Final-Fan said:
Ganoncrotch said:
Look having read the majority of the terribly written article that a lot of those figures are drawn from https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/young-single-people-in-japan-aren-t-having-sex-and-the-reason-is-proving-fatal which is where a lot of the OP's links cite as being the ones who looked deeper into the numbers, the analysis and interviews done by that outlet are done pretty much to get hits for the site, which they've done with fairly decent success, keep in mind that one of the links in the OP is also a 2 year old article based on something different but it's a good clickbaity title none the less.
I'm not going to waste more of my own time on this trash survey/article though but I will say this, you think that they asked any amount of 18 year old males if they had sex or not... and got an honest answer? from that point on you should know that the numbers in the survey are going to be no real indication of the real world, I would almost point out that the % of 18 year olds who might be doing a survey legitimately.... are going to be those who aren't having sex... because normal 18 year olds have better things to be doing than fill out surveys.
I couldn't find the actual data from the survey btw after checking through 2 of the articles but all I could find was %'ages and certain age groups along with qualifiers such as "of that age group who weren't married, X% was single and X% of those hadn't had sex" so if you have 100 people, 50 of which are married, 25 of which are in relationships then the % of the people who you are talking about being virgins is only 25% of the initial 100, even if 100% of that group are virgins... it's 25 out of 100 people, this is why % isn't the best way of tracking the real figures.
notice OP has left out some portions of quotes which state this, but in the original articles (which are really not worth the time of reading)
"Many aren’t having sex either. In fact, around 44 per cent of unmarried women and 42 per cent of unmarried men admit they are virgins, according to The 2015 National Fertility Survey, which is a kind of sex and relationship census conducted by the government every five years."
So yeah it's based on 44% of unmarried men which does not mean that nearly half are virgins... even if the survey was 100% correct it would mean that 44% of a certain % are virgins and again.... a large % of the unmarried will be minors.
|
This is a much better objection than the previous one.
|
100% of the people in this thread who are posting at this very second agree with you!
But aye I'm just always looking at the figures which are included in the results of these surveys and the analysis of the data because they can make some fantastic headlines, but at times that's really all you can get out of them, was reading a similar analysis regarding white/black unemployment figures in an area in the States which showed that whites made up a larger % of the unemployed, but yeah.... the area in question had a far larger population of white people, can break that one down like this
100 people in a region
80 White / 20 Black
20 white people are unemployed / 20 black people are unemployed
of those on benefits the figures are 50/50 there are 40 people on benefits and 50% of them are white, or to spin it another way 50% of the unemployed are white. heck... you could get it to sound even worse if you wanted, if there is 30 white people out of work in this scenario it now means that you have 3/5 of the unemployed being white but only 2/5 of them are black. sounds like one side isn't pulling their weight right? Obviously in both the above scenarios 100% of the smaller group are unemployed, but the numbers can be masked by introducing a greater number of people of whom 3 in every 4 is working rather than the other side of the fence where 100% are not.
Sorry I'm a touch tired and my numbers could be incorrect here, been up for almost 20 hours now most of which was quite busy.
It's just always worth keeping in mind things like bias of the person doing the survey and writing the headline, when asking "what do they have to gain" clicks is money for sites publishing those things, clicks alone are worth publishing utter trash if it gets people in the proverbial door of the site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect
