Men average more sexual partners than women, right? Wrong.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Surveys consistently report that men in the U.S. population average seven sexual partners, while women average four. Everyone assumes men are cads and women are out to protect their virtue, so this makes perfect sense, except...

"By way of dramatization, we change the context slightly and will prove what will be called the High School Prom Theorem. We suppose that on the day after the prom, each girl is asked to give the number of boys she danced with. These numbers are then added up, giving a number G. The same information is then obtained from the boys, giving a number B.

"Theorem: G(EQUAL)B

"Proof: Both G and B are equal to C, the number of couples who danced together at the prom. QED."
In other words, unless U.S. men are having tons and tons of sex with women who are outside the survey population (trips to foreign countries? prostitutes who don't tend to show up in these surveys?) it's mathematically impossible for men to average more sexual partners than women. Rather, as Sevgi Aral of the CDC and David Gale, an emeritus professor of matehmatics at UC Berkeley assert in a recent piece in the Boston Globe, "...men exaggerate the number of partners they have and women underestimate." That couldn't be because of the aforementioned culturally-ingrained notions about the respective roles of men and women in the mating game, now could it? Spotted on Echidne of the SnakesUpdate: See the comments for a discussion about mean (average) vs. median in the case of these statistics. Turns out things are not so simple as Dr. Gale's simple proof would lead us to believe.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe