fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3367 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3367 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #481.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's a bad method

As opposed to...? There is no perfect method. If there is, feel free to share.

It doesn't prove anything for or against the point you're trying to make unless you cherrypick.

You're assuming I'm trying to prove something. It's just data to analyze.
For SPN:
Anal Sex:
M/M (3909)
F/M (410)
F/F (77)

Oral Sex:
M/M (5830)
F/M (1198)
F/F (207)

Like I said, it's very easy to check the margin of error by gender hookup if you're concerned it's significant. 88% of Anal Sex tagged fics are M/M couples. 80% of Oral Sex tagged fics are M/M couples.

I really don't get you, nonny. You have concerns about the affects of certain factors, but you don't do any work to look into them. Is it lack of curiosity or what?

Edited 2016-03-24 00:42 (UTC)

It's laziness. If you're willing to do the work, how many of those oral sex and anal sex fics are the same fic, and what's the % like if oral sex being buildup to anal sex? How many fics with anal sex in them are tagged "anal sex" and not merely "rough sex" + "top!Castiel" implying penetrative sex w/r/t topping and bottoming?

My point here is that without that kind of data, pointing at numbers of those two tags says nothing of consequence since people do not all use the same tagging system or tag their fics the same way. If you search for the tag "sex" many of the top results are ones that do not contain the tag "anal sex" but do contain "top!X" and "bottom!Y" which implies penetration is happening.

how many of those oral sex and anal sex fics are the same fic

2267 of them.

My point here is

Your point is that the data collection has to be perfect, when data collection never is. Researchers can never control for all factors, and it's not always cost-time effective to do so.

You keep complaining about how this factor or that factor potentially affects the data--okay? So? You can either accept that data collection isn't perfectly representative, or you can just...give up on discussing things, I guess. If you're not willing to accept any kind of data assessment, then there's really nothing to discuss.

"top!X" and "bottom!Y" which implies penetration is happening.

No? That's sometimes about power dynamics. Guess we just better give up on trying to collect information or understand fandom's tastes, because of the wild "might be penetrative, might not" Top!X factor.

Power dynamics are usually dom!X and sub!Y ime.

And no, my point isn't that data collection has to be perfect, it's that the data you are presenting me with does not conclusively prove anything to me. But I feel this conversation has ground to a halt.

The data wasn't meant to prove anything, conclusively or otherwise. I was putting it forth for assessment and input. You chose to get all hung up thinking I was trying to prove something, and so then you tried to nitpick with different factors to show how I couldn't prove anything because the data was too problematic.

If that summary is wrong, then by all means say it. But I don't disagree. You did grind the conversation to a halt.

It takes two sides to grind to a halt, one could argue that posting data that isn't meant to mean anything conclusively or otherwise was where the conversation stalled.

Again, I'm too lazy to bother more than this, though, since it's going nowhere. Have a nice night and I mean that with no sarcasm. =)

[ SECRET POST #3367 ]

Re: The power of dick

Re: The power of dick

Re: The power of dick

Re: The power of dick

Re: The power of dick

Re: The power of dick