Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stats Show iPhone Owners Get More Sex

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the there's-a-lap-for-that dept.

Handhelds 397

An anonymous reader writes "According to OK Cupid's survey of 552,000 user pictures iPhone users have more sexual partners than BlackBerry or Android owners. By age 30, the average male iPhone user has had about 10 partners while female iPhone users have had 12. By contrast, BlackBerry users hover around 8 partners and Android users have a mere 6. As the blog's author's wryly observe: 'Finally, statistical proof that iPhone users aren't just getting f*@ked by Apple.'"

cancel ×

397 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Phone sex over video chat doesn't count (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219886)

Stats are wrong.

Re:Phone sex over video chat doesn't count (4, Funny)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219930)

yeah they didn't even mention the n900 (maemo) I cannot count how many times some nice looking lady asked me "whats that ? looks neat!"

Re:Phone sex over video chat doesn't count (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219952)

They also didn't state whether it was heterosexual or homosexual!

Re:Phone sex over video chat doesn't count (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219974)

So then that means Android users have 0 sexual partners?

Re:Phone sex over video chat doesn't count (4, Insightful)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220026)

Ouch! I'm an anonymous reader now? I knew Samzenpus had a bad rep around here, but to completely strip out the name of the submitter...that is a little low.

Re:Phone sex over video chat doesn't count (5, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220508)

I use my Palm.

And I've got a 10 inch... (3, Interesting)

cappp (1822388) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220646)

Those numbers don't match others I've seen although, as with all thing numeric online, it's best to assume a little healthy exaggeration. I did some digging and found that the US Census Bureau's 2010 Statistical Abstract [census.gov] includes a section on sexual activity. The full table (94 for those keeping track) is on page 19 of the report.
For Males 25 to 29

95.2% have had an opposite sex partner, 5.7% a same sex sexual contact
10% had 1 contact
8.8% had 2
29.4 had 3 to 6
23.2 had 7 to 14
and 23.8 had 15 or more

Median was 5.9

For Males 30 to 34

97.2% have had an opposite sex partner,
10.7% had 1 contact
6.9% had
28.5 had 3 to 6
21.9 had 7 to 14
and 29.2 had 15 or more

Median was 6.4

There are differences based on race - Latinos have a median of 4.5 and African Americans of 8.3 - and sex: a quick glance at the numbers shows that a much greater percentage of women have had 1 partner (25-29 being 22.5% and 20-24 at 20.5%) than their male peers.

Slo.. oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219890)

Must be a slow day. Buncha idle stories and lame ass review of another Lambla or whatever web shite.

Oh wait - samzenpus is on duty. Never mind.

More sex? Not necessarily (2, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219892)

Another way to look at the study is that iPhone owners are insufferable idiots not prepared to make the compromises necessary to stay in a long term relationship, hence the greater number of "partners".

Either way I hope they enjoy their HPV induced cervical cancer and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (4, Funny)

hipp5 (1635263) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219948)

Another way to look at the study is that iPhone owners are insufferable idiots not prepared to make the compromises necessary to stay in a long term relationship

What are you talking about? They've been faithful to Apple and AT&T for almost four years now.

Either way I hope they enjoy their HPV induced cervical cancer and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Well now you're just being jealous. You'd take 10 sex partners if you could get 'em.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220016)

So, I guess you really like your Blackberry then...

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220018)

Either way I hope they enjoy their HPV induced cervical cancer and other sexually transmitted diseases.

What? I heard if I went with Apple I wouldn't have to deal with viruses or infections!

Are you saying the birth control app is useless too?!?!?!?

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (3, Funny)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220388)

The birth control app never passed approval for the app store.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220472)

Trust me, being widely known as an avid slashdot reader is a MUCH more effective form of birth control!

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220600)

Go with blackberry or Android. This way you'd be safe from unprotected sex, or from any sex at all.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (4, Funny)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220042)

Yeah, because everyone that has had multiple partners in the past gets STDs.

You sound like a public service announcement from the Eisenhower administration.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220190)

Yeah, because everyone that has had multiple partners in the past gets STDs.

      No, but there is a positive correlation between number of partners and the probability of catching a disease. It's just like buying more lottery tickets, only the odds aren't millions to one - only hundreds to one. Enjoy your prize.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (4, Informative)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220550)

only hundreds to one.

Actually 3:1, according to most studies(!)...

Most of that is herpes...

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220060)

I agree with your sentiment but do I sense a bit of jealousy in the intonation of your post? Who says they can't just be in polygamous long term relationships? Monogamy has only been the societal norm for a few hundred years.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220526)

Monogamy has only been the societal norm for a few hundred years

Well, that completely depends on what part of the world you're talking about (polygamy is still practiced in parts of Africa for instance), but if you're talking about Europe / North America, you're just absolutely and completely wrong. Polygamy has not been a regular part of culture in most parts of Europe for millennia. The Greeks and the Romans didn't practice polygamy, and with Christianization neither did the few parts of the rest of Europe that did practice polygamy (ie, the Vikings). Certainly I think it's safe to say that in most of Europe, polygamy has been extinct for a thousand plus years, and in other parts, several thousand years perhaps.

Amongst the other major cultures of the world, most Islamicate countries allowed polygamy until relatively recently, though depending on the country, the number of practicing polygamists could vary widely (polygamy was only for the very wealthy in many areas).

With regards to China I don't have as much knowledge, but as I understand it polygamy has been rare / forbidden amongst Han for thousands of years (while like in Islamic areas, the wealthy may have a mistress who is in effect a second wife).

And regardless, even in areas where polygamy was allowed, thanks to population realities, I don't think you could even say that polygamy was the "societal norm." Think if you have a roughly 50/50 male/female ratio (I know that's not accurate, but close enough for these purposes) ...how do you expect the average male to have 2 wives? Or 3 wives? Or 4 wives (the max allowed in Islam)? There aren't enough women to go around!

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (5, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220092)

Seriously? You are SO JEALOUS that you are wishing harm upon people who know how to have a good time? Wasn't there a character in Robin Hood like that? Maybe it was Men in Tights.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220652)

No, I'm pretty positive that men in tights don't have that many sexual partners.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220132)

How do I mod "obvious 30 year old virgin"?

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (2, Interesting)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220152)

Either way I hope they enjoy their HPV induced cervical cancer

I thought the latest studies showed conclusively that iPhones don't cause cancer.

I'll wait to see if I'm modded Funny or Insightful.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220246)

Or that, if they can afford an iPhone, then they can afford to pay multiple "partners".

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220386)

Spoken like a guy who married his higschool sweetheart right out of graduation, because he feared he could never find another woman who would give it up to him. What a fun life you must lead.

Re:More sex? Not necessarily (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220648)

"Another way to look at the study is that iPhone owners are insufferable idiots not prepared to make the compromises necessary to stay in a long term relationship, hence the greater number of "partners"."

Who wants to bang the same chick night after night after night?

Ok, it might be good for some...but variety is the spice of life.

Heard the old joke?

"I'm gonna invent a new version of Playboy just for married men...

Every night......same chick"

:)

Bad science: not more sex, more partners (5, Insightful)

hessian (467078) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219896)

This study suggests that iPhone users report more sexual partners.

That doesn't necessarily mean more sex.

One guy who marries a woman, loves her and has mind-blowing sex with her three times a week, is clearly ahead of some guy with an iPhone who had ten one-night stands.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (5, Funny)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219968)

> One guy who marries a woman, loves her and has mind-blowing sex with
> her three times a week, is clearly ahead of some guy with an iPhone who
> had ten one-night stands.

You're not married, are you? :)

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220568)

23 years and that describes us perfectly

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (3, Insightful)

Bryan3000000 (1356999) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220704)

You're not doing it right. :)

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220002)

Unfortunately most Slashdotters will never experience either scenario.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220034)

That's exactly what I thought when I first saw this.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220044)

You clearly aren't married, or have never been blessed with banging several bitches in a short period of time. The more partners the better.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (1)

kick6 (1081615) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220062)

One guy who marries a woman, loves her and has mind-blowing sex with her three times a week, is clearly ahead of some guy with an iPhone who had ten one-night stands.

Considering the possibility that the wife could be nagging at all times while NOT engaged in coitus, your conclusion is fallacious.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220070)

Actually, 10 one night stands a week does beat out 3 times a week from marriage. You clearly haven't done the math.

Also, as far as I know, there is no rule that a one night stand has to be the whole night.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220562)

Actually, 10 one night stands a week does beat out 3 times a week from marriage. You clearly haven't done the math.

Also, as far as I know, there is no rule that a one night stand has to be the whole night.

I think It's pretty safe to assume if your on slashdot you probably haven't had experience with 10 one night stands in a single week.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (1)

alta (1263) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220090)

Here, let me fix that for you...

One guy who marries a woman, loves her and has mind-blowing sex with her three times, is clearly ahead of some guy with an iPhone who had ten one-night stands.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220264)

A slashdotter failing at math? Let me help: @ 0 years of marriage: sex two times a week (with the same person) @3 years of marriage: 0.5 times per week (with the same person) @10 years of marriage: 0.1 times per week (WITH THE SAME PERSON) *sigh* Even as years_of_marriage --> 0; it's still not as good as 10 one night stands.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220366)

This ignores the Coolidge Effect [wikipedia.org] . Shortly, novelty leads to better sex. To quote the wiki:

The term comes from an old joke, according to which U.S. President Calvin Coolidge and his wife allegedly visited a poultry farm. During the tour, Mrs. Coolidge inquired of the farmer how his farm managed to produce so many fertile eggs with such a small number of roosters. The farmer proudly explained that his roosters performed their duty dozens of times each day.

"Tell that to Mr. Coolidge," pointedly replied the First Lady.

The President, overhearing the remark, asked the farmer, "Does each rooster service the same hen each time?"

"No," replied the farmer, "there are many hens for each rooster."

"Tell that to Mrs. Coolidge," replied the President.

Re:Bad science: not more sex, more partners (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220422)

Not financially, he isn't.

Bad headline (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219906)

More partners != more sex.

More sex yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219912)

But with same sex partners?

Re:More sex yeah (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219994)

I'm pretty sure most iphone users are getting plenty of same-sex partners, don't you worry.

Finally statistical proof... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219918)

...that iPhone users will be fucked by anyone!

Re:Finally statistical proof... (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220630)

Apparently all of those stories about iPhone owners having to give Steve Jobs a blowjob were true.

iPhone owners are narcissistic assholes (2, Insightful)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219922)

who readily lie to survey takers to make themselves appear "cooler" than they are. Shock and amazement to follow.

Or (1, Flamebait)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220392)

They are hipster types who try hard to be "cool". Part of that is sleeping with people farm more indiscriminately than others. I mean on campus you see iPhones as a heavy part of the Greek scene. They are a fashion accessory, just like Uggs or anything else. Also part of that scene is random hookups.

Re:iPhone owners are narcissistic assholes (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220546)

Why do you have so much hate?

Correlation != Causality (3, Insightful)

DerFlob (1822488) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219924)

Correlation != Causality

Re:Correlation != Causality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219990)

True, and the article doesn't imply causality, it just notes the correlation.

Re:Correlation != Causality (1)

stagg (1606187) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220536)

But it does wink suggestively at it.

Help (4, Funny)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219932)

I'm trying to find a link to the study that showed homoexual men have more partners and less long term relationships.

Re:Help (1)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220270)

Here [wired.com] you go.

Re:Help (2, Insightful)

kanweg (771128) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220314)

Well, if gays are not allowed to marry, such as in some backwaters where the freedom of some somehow requires limiting the freedom of others, they don't get the opportunity to get stuck in a relationship.

Bert

Mod Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220558)

So true. Mod parent up!

Re:Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220324)

you found it ...

Re:Help (4, Insightful)

SomePoorSchmuck (183775) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220434)

I don't get the moderation of this as "funny". I think it's a fair point. I would be willing to bet that, technologically, homosexual men are much more likely to be Early Adopters than heterosexual men of the same age/race/region. The iPhone and its apps are the portable equivalent of a 1998 AOL account. I would not at all be surprised that if you were able to remove all homosexual men from the survey, the difference in results would disappear.

There's also the other side of the situation to consider: a large part of the Blackberry market has been driven by corporate usage, rather than the free-living artists, musicians, graphic designers, videographers, members of academia, and the wealthy, who have been Apple's prime customers and are more likely to choose an iPhone..

whelp... (1)

gblfxt (931709) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219936)

i guess no one here has an iphone, im guessing all you supposed iphone users were actually just trolls?

This cannot stand! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219944)

Let's start an open source project to fix this miserable discrepancy.

Re:This cannot stand! (1)

stagg (1606187) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220490)

A crowd sourced approach to the problem?

Flawed conclusion (5, Insightful)

wolfemi1 (765089) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219958)

Actually, this says that iPhone users REPORT sex with MORE PEOPLE than other phones. Maybe they're just more concerned with their image than users of other phones? ;)

Re:Flawed conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220140)

where do I get the App for reporting sex, I don't see it

It could mean Android users are better partners! (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219960)

It doesn't necessarily mean they get more sex.

Re:It could mean Android users are better partners (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220594)

Of course not - they could have been having a lemonade and eating cookies while going to a church function.

Not engaging in hot unbridled steaming sex with fluids flowing everywhere. Not at all.

The reality is ... (4, Funny)

alexandre (53) | more than 4 years ago | (#33219962)

Last week poll was about iPad users being rich and egoistical... and now about getting more sex?
To some it up, they get ditched quickly even though they appear nice on the surface, they really are one sided assholes ;-P

Stats Show iPhone Owners Lie More Than Others (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219978)

Just saying...

slutty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33219986)

I preferred this guy's reaction tweet:

http://twitter.com/isknight/status/20814529928

Dilbert said it best (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220010)

Dilbert said it best, let me paraphrase...

A 1000% growth of a really really small number is still a really small number.

Correlation is not causation (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220022)

iPhones are expensive.
People who buy iPhones have a lot of money
Women are often "attracted" to rich men
iPhone owners get more sex.

Just like how dumb people get more cancer.
Dumb people smoke more.
Smoking causes cancer.
Dumb people get cancer more often.

It doesn't say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220032)

It doesn't say that the sex is necessarily with the opposite gender...

Statistical proof? Yeah right (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220038)

Finally, statistical proof that iPhone users aren't just getting f*@ked by Apple

I've read some of OKC blog posts before where they analyze the trend data of their site's members. The conclusions they reach are often highly questionable if not downright incorrect most of the time. Anyone with a basic college level understanding of statistics can easily see that their analysis is usually flawed.

Sorry, Researchers (2, Informative)

Revotron (1115029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220050)

Some of us prefer quality over quantity - just like how the more refined and matured drinkers enjoy a single bottle of some obscure microbrew over a 24-pack of Pissweiser (Or Pissweiser Light for the vain, calorie-conscious drunkard).

Sex isn't passionate or anywhere near as enjoyable when you've got a veritable police lineup of cheap whores at your every beck and call. Sure, you may have more sexual partners but there are definite drawbacks and it cheapens the experience. Not to mention that stinging, burning feeling shortly afterward.

proving most iPhone owners aren't geeks (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220056)

looking at Andriod, however... hmmm.... .

Lies, damn lies... (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220064)

... and iPhone statistics?

Another way of looking at it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220084)

Statistical proof that iPhone users have more STDs?

Are those averages real? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220100)

Ten or twelve partners? Is that really the average? I've had about thirty, and that's with three periods of monogamy two, five, and ten years long. So not counting the monogamous periods, about one partner per month, obviously some short term relationships were significantly longer than this and some much shorter, and I'm not counting the occasional dry spell. And all along I thought I was a nerdy dweeb who didn't get a lot of sex. There must be a hell of a lot of people waiting until marriage and never, ever cheating to offset all the people having lots of sex, which I categorize as over 100 sex partners.

Either that, or people lie on surveys to sound more chaste than they are.

Re:Are those averages real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220330)

Dude, you're a slut. Are you a girl?

Re:Are those averages real? (3, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220352)

Either that, or people lie on surveys to sound more chaste than they are.

As the saying goes:

To find out how many partners a woman has been with, ask her and multiply by two.

To find out how many partners a man has been with, ask him and divide by ten.

Re:Are those averages real? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220480)

My thoughts, too. I'm ugly as fuck and I've had more than that.

Then again, I guess it's all relative. I was with a girl who had been with about five dozen people before we met and she consider 30-50 to be totally normal for a girl by about the age of 30 (and to be fair, it might not be that far off since women obviously have a lot less resistance than men in hooking up).

Of course, people are afraid of seeming out of the normal range, so women deflate the number of their partners so they sound less slutty and men increase their numbers so they seem more impressive.

Re:Are those averages real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220678)

There must be a hell of a lot of people waiting until marriage and never, ever cheating to offset all the people having lots of sex

It happens plenty, people just don't like to admit because they sound dull if they do. Society is sex obsessed, so people talk it up to fit in.

to offset all the people having lots of sex, which I categorize as over 100 sex partners.

Those people are an extremely small minority.

Either that, or people lie on surveys to sound more chaste than they are.

Quit the opposite - almost everyone exaggerates greatly about their experience, as that's the image that's trendy in society today.

Ahhhhh, (1)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220160)

Is there an app for that?

Android Stats not Surprising (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220182)

Given that the android average hits right in the middle for the average [msn.com] partners for men and average partners for women over their life time I'm not too surprised. All these numbers tell me is that the IPhone appeals to a group outside of the average. Having a high volume of partners doesn't mean that you have more sex. For all we know the people who have fewer partners have sex more often since they are staying in a relationship for longer then the person who changes partners every other week.

1 sex act per day with one partner is greater than 1 sex act per week with a different partner each week.

Here is my take on why it is so (1)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220254)

After Steve has lubricated their ass or cunt depending on the gender, it is easy for others.
Where as those BB users are the corporate types, for them without Viagra or the things of that nature nothing happens down there and you know in this cost cutting and firing of CEOs on suped up expense report days, it is not possible for them to afford. So they have lesser sex than iPhone users
Majority of Android users are Geeks, they have all the theoritical knowledge but practically they dont have a clue about how to masturbate let alone do anything with the opposite Gender. Atleast we should be happy that some Android users are getting something.

We iPhone owners are simply richer (5, Funny)

sjonke (457707) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220290)

And thus can afford prostitutes more often then Android and Blackberry owners.

It's a selling feature (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220440)

"Wanna find someone for a one-night stand? There's an app for that!"

Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220470)

As the blog's author's wryly observe

Someone call the Great Typo Hunt guy!

Backwards. (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220496)

These people were doing what was necessary to acquire these stats long before having an iPhone. Therefore it is obvious that having more sex induces people to buy iPhones.

So... (1)

cavefrog (1015175) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220516)

I guess this means they're more likely to say yes when asked to install a trojan?

Anon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220520)

Is this survey skewed because there are just more iPhone users in general?

This just proves what I've been saying all along (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220524)

The vibrator built into the iPhone isn't strong enough...

It's just because of AT&T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220528)

Well, they don't have that insufferable phone ringing all the time to interrupt since they are on AT&T...

More Partners != More Sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220532)

Three 6 month relationships, four flings and three one night stands does not count as more sex than a healthy monogamous relationship. It's a proven fact that while singles live the glamorous life, married, committed men have sex more often.

that explains the haters (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220538)

At least know I know why the acrimony from the Apple haters.

The smell of virgin is a special kind of bitter. The kind of bitter that makes nerds suddenly give a shit about what technology someone else choses to use. And they can't abide by THAT. Ho no.

Meanwhile people who get laid have no idea why the fuck the nerds would give two-shits.

Statistics show... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220570)

Customers already trained by Apple to "just bend over and take it" get more sex... next you'll be telling me that customers used to taking it from Microsoft without even any lube get a lot more sex!

Apple users get it wrong again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220622)

*sigh* As usual, smug Apple users completely misinterpreted us when we wholeheartedly told them "fuck you"...

Just proves open phones favored by geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33220662)

There's a name for the owner of a smart phone running on Linux. Virgin.

Diversion of Blood (1)

Anomalyx (1731404) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220690)

Sex causes blood to rush to parts of the body other than the brain. Therefore, people who deprive their brain of blood more often than others are more likely to make the poor decision to buy an iPhone.

Because they can afford it (1)

mldi (1598123) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220696)

Well, it's been shown that Apple users tend to be bigger spenders...

Sorry Geeks ... (1)

graphicartist82 (462767) | more than 4 years ago | (#33220712)

Don't rush out and buy that iProduct just yet.. Just remember that correlation does not imply causation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>