Unperson

Puntability ratio

16 posts in this topic

Time for a thread on something light now that Spring is here?

When and where I was a young sex maniac the only sex available for me was in the head. One of the things in mine was a rating game. I had 3 different ways of looking at girls and women for possible puntability (I'd already started to believe that punting was the only way in, despite the fact that it was dangerous and almost nonexistent there because of how illegal it was). Each one seemed independent of the other 2. Genetically I don't think they were connected. I found you couldn't predict anybody's rating on any of them well from either of the others.

Whenever I tried each one separately (couldn't think fast enough to keep 3 pairs of totals going at the same time when I was walking around in town), I got the same result. 1 in 5 yes, 4 in 5 no. If I was right about independence, it would mean that something like 1 in 125 female civilians might pass all the 3 tests and be puntable.

First question. Doesn't matter how you get it, but what's your own estimate?

There's a town with some red light streets I've known for a long time. I started the habit of counting the heads there once I'd got the impression that the wildlife always looked the same when I visited. Over 40 years now I can't remember the numbers on the night shift ever being less than 115 or more than 142. A month ago 133 WGs were present and available for business during a Wednesday night and 128 on the Thursday.

From my civilian rating and from those counts I might have expected the number of puntable WGs on any visit to be 1. It was almost always 2 or 3. A few times, more. Very unusual for it to be as low as 1.

That's my biggest standardised sample of WGs, from 40 years. The puntability score in it has always been about 1 in 45.

Second question. What's your own estimate?

Now I write them down, both my numbers seem tough on the people I was sampling. That's just my problem. If you're more generous, that's fine by me.

In my numbers the puntability ratio, WGs to civilians, is over 2 and a half to 1. I can see why it's bigger than 2, because if the bottom half of the female population set up business in a red light district it wouldn't get any customers.

I wouldn't expect this puntability ratio to vary much from one punter to another.

Third question. Am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading your "light" post.....

I think I have just developed dyslexia.

:eek::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purely using the resources of Ad0ltwank I judge the ratio of girls I would consider booking as about 40 to 1, maybe more if I was totally honest. Still my taste may differ or be more demanding than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its true to say some girls become more attractive if they are WGs and therefore acessible for fun

If they arent WGs then we probably wouldnt notice them...

someone on here had a simple F Factor rating of 1 to 10

Like F Factor 9 meant the woman was right on the top end of the scale

and F Factor 1 meant lowest end

Nice and easy to administer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After reading your "light" post.....

I think I have just developed dyslexia.

:eek::)

Sorry about that.

I meant light for punters.

Heavy for WGs, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I begin to see where you are coming from with this and it is interesting. I used to play a silly game waiting for the train on Charing Cross involving noticing all the attractive woman and saying yes or no to their physical attraction being so great that I would happily throw my exisiting life away in their pursuit. That always came back as less than 1 in 50. Now it is more like 1 in a week so God knows what that ratio would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry about that.

I meant light for punters.

Heavy for WGs, I guess.

You're a very brave man. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry about that.

I meant light for punters.

Heavy for WGs, I guess.

You're a very brave man.

:eek: that's ok

I don't mind a bit....

most of the men who visit me are very brave too.... :)

Unperson is probably a lovely man who may even like budgies for all we know....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its true to say some girls become more attractive if they are WGs and therefore acessible for fun

If they arent WGs then we probably wouldnt notice them...

Perhaps, these days. When I was a young sex maniac, though, it definitely wasn't true. I'd say everyone I saw then wasn't a WG, because there were almost none around there. But it's surprising - or maybe it isn't - what a sex-starved imagination can do to compensate for that.

Unperson is probably a lovely man who may even like budgies for all we know....

That's nice. You've got me exactly. For the first half anyway, and possibly the second too, if I ever have the chance to see any budgies close up. So far, I've missed out on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time for a thread on something light now that Spring is here?

When and where I was a young sex maniac the only sex available for me was in the head. One of the things in mine was a rating game. I had 3 different ways of looking at girls and women for possible puntability (I'd already started to believe that punting was the only way in, despite the fact that it was dangerous and almost nonexistent there because of how illegal it was). Each one seemed independent of the other 2. Genetically I don't think they were connected. I found you couldn't predict anybody's rating on any of them well from either of the others.

Whenever I tried each one separately (couldn't think fast enough to keep 3 pairs of totals going at the same time when I was walking around in town), I got the same result. 1 in 5 yes, 4 in 5 no. If I was right about independence, it would mean that something like 1 in 125 female civilians might pass all the 3 tests and be puntable.

First question. Doesn't matter how you get it, but what's your own estimate?

There's a town with some red light streets I've known for a long time. I started the habit of counting the heads there once I'd got the impression that the wildlife always looked the same when I visited. Over 40 years now I can't remember the numbers on the night shift ever being less than 115 or more than 142. A month ago 133 WGs were present and available for business during a Wednesday night and 128 on the Thursday.

From my civilian rating and from those counts I might have expected the number of puntable WGs on any visit to be 1. It was almost always 2 or 3. A few times, more. Very unusual for it to be as low as 1.

That's my biggest standardised sample of WGs, from 40 years. The puntability score in it has always been about 1 in 45.

Second question. What's your own estimate?

Now I write them down, both my numbers seem tough on the people I was sampling. That's just my problem. If you're more generous, that's fine by me.

In my numbers the puntability ratio, WGs to civilians, is over 2 and a half to 1. I can see why it's bigger than 2, because if the bottom half of the female population set up business in a red light district it wouldn't get any customers.

I wouldn't expect this puntability ratio to vary much from one punter to another.

Third question. Am I right?

I started off not being able to understand this and finished up not wanting to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I started off not being able to understand this and finished up not wanting to!

I agree.

Either the OP should be on medication for writing this or I should be on medication for not understanding WTF it's all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:wtf::D Mathematics was never my forte :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the first 2 lines ... I gave up .... and I don't give up easily .... well not with women anyway ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, I'm curious; do you mean there's only about 1 in 45 women that you'd fuck (assuming she was available) or that you'd pay to fuck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OP, I'm curious; do you mean there's only about 1 in 45 women that you'd fuck (assuming she was available) or that you'd pay to fuck?

I'd never thought of that difference before. I'm doubtful that there's a difference for me. I was always thinking of the "for pay" option. Have I missed something?

Whenever I saw one of those 1 in 45 WGs, I punted (if she agreed). Therefore I paid.

My bank account could always stand that, even in the early days when I didn't have much of a bank account. Perhaps I was financially lucky the number didn't turn out to be 1 in 22 and a half.

When I was first thinking about them, a long time ago, the civilians always behaved as if there was (or should be) no such thing as sex. No question of finding it from them either free or for payment. On the other hand a few WGs apparently existed here and there, and for sure they wouldn't have made it available free. Bad for business, bad for the whole international WG tradition. So I was imagining "for payment" when I was looking at the civilians, just as for WGs. As far as I could tell, there was no free option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General message to all those confused posters: please excuse me for giving you so much trouble, fellow punters. I didn't realise where my audience was at.

I'll try to keep it simple this time. It's only meant to be a Spring entertainment.

After looking at one stable sample of WGs over 40 years, I thought that consistently about 1 in 45 had been puntable. Those were also the ones I (therefore) punted. Question: if you think you've got any good sample to refer to, 1 in how many of those WGs were puntable from your point of view?

When I was a young sex maniac where no sex was available, I looked at the general female population in the same way and used my imagination. Peculiar behaviour, maybe, but what else was there to do? I thought that about 1 in 125 would be puntable. Second question: if you've ever done anything like the same, 1 in how many of those people were puntable from your point of view?

I said that my numbers would very possibly be different from other punters' numbers but that the ratio probably wouldn't vary much. The ratio I'm talking about is the population number divided by the WG number. 125/45 or about 2 and three quarters. Meaning that from the point of view of at least this punter, WGs looked about 2 and three quarter times more puntable than the female population.

Third question: if you've got some pair of numbers or if you can think of a pair from what you know, what's this puntability ratio for you?

Thanks very much to Mr. rlw for posting an answer. Any others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now