The Ridge February: Nymphomania
13 03 2008|
|
|
Image credit: Huang Bu Min |
|
Get your copy now! |
|
the ridge-NUS SEX SURVEY |
|
THE SLIP OF THE KNOT |
|
UNDERSTANDING SOCIETY |
|
TISSUE PAPER ONE-DOLLAR |
|
Erratum: On page 19, the following quote was provided by Dr Ann-Marie Lew of the Counselling Centre.
|
Errm whats with putting up a stereotypical girl on the cover…Aren’t you just contradicting yourselves by doing so( considering this issue throws light on how society should not pass moral judgements on people)
And ….I the girl’s complaince to be a model for this issue…is amazing!!! I just dont get why she would do so??
It’s called irony.
By volunteering for the cover shoot in an issue that does challenge stereotypes, the model is not being compliant but brave.
Any form of interpreting is influenced by the viewer’s background and knowledge. It’s great that you recognise that the cover IS stereotypical. Some people lack that insight, and will immediately see the model as representative of ‘nymphos’.
The cover reflects the issues that the articles challenge.
Do tell us what you think of the articles– we need feedback! =)
Yati
I like reading the article ‘Horny Ceatures’!!! I didnt know horny mytical creatures existed! It was a fun read! Compliments aside,the picutres lack captions! So I had a hard time trying to identify which picture is Churel or Empusa, etc. It will be good if captions are given for picutres!
thanks for the feedback slurpee!!! i had fun reading it too =) *kevin federline*
noted about the pictures ;) we’ll work harder to improve on that!
the horny creatures article was just hilarious!
Hey I have a few bones to pick with some of the articles. Where can I do that constructively?
you can email your feedback to ridgechiefeditor@nus.edu.sg if you’d like.
why hasn’t anyone commented on the sex survey article?
there are very important facts missing like the sample size.
i find it interesting that there is intense focus on the first part of the article and not the major issue addressed ie. sex education.
Sample size was only 56. Too far of a stretch to generalise to the entire NUS population. And besides, the sampling looks like it was haphazardly done, with no sampling frame and all the random selection. That said, if the article was meant to be funny, it was hilarious.
An excellent example of irresponsible journalism. Sigh.
[...] (See The Ridge Febuary: NYMPHOMANIA) [...]
Monday, March 17, 2008
Survey Finds NUS Students Having Sex
“A report by Shin Min Daily News revealed that 64 per cent of National University of Singapore (NUS) students have sex at least once a week, according to a survey. Hostels and toilets were the preferred places to do the deed.”
AsiaOne reports here.
It’s so strange (not to mention lazy) that none of the major papers decided to check out the reliability and accuracy of the survey (conducted by an NUS student publication), but still ran the story anyway.
“Most survey respondents were from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.”
But if results are truly accurate, then it looks like I’m gonna be gettin some soon.
Looking at the actual survey results though, we discover some interesting facts about the population of NUS:
1) 56.9% of those surveyed preferred males and 34.5% preferred females, even though only 53.6% were females and 46.4% were males. We can conclude around 11.9% of males and 3.3% of females are homosexual (of course, this is wrong.) and the remaining 8.6% of those who indicated neither male nor female are bisexual (of course, this is obvious, since they selected both. but then they could just be BUG)
2) 0.0% of surveyees were from medicine. the reason is clear: they are probably too busy to be getting any, and their inclusion would simply cause the proportion of students having sex to fall to more realistic (and boring) levels.
On the other hand, 51.8% of surveyees were from FASS. Hmm…
3) 56 people were surveyed. Which is no doubt statistically representative of NUS.
4) 7.1% selected Other as an attribute that turned them on. If it’s not the face, eyes, smile, buttocks, legs and body shape, what else might it be? Hmm… A rather large and sizeable brain perhaps? Or the ability to engage in long sessions of adrenaline-pumping intellectual debates?
5) 53.6% admitted to being virgins. So how is it that the 46.4% who are non-virgins end up being the 64% of students who have sex at least once a week?
Of course, they could be implying that 64% of those having sex (including the absent-minded virgin - see point 6) were having it once a week, but that wasn’t made clear, was it? if that’s the case, then shouldn’t it be 64% of the 46.4% which would be about 29% of students surveyed. Which is just as unfair: 29% of students having 64% of the sex? Talk about an unequal distribution of welfare and benefits! (Gini coefficient’s going through the roof. Going through the roof of 1. Well, no. More like, just near or approaching the value of 1.)
6) And how is it with just 26 non-virgins, 27 people managed to answer how often they had sex? I’m guessing one of the virgins answered can’t remember, which is reasonable, because research has shown that most virgins wouldn’t remember the last time they had sex too.
7) At least 4 students know what Felching is. I didn’t, until now, which kind of highlights the shocking inadequacies of sex education in school. (Actually to clarify, schools teach sexuality education, not sex education. Sex education seems to suggest that in order to do well, students require the Latest Edition of the Kama Sutra Ten Year Series for A-Levels.)
8) 77.8% claim that they have never cheated on their partner. Ask their partners, on the other hand, and you might just get a different answer.
9) 100% of students answered with a resounding No, when asked if they had STDs. All 48 denied having any STDs. What about the remaining 8? Weren’t there 56 surveyees at the start? Why didn’t they answer the question?