Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

TimMinchin.com (courtesy of the SGU)

As I was walking into my building today, a recurring thought hit me, one that was spurred by the opening scenes to the movie Amelie a few years back: Just how many people are having sex around the world at any given point in time?  Yeah, so, I’m weird, big deal!

This didn’t occur out of the blue – I’m teaching a class on the sociology of human sexuality right now and will be talking about frequency of sexual intercourse next week.  As I was preparing my lecture notes for that discussion, it must have triggered this thought again deep in the recesses of my bizarre mind and, for some reason, it surfaced as I was walking into the building.  With about 3 or 4 minutes to think about it before I got to my office, I realized that I might just be able to actually calculate that number.  So, I sat down with my trusty spreadsheet program (OpenOffice, of course), a few reference books, and web access, and tried to come up with some numbers.

First off, thanks to Tom Smith (2003), we have decent data on the frequency of sexual intercourse of people of different ages in the US:

age	coital acts per week (US)
0-9	0
10-17	0.5
18-29	2.1
30-39	1.7
40-49	1.4
50-59	1
60-69	0.6
70+	0.3

Now, just so it’s clear up front, he only actually gives numbers for people over 18.  So, I estimated that people between 10-17 would average .5 acts per week (mostly thanks to those above 15) and assumed those below 9 would have 0.  I needed those numbers to make my estimates more accurate.

Using US Census Bureau data, I looked up a world population pyramid to get a sense of how many people fall into these age ranges.  Here’s a rough estimate that is close to accurate:

age	world population in 2002 (in millions)
0-9	1,240
10-17	1,216
18-29	1,060
30-39	920
40-49	740
50-59	520
60-69	340
70+	180
Total	6,216

I only needed one more bit of information to make the calculations: the average length of sex.  I found various estimates online, ranging from 2 minutes to 25 or so.  I went with what I thought would be a good average, around 10 minutes.

Using all of the above information, you can actually calculate the number of coital acts per week and per day:

age	number of coital acts per week	number of coital acts per day
0-9	0	0
10-17	608,000,000	86,857,143
18-29	2,226,000,000	318,000,000
30-39	1,564,000,000	223,428,571
40-49	1,036,000,000	148,000,000
50-59	520,000,000	74,285,714
60-69	204,000,000	29,142,857
70+	54,000,000	7,714,286
Total	6,212,000,000	887,428,571

Combining this with the average length of sex, you can then make an estimate of the number of coital acts at any given minute if you divide the number of coital acts per day by 144 (24 x 6; you would multiply by 60 for every minute, but considering each act of sex lasts 10 minutes on average, you need to account for overlap, so you only divide by an additional 6).  This means, the answer to my question is:

age	number of coital acts any given minute (assuming average length is 10 minutes, which means there is overlap)
0-9	0
10-17	603,175
18-29	2,208,333
30-39	1,551,587
40-49	1,027,778
50-59	515,873
60-69	202,381
70+	53,571
Total	6,162,698

About 6 million people are having sex right now!  (I’ll let you provide your own mental images!)

Now, I did these calculations pretty quickly, so it’s certainly possible that my math is off somewhere.  And keep in mind that this is just an estimate, but I’m thinking it’s pretty close to accurate. There is also the problem that the frequency of intercourse numbers are for the US, which means they could be way off for the rest of the world, though I’d guess they are probably close to about average for the world (higher in some countries, lower in others).

The beauty of having these numbers is that you can now calculate how many people are having sex in given regions by turning them into rates:

• for every 1,000 people in a given region, there will be, on average, 999.36 coital acts per week (thank the 18 to 49 year-olds for doing more than their part)
• for every 1,000 people in a given region, there will be, on average, 142.77 coital acts per day
• and for every 1,000 people in a given region, there will be, on average, .99 people having sex at any given minute of the day (I image it’s kind of odd being that .99 of a person)

So, just for fun, here are some numbers for places I’ve lived:

• right now, in Morgan County, UT, where I grew up, there are 7.8 people having sex (pop. 7,906)
• here in Tampa, FL there are 382 people having sex right now (pop. 382,060)
• in Costa Rica there are  4,133 people having sex right now (pop. 4,133,884)

How many people are having sex where you live?

References:

Smith, Tom. (2003). American sexual behavior: Trends, socio-demographic differences, and risk behavior. University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center, GSS Topical Report No. 25.

If you’re a fan of Google Reader, like I am, that means it is now part of your life – something you’re not sure you could live without.  I use Google Reader pretty much every day to read the news and keep up with the blogs that I can (mostly family, some friends).  I love Google Reader.  It’s easy to use, feature-rich, and keeps track of what I have read and haven’t.  It even let’s me read my news on my cellphone (try it; it’s pretty slick).

So, while I shouldn’t complain about this awesome software, there is one thing it doesn’t do that I’ve wanted it to do for years: open links that I want to read in a new tab without changing the focus using a one-key shortcut.  See, Google Reader has lots of great shortcuts – though the only one I use all the time is ‘n’, which moves me to the next item.  When I’m reading through Google News items, I usually read all the short blurbs first, opening the ones that really interest me in new tabs to read at length later (using a right-click with my mouse and “open in new tab” options in Firefox).  Now, that’s really not that terrible, considering I’ve been doing it that way for years now.  But wouldn’t it be nice to simply hit one key and have the items you want to read at length pop up for you to read later?

Well, there is a way to do it, but it requires a few steps.  First, Google Reader doesn’t have the ability to do that, but a plugin for Firefox does: Tab Mix Plus.  So, here’s what you do:

1) Install Tab Mix Plus in Firefox.  Restart Firefox and you should have Tab Mix Plus installed.

2) Go to Tools -> Add-ons.  Click on “Extensions.”

3) Scroll down to “Tab Mix Plus” and click on “Options”.

4) A new window will pop up.  You only need to change one setting (though there are some fun goodies in there you can play with).  Click on “Events” then click on “Tab Focus.”  The only one you really need to unselect is “Links.”  Unselect it.  Then click “Apply.”

5) Once you’re done, go back to Google Reader, start reading, and when you want to open a story in a new tab in the background, hit ‘v’ and it should pop up in the background.

6) Voila!  You now have a one-key solution to breeze through your Google Reader News faster than ever.

I caught this article in the NYTimes yesterday about the corruption and excess of the New York state Senate under the rule of Republicans over the last 40 years. Here’s an excerpt:

They [Democrats] recently realized there are some 75 employees working at the Senate’s own printing plant, a plain brick building on the outskirts of Albany. On Long Island, they found a small television studio, which had been set up — all with public money, with two press aides on hand to help operate it — for the exclusive use of Republican senators to record cable TV shows. Democrats also came across what they are calling the “Brunomobile,” a $50,000 specially outfitted GMC van, with six leather captain’s chairs (some swiveling), a navigation system, rearview camera and meeting table. Joseph L. Bruno, the former Senate majority leader who was recently indicted on corruption charges, traveled in the van after his use of state helicopters sparked a feud with the Spitzer administration. Then there are the parking spots, always at a premium near the Capitol. Democrats had been given roughly one spot per senator — there were 30 Democrats last year — and guessed there were perhaps double or even triple that controlled by the majority. Instead, they have learned, there are more than 800.

Now, before you say it, let me cut you off and say it: I’m guessing Democrats, if left in power for 40 years, may have a tendency to do similar things. That’s certainly possible and I won’t deny it. But the main point of this post is not just to rail against a bunch of Republican state senators but to make a larger argument about how the political parties seem to view government. I’m not an expert on politics, of course, so this is just my two cents, for what they are worth…

It seems like the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want to use government to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor while Republicans want to use government to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. Republicans seem to see government as a personal piggy bank, open to be raided whenever they are: (1) in power or (2) in hard times. Otherwise, Republicans seem to want government to stay away from businesses and keep them unregulated.

Now, as most readers of the blog will know already, I’m not a fan of the current Republican mentality. It really is, fundamentally, about making the rich wealthier and out and out greed. So, here’s what I’m suggesting: If you’re a Republican because you are a fan of small government (which is what Republicans have often claimed) or because you are a fiscal conservative, become a Libertarian. I disagree with Libertarians on a lot of issues, but I don’t think they’re generally as hypocritical as Republicans. Libertarians really do want to shrink the size of government and really would do it. Republicans just say they do, but end up growing it to enrich themselves and their friends. If, however, you’re Republican because you are a social conservative (oppose abortion, etc.), then you should start your own party: The Christian Socialist Party (or maybe The Religious Socialist Party). Your key issues should be social issues, like abortion, gay rights, etc. (again, of course, I’m going to disagree with you). But you should also side with Democrats on some key issues, like helping the poor (considering that is a teaching of most religions). This way, religious conservatives can vote their conscience: they vote socially conservative, but are also pro social welfare. Republicans simply use social conservatism to get the religious to vote in ways that help enrich them. If you’re a Republican because you are a social conservative, you’re a tool of the wealthy and greedy!

In short, it’s time for the Republican party to die. It’s been used as a tool for the last 40 years or so to basically make Republicans wealthy. And, well, look where that has gotten us: growing unemployment, falling home prices, and an economic crisis like we haven’t seen since The Great Depression. If you’re a Republican for any reason other you want to personally enrich yourself via government, you need to get out of that party and pursue your real agenda.

Now that classes have started I haven’t had time to post about pretty much anything. Debi and the baby are fine – no news on that front for the most part. We did have a surprise visit by Debi’s brother-in-law, Brent, who occasionally overnights here (he’s a pilot for Delta). He brought an amazing bag of goodies for us (mostly Debi): tons of amazing maternity clothes from Debi’s sister, Suzy, and a number of groovy things for the baby. Their generosity saved us a few hundred bucks! Groovy!

here's an aerial shot of our house and the stadium - 1.8 miles

The day before his visit we stopped by Raymond James Stadium to check out Superbowl activities on our bikes. We were almost the only ones there: (1) on bikes and (2) without jerseys on. As we rode into the morass of people, Debi asked, “So, who is in the Superbowl?” (No, I’m not making that up – it’s true!)  Amazingly, I knew – mostly because I read the local paper (Steelers and Cardinals, for all those out there who are like us). You’d think from all the people wearing jerseys she would have figured it out, but, um, yeah – we’re not a football family. It almost feels wrong that we live just over a mile from an NFL stadium and have absolutely no interest in the games other than to watch fans while so many other people would put the stadium to better use. Ce la vie!

all the media satellites outside the stadium

Oh, and if you think Debi’s comment is bad, you need to hear Brent’s. As I mentioned, he’s a pilot for Delta. He flew in to Tampa the day after the Superbowl. While he was waiting in line for the courtesy shuttle at his hotel here in Tampa there were a bunch of other people getting on the shuttle to go to the airport. Just to be nice he struck up a conversation, “So, were you here for the Superbowl?” They all kind of looked at him like he was a little weird.

“Of course!!!”

He nodded, then followed up with, “So, who won?”

Stunned silence all around.  If you know Brent, you know he wasn’t just trying to be funny.  He has zero interest in sports.  He really had no idea.  Once the uber-fans had recovered from the shock of someone being so disinterested in the most watched sporting event in US history, they told him it was Pittsburgh.

Brent, now informed, tried to get into the spirit, “Go Pirates!”

More gasps and silence, then laughs.  He thinks that, by this time, they must have thought he was an alien from another planet.  They really couldn’t believe he was that uninformed.  Brent, on the other hand, thought it was so funny he immediately called Steve (Debi’s brother), who actually follows a number of sports, and told him the whole story.

Anyway, I posted a couple shots from our bike ride.  The first shot above is of all the media satellites on the north side of the stadium.  There were so many I had to snap a photo.

As we rode into the area around the stadium across the various parking lots, I snapped this awesome photo of Debi (don’t tell her I posted it; she isn’t fond of it as I caught her with her eyes closed).  What I was really trying to get a shot of, though, was the prices posted in the background.  You can’t see them very well in this small version of the photo, but it is prices for parking: cars = $50; limos = $150; buses = $300.  I might pay $50.00 for a ticket to the Superbowl (they were being scalped for about $2,500 on game day), but $50.00 for parking?

Debi by the stadium

We rode around for about 30 minutes then got bored and decided to leave.  You basically had to have a ticket to see anything fun – it was all inside the fences they had set up.  So, basically all we could see from the outside was the disproportionate number of Steelers fans – they probably outnumbered Cardinals fans by 3 or 4 to 1.

I did end up watching the game later that night while I scanned some stuff for work.  I figure one football game a year is plenty to watch, though I guess this makes 2 as I actually went to an NFL game in November.

On a completely different note, I found a couple of cool timewasters today thanks to lifehacker.com (cool website that I recommend if you’re into tech).

We have way more important things to do today, but when I saw a post about converting your handwriting in to a font for free, I couldn’t pass it up.  Both Debi and I filled out the forms and created our very own fonts.  Yeah, so, our handwriting kind of sucks, but it was fun.  You’re welcome to download our fonts: Ryan Cragun and Debi Cragun.  I tried creating the font using a ballpoint pen, but it didn’t work so hot.  I think a nice felt-tip pen would be ideal, but we ended up using a fine Sharpie.  It worked, but there is a lot of detail lost as a result.  You can see the end result:

my handwriting as a font

Lastly, I found another cool site via lifehacker.com (I get their weekly round up of the best posts in my RSS feed): www.dynastree.com. It uses phone book data to map out the distribution of surnames in the US.  If you’re a Morgan, alas, you’re not all that unique (no offense to any Morgans out there; I’m sure you’re plenty special in your own way!):

In fact, there are a lot of Morgans all over the US:

(I like the typo: “Thus, the surname Morgan the 55. most frequent name in the US.”  Someone needs to let the programmers know it should read, “Thus, the surname “Morgan” is the 55th most frequent name in the US.”)

If you’re a Cragun, however, you’re a bit more unique:

Get this, if you know me and Debi (and why wouldn’t you if you’re reading this?), you know half the Craguns in Florida.  Lucky you!  Here’s the rundown (with the same typo):

Debi has complained before that she never used to have anyone ask how to spell her last name when it was Morgan but now people screw it up all the time.  Well, that’s not all that surprising considering there are hundreds of thousands of Morgans and less than 1,000 Craguns nationwide.  Anyone have a surname more rare than Cragun?