Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Street Lawyer is wrong...We're studs...

By nobbystyles in MLP
Mon Apr 23, 2001 at 06:34:01 AM EST
Tags: etc (all tags)

According to this story in the ever reliable Register, Geeks apparantly have sex more times a year than 'normals'. The only thing is that the article doesn't say what with.

So Mr Street Lawyer, we don't need your ESR sex tips; we're all hot loving machines...


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


How many times a year do you have sex (with another human)??
o None 32%
o 1-5 2%
o 5-20 4%
o 20-50 6%
o 50-100 15%
o 100-500 22%
o 500-1000 3%
o 1000+ 11%

Votes: 182
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o story
o Also by nobbystyles

Display: Sort:
Street Lawyer is wrong...We're studs... | 42 comments (34 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden)
thats because (3.50 / 2) (#1)
by unstable on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 08:39:26 AM EST

chicks realize that Un*x is sexy

Reverend Unstable
all praise the almighty Bob
and be filled with slack

No (none / 0) (#2)
by nobbystyles on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 08:51:32 AM EST

Its because reciting the scripts of Star Trek and Buffy shows you have an artistic nature...

[ Parent ]
Chicks dig geeks (4.00 / 1) (#16)
by jabber on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 11:04:17 AM EST

who can speak fluent Klingon!

Do'h yah's v'ant toh 'fak goes a long way at the local video arcade, I am sure.

Then there are all those irresistible pick-up lines:

Hey babe! Want to check out my joystick|playstation?
So, how much RAM do you want?
I have great stamina! I once masturbated for 14 hours straight!
I'm user friendly, interactive and GUI-enabled.
How's about you and me compare wetware versions to see if your software can be downloaded onto my hardware?
You're almost as hot as Lara Croft!

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Nice to find another RUSH .sig. (none / 0) (#12)
by Kugyou on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 10:03:20 AM EST

Just wanted to comment on the sig. Ohyeah, and I got my end in yesterday...:P
Dust in the wind bores holes in mountains
[ Parent ]
Re: thats because (none / 0) (#26)
by AzTex on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 01:24:43 PM EST

unstable said:

chicks realize that Un*x is sexy
I think it's because of all the fun things they can do with our oh-so-powerful pipes.

solipsism: I'm always here. But you sometimes go away.
** AzTex **

[ Parent ]
unix may be (none / 0) (#40)
by frufru on Mon Apr 23, 2001 at 09:35:18 AM EST

... but most geeks are not ;)

[ Parent ]
dont throw esr away just yet (4.00 / 1) (#3)
by eLuddite on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 09:04:24 AM EST

According to this site, geeks have more libido than business acumen.

God hates human rights.

Yeah I've noticed (none / 0) (#10)
by nobbystyles on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 10:01:54 AM EST

That she's stopped posting here.

Another victim of the dot-com crash...?

[ Parent ]
Make hay while the sun shines (3.66 / 3) (#7)
by streetlawyer on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 09:12:01 AM EST

Hrrrrm .... I'd get out there if I were you, boys, since this shagfest appears to be conditional on g**ks being loaded up with dot com stock options ....from the article
""Now they have money and power and members of the opposite sex find them very alluring. You better believe they are going to take advantage of their situation," he said. "
With the NASDAQ going where it's going, I'd fill your boots now for the long barren winter ahead ....

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
*sigh* (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by OriginalGTT on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 09:27:04 AM EST

You're still unhappy aren't ya big guy?

I'm NOT on your level. Stay there, and I will stay up here where morals are high, and the air is sweet
[ Parent ]
nasdaq going where? (none / 0) (#25)
by alprazolam on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 01:17:58 PM EST

ummm with the nasdaq going where its going i'd stock up on condoms.

[ Parent ]
I demand evidence! (4.66 / 3) (#14)
by khallow on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 10:22:03 AM EST

Until there is a preponderance of *physical* evidence, I unfortunately will remain in the streetlawyer camp.

Stating the obvious since 1969.

Maybe I have a dirty mind... (4.00 / 2) (#27)
by vaguely_aware on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 01:34:40 PM EST

But ew. I think I'll remain skeptical and leave the (ahem) physical evidence where it belongs.

At the bottom of the wastebasket, wrapped in TP.

"The metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet." - Dave Barry

[ Parent ]
Missing poll options... (4.66 / 3) (#15)
by deefer on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 10:39:29 AM EST

That you haven't paid for...

Because I would reckon that the working girls are well wise to the dotcom bubble bursting, through lack of clients...

Mind you, that said, I'm sure they have worse clients than nerds who take 3 strokes to deliver the goods, tip well, and always say "thankyou" afterwards...

Seriously though, anyone ever looked at those postcards they put in phoneboxes in London? We used to have a running gag to grab as many (hey, I was young and drunk!) of them as we could then stitch a mate up with them - hide them in his coat pocket, under his pillow, behind the visor in his car... It was only when my mates' mum borrowed his car and got covered in a shower of "HOT XXX CUTIE 15 mins Liverpool St" type cards that we slowed down... (OK, I'm *still* sorry about that one John!!!) Anyway, this immature and puerile game has been going on for more years than I care to remember, although it is still a game best played absolutely hammered....
That aside - the postcards used to have addresses on them, then they started having mobile numbers, and now they're building websites!!! The last one I saw about 6 monhts ago my ex-g/f pulled out of my coat pocket one Sunday morning and had a laugh at it... But the website was there, fully functional and professional looking - I don't know if the girls were indeed "Educated Escorts" or did a "quid pro blow" type arrangement with a nerd client...

Still, back to it. The Register cynically claims it's cash & stock options the ladies see, which may be true, I don't know. I think it is more of a culture thing - we're coming out of the server rooms more. I can remember when being into computers was "Oooh, they're so hard, you must be really dull to like them"; these days it's more like "Ooooh, computers, eh? That's a promising career"... So anyway, now that the public knows all about the internet, and that it requires techs to keep it going, it demystifies us a bit - we're not perceived as "weird" anymore, we're essential to business. And with that comes more self esteem (leading to more chicks, or blokes if that's your thing) which spills out into other areas of your lives. Even if you've been through the most Katzian Hellmouth ever, you start working in a good team where everybody begins to depend on you, then you can undergo a massive change in outlook... I don't know, I'm just guessing here, maybe the Register is right - the girls are just in it for the money and stock options... Any of the lasses out there want to give a perspective?

Strong data typing is for weak minds.

You're barking up the wrong tree... (4.66 / 3) (#33)
by tankgirl on Thu Apr 19, 2001 at 02:39:35 AM EST

...with the girl geek crowd that frequents k5. You had it right earlier, we're in the same boat as you.

Any of the lasses out there want to give a perspective?

Yep. Stock options, heh! They're like the USA's civil war conferderate notes (money)...not worth the paper they're printed on.

I, for one, work long hours with my computer (probably just like you :), and I enjoy having someone in my life that understands what I do.

The statement, "I have T1 down in South San Francisco, I can't do dinner", shouldn't evoke a fight, it should evoke sympathy. I didn't make the line go down, and I bring home the bacon (my own bacon, I might add), because I have to work to bring that T1 up on a 24/7 basis. Anyone that doesn't realize that I'd rather be cuddled up to them, instead of busting my tail to get the telco to dispatch on a 3AM network outage doesn't deserve my time.

I think that's what geeks really want, understanding. Since careers in the computer/IT industry are becoming more sought after, the amount of women in the field is increasing. So there are more female geeks out there than there used to be....IMHO, this helps alot.


FYI, I think the guys/gals using 'special services' to get off, as you mention, are usually not the real 'geeks' anyway. They're CEO's wasting venture capital ;-)

"I'm afraid of Americans. I'm afraid of the world. I'm afraid I can't help it." -David Bowie
[ Parent ]
education (4.25 / 4) (#17)
by Seumas on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 11:28:04 AM EST

I don't believe being a geek or not really has much to do with your sex-life. University studies have for several years now concluded that the greater your education and success (career-wise), the less sex you had.

A few conjectures they offered were that those with higher educations and better careers were too busy achieving and maintaining these things to engage in a very active sex-life. This seems somewhat self-evident to me, though I'm not sure about the rest of you.

I know intelligent, sexy successful people who rarely get laid, while their drop-out, mooching, bumming, under-achieving (and even unattractive) counterparts often bump uglies on a regular basis.
I just read K5 for the articles.

So that's (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by nobbystyles on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 11:31:43 AM EST

Your excuse...

[ Parent ]
not entirely (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by Seumas on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 11:55:21 AM EST

No, my excuse is that, along with becoming successful and wealthier, I've become fatter and uglier!

Trust me, if I were in the shape I was a few years ago, I'd be making time to get laid.
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Sigh (none / 0) (#21)
by nobbystyles on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 12:24:32 PM EST

Know the feeling. Now I am earning decent money, I am eating indecent lunches...

Ho,hum time to start going to the gym again...

[ Parent ]
You've been mentioning your money a lot lately. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by elenchos on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 12:24:56 PM EST

It's ESR envy, isn't it?

Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today inquisitive, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill. --Marcus Aurelius, Med. ii.

[ Parent ]

Other way around, surely? (3.00 / 1) (#36)
by Glacky on Thu Apr 19, 2001 at 11:55:58 AM EST

The more sex you get, the less you are bothered about studying hard and doing well in your career... ;-)

That's my excuse anyway.

[ Parent ]
Sorry. (4.25 / 4) (#20)
by kwsNI on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 12:20:58 PM EST

I don't think mounting a drive counts as getting laid.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handy
A few things... (3.00 / 1) (#23)
by skim123 on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 12:35:39 PM EST

I don't know how seriously to take the results of the poll when the folks who created the poll (JustTechJobs.com) said: "We put in a question about sex habits as a joke." (quote taken from the TheRegister.com article).

Also, who says IT folks are all geeks? This says more along the lines of IT folks are getting a lot of action, no? I'd say your average IT employee has a lot more social grace and skills than your average computer programmer, at least based on my personal experience. At one time I worked for a company that did training and consulting. The trainers were, obviously, the most personable, followed by the upper-management, followed by the IT workers (all three of 'em, they were all pretty cool guys, actually), followed by the "consultants," those quiet guys who went out and punched out code for the firm for insane amounts of money per hour.

Sorta like being gay: you're walking around, you know something's up, you just don't know what it is yet.

Well I am taking it real seriously (3.00 / 1) (#24)
by nobbystyles on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 12:47:39 PM EST


It's probably as scientific as the poll for this story...

[ Parent ]
dont forget (1.50 / 2) (#28)
by unstable on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 02:58:16 PM EST

hey baby... are you plug and play compatable?
wanna see my penguin
wanna fsck

ok ok.. enough of that.

Reverend Unstable
all praise the almighty Bob
and be filled with slack

wanna mount my flopy? (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by delmoi on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 05:34:27 PM EST

(as a hard drive)
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
75% of all statistics are made up on the spot. (4.20 / 5) (#29)
by Office Girl the Magnificent on Wed Apr 18, 2001 at 03:28:47 PM EST

The thing that gets me about this survey, besides the fact that the question was a joke, is the fact that it's self-reported. I can't beleive nobody else has jumped on this yet. Self reported statistics are the worst. Especially when you're asking geeks. Geeks lie. Especially on the web. That's why screen names were invented.

One more thing: Three cheers for the post about IT folk not being "geek's geeks." (I don't remember who posted it, and I'm too lazy to backtrack and find it right now.) Whoever you are, yay for you.

"If you stay, Infinite might try to kill you. If you leave, the FBI definitely will. And if you keep yelling, I might do it myself."

The Register misread the statistics! (4.00 / 6) (#32)
by Mr. Excitement on Thu Apr 19, 2001 at 12:37:12 AM EST

From the article:
Following a survey of more than 7,500 male nerds it concluded that this often-maligned group has sex 108 times a year compared to the average of just 79 times.

You'll notice that it says "this...group has sex 108 times a year". That's 108 times, for 7,500 nerds. That's an average of 0.0144 times per nerd! Much less than the average of 79 times for the general populace.

The moral of the story: Double-check your math before declaring yourself a "stud".

1 141900 Mr. Excitement-Bar-Hum-Mal-Cha died in The Gnomish Mines on level 10 [max 12]. Killed by a bolt of lightning - [129]

Yeah, right... (5.00 / 6) (#34)
by Estanislao Martínez on Thu Apr 19, 2001 at 03:47:14 AM EST

Adult male nerds have sex more often than ordinary American blokes according to IT recruitment site JustTechJobs.com.
Aha. Yeah. Right. Next time I want statistics on something, I'll go to JustTechJobs.com. Sure.
Following a survey of more than 7,500 male nerds it concluded that this often-maligned group has sex 108 times a year compared to the average of just 79 times.
Yeah. And if g**ks "confess" it, it must be true, right?
The results have staggered those behind the survey who've concluded that it's "chic to be geek".
I proporse we conduct this survey among 13 year old males in 8th grade. I'm sure we'll find that the average 13 year old has sex 472 times a year.

Anyway, what's the average age of the survey group? What group does the 78 number correspond to? All USian adult males? What methodology was used to get the 78 number? What's the US-wide average for the age group which most closely matches the people in this "survey"?

In any case, if the numbers were true, this would still mean that the group they surveyed had sex 2 times a week on average, while the national average is 1.5. So it's not *that* different, if you look at it on a week-by-week basis.

And, now for the big question: how the hell do they derive the number "108"? I don't think they'd get good results by just asking people the dumb, obvious question: "How many times did you have sex over the last 12 months?" "Gee, I did it so many times I lost the count." So, they'd have to ask a multiple-choice question: "How frequently do you have sex? (a) 3 or more times a week; (b) about twice a week; (c) about once a week; (d) once or twice a month; (e) not sexually active".

Notice that the "108" number would correspond to the (b) answer; the "78" number could arise if, say, half the respondents answered (b) and the other half (c). In any case, I hesitate to extrapolate much from the difference between "about once a week" and "about twice", simply because people anywhere in between these points can easily vote in either direction, even by a honest mistake; imagine a person who recently isn't having as much sex as 2 months ago, and answers (c), while (b) could be perfectly accurate.

Anyway, the whole thing is ridiculous.


Figures (3.00 / 1) (#37)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Apr 19, 2001 at 12:06:03 PM EST

"How frequently do you have sex? (a) 3 or more times a week; (b) about twice a week; (c) about once a week; (d) once or twice a month; (e) not sexually active". Notice that the "108" number would correspond to the (b) answer
Hmmm...among my people, 52 weeks times twice a week is 104, but I agree -- it's unlikely that they were keeping a log.

OTOH, these figures are no worse than all the others like them. Masters and Johnson didn't follow people around either.

[ Parent ]

duh. (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by Estanislao Martínez on Fri Apr 20, 2001 at 03:16:12 AM EST

Hmmm...among my people, 52 weeks times twice a week is 104

Ok, for you fans of useless purposeless anal precision, 2.0769231 times a week.

Happy now?

[ Parent ]

Duh yourself (3.50 / 2) (#39)
by davidduncanscott on Fri Apr 20, 2001 at 07:41:43 AM EST

You suggested that the 108 figure was suspect, on the grounds that it too-neatly corresponded to the results of a simple multiple-choice question. I pointed out that, in fact, it does NOT correspond so neatly at all, raising the possibility that some other method was used.

Considering that I also went on to agree with you that all these surveys are rather dubious and should be taken with a grain of salt, perhaps you misread my response as more critical than intended. The "among my people" formulation was a standard one in my high school days, a gentle spoof of differing perspectives. Now that I look at your name, I think we've clashed a bit here before on cross-cultural issues, and that was not my intention here.

[ Parent ]

Maybe, but... (1.00 / 2) (#41)
by OOG THE CAVEMAN on Mon Apr 23, 2001 at 04:41:57 PM EST

Ever consider the fact that the only bitches nerd guys get are usually ASS UGLY? For God's sake, take a look at the absolutely HIDEOUS skanks pictured on ESR's loathsome sex tip site ("beautiful?" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!). Haven't you ever seen pics of Alan Cox's gross wife? The same is true for all the big name open source dorks. I'd rather fuck something resembling a human female once than mount some nasty dog of a woman 20 times a day.
and the explanation is simple.. (none / 0) (#42)
by Eivind on Tue Apr 24, 2001 at 04:31:18 AM EST

109 times a year versus 87 times a year isn't that big of a difference. To me it seems likely that this entire difference can be explained by the lower average age of tech-workers relative to the average population.

Seems quite reasonable to me that the average 25 year old have more sex than the average 50 year old. How many 50 year old It-guys do /you/ know ?

Street Lawyer is wrong...We're studs... | 42 comments (34 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!