If there's enough for everyone, no one fights. Reading comprehension, or just plain comprehension, is not your strong point.

I think you're confusing the facts here. Competition ensues because men want the best ideal mate possible. Thus competition over the sexiest girl is more common than competition over girls who just look average, regardless of her actual availability.

[TheKwas]

Not so much, because it is not a valid way to get from a disaggregate to an aggregate level. What you employ here is the representative agent model, which is flawed (the falacy of composition is a major problem).

If you sit in the cinema and you can't see the screen because there is a tall person sitting in front of you, it is clearly in your interest to stand up (as that enhances your welfare). Applying this to the society means that everyone should stand up - obviously the total welfare is decreased. Individual preferences are not a good way to determine a way to increase total welfare.

There's a difference between the representative model I proposed and the one you proposed. In the one I proposed, the conditions affecting Dooey are generally the same for the conditions affecting the aggregate. The risks and benefits of sex are roughly the same for most intents and purposes, regardless of the indiviudual, while the benefits of standing up in a theatre depends on who is in front of you. It is fair (atleast for the mere illustration of a point) to use the former as a representative, while it is obviously invalid to the latter as a representative.

As you said, the article was written with the goal in mind to show that economics applied to a topic of interest can lead to counterintuitive results and give a little insight into how economic thinking works. This is a good idea, but the author carries it too far when he pretends that his model actually has practical implications (especially when he says that free condoms would offer an incentive). Are we agreed so far?

Yes.

As to the rest of the discussion, I have the impression that it is running in circles:
TheKwas: "When the assumptions are true the model gives an entirely impractical recommendation what could be done."
Dooey & Zod: "It isn't applicable to reality."

I think it is more fickle than that. I believe that the only assumption that is totally unfair is the idea that Martin can be motivated to enter the sex game. Zod believe that the model, aside from being inapplicable, is simply invalid because there is no male competition/female scarcity. Dooey argued that the assumption that Martin will bang the same girls as Maxwell is not valid and ruins the model, I think that it merely makes the model less effective to the degree of the overlap. Dooey also pointed out additional errors in my representative model, but the point I was trying to illustrate remains valid.

[TheKwas]

I think you're confusing the facts here. Competition ensues because men want the best ideal mate possible. Thus competition over the sexiest girl is more common than competition over girls who just look average, regardless of her actual availability.

I don't think it really matter why they are competing, the point is that they are competing and there is a scarcity of booty to go around for the males. Males want more booty than they can get, that is all that is needed for the model to be valid.

[dworkin]

Bollocks, great big fucking hairy bollocks at that.

The AIDs virus is a population of virii in an ecosystem (people).

A virus is sufficiently life-like to play by life's rules. It will grow to fill it's environment. Adding more environment does not magically diminish an organisms growth. Quite the opposite actually, the growth rate increases. Conversely, decreasing the environment retards or reverses population growth. It does not matter whether the environment is acres of savanah or people.

So with AIDs virus increasing, Joan's chances of getting infected at T=0 is indeed 1 in 100. However by the time of her second one night stand the population of the virus has increased. her chances next time are worse, how much worse depends on the size of the ecosystem. By including Martins, however infrequently you are increasing the population and thus the rate at which the virus can spread.

Given enough time the virus reaches saturation in the population and Joan's probability of becoming infected approach 1 for any sexual encounter.

This may be why the CDC (MoH, NHS, etc) encourages the setting up of environmental barriers (condoms, screening, warnings against casual sex and sex with groups with high infection levels) and the shooting of idiot economists.

[dworkin]

There's no real way to get the Martins to fuck.

Are you insane? Surely their incentive is the same as everybody elses. Sex is enjoyable. Actually, he has a far greater set of incentives than sexually active adults. Go watch some AYVs for a demonstration.

Yes, and Males are alot more willing to have sex than girls are. There's a scarcity of sexually willing girls, not of girls in general. The issue in question is BOOTY, not females.

Of course you could observe yourself since this comment indicates you probably are an AYV.

That is obvious to, seemingly, everyone but you. A pretty girl can get any guy to fuck her at her wish, a handsome guy still has to compete and work for his girls.

Sorry, definitely an AYV. Or a total moron. An attractive female is competing against other females for the best males. That's what all the make-up, clothing and 'tude are about for both sexes.

In just about every mammal society, males compete for females. Why on earth would they be competing if there wasn't a scarcity of some sort? If there's enough for everyone, no one fights. Reading comprehension, or just plain comprehension, is not your strong point.

And biology clearly isn't yours. Males compete for females against other males and vice fucking versa. The only definitve thing you can say about mating systems is that there is always a lot of shagging going on.

Rest cut because it made my eyes bleed.

[Justforfun000]

Yes, and Males are alot more willing to have sex than girls are. There's a scarcity of sexually willing girls, not of girls in general. The issue in question is BOOTY, not females. That is obvious to, seemingly, everyone but you. A pretty girl can get any guy to fuck her at her wish, a handsome guy still has to compete and work for his girls. In just about every mammal society, males compete for females. Why on earth would they be competing if there wasn't a scarcity of some sort? If there's enough for everyone, no one fights. Reading comprehension, or just plain comprehension, is not your strong point.

Another reason I love being a gay male. Do you know how easy it is to find good-looking, good bodied men to have sex with? It's as easy as falling off a truck. I'd hate to be straight.

[TheKwas]

Bollocks, great big fucking hairy bollocks at that.

The AIDs virus is a population of virii in an ecosystem (people).

A virus is sufficiently life-like to play by life's rules. It will grow to fill it's environment. Adding more environment does not magically diminish an organisms growth. Quite the opposite actually, the growth rate increases. Conversely, decreasing the environment retards or reverses population growth. It does not matter whether the environment is acres of savanah or people.

So with AIDs virus increasing, Joan's chances of getting infected at T=0 is indeed 1 in 100. However by the time of her second one night stand the population of the virus has increased. her chances next time are worse, how much worse depends on the size of the ecosystem. By including Martins, however infrequently you are increasing the population and thus the rate at which the virus can spread.

Given enough time the virus reaches saturation in the population and Joan's probability of becoming infected approach 1 for any sexual encounter.

This may be why the CDC (MoH, NHS, etc) encourages the setting up of environmental barriers (condoms, screening, warnings against casual sex and sex with groups with high infection levels) and the shooting of idiot economists.

So... did you read the thread?

Are you insane? Surely their incentive is the same as everybody elses. Sex is enjoyable. Actually, he has a far greater set of incentives than sexually active adults. Go watch some AYVs for a demonstration.

Missed the point completely. Martins, for whatever reasons, do have reasons against being sexually promiscuous, otherwise they wouldn't be Martins in the first place. I would bet that the main reasons are religious or low self-esteem, and both of those are reasons that are hard to manipulate through economic incentives.

Of course you could observe yourself since this comment indicates you probably are an AYV.

Mock me, but I don't even know what an AYV is.

And biology clearly isn't yours. Males compete for females against other males and vice fucking versa. The only definitve thing you can say about mating systems is that there is always a lot of shagging going on.

Obviously there's competition going on, but the sexual selection power rests with the females. Imagine a sex-lusting female and a sex-lusting male entering a bar. Who is more likely to exit with a willing sexual partner?

In retrospect, the female scarcity aspect of my argument isn't even needed for the model to work. The model would be valid even if we switch Martins with abstaining girls. All that is needed is a disporpotionate number of Martins to enter the sex-game relative to the number of abstaining females entering the sex-game. One side stays relatively the same, while the other increases in numbers, and the model will remain valid.