So boys have you ever got your wallet out before getting your chap out?

[d000hg]

Then I suggest you read my first post.

As far as your expert suggestion of not using "The sample is too small", you have answered it yourself. And what if the statistical sample provide the exact opposite result? I am sure you will jump boat, given your analysis.

You've proved your ignorance. There are rigorous mathematical ways to tell you if a sample is too small based not only on the sample size relative to the population but on the distribution (and other metrics) observed. So unless you've worked that out, or even made a back of the envelope calculation you'd like to share, you're just guessing.

[BrilloPad]

You've proved your ignorance. There are rigorous mathematical ways to tell you if a sample is too small based not only on the sample size relative to the population but on the distribution (and other metrics) observed. So unless you've worked that out, or even made a back of the envelope calculation you'd like to share, you're just guessing.

FLC thinks it should have been 100% of men pay for sex - based on a sample size of 1. Himself.

[d000hg]

FLC thinks it should have been 100% of men pay for sex - based on a sample size of 1. Himself.

A very small sample size, if you know what I mean.

[BrilloPad]

A very small sample size, if you know what I mean.

Assuming he has popped his cherry atall.....

[vetran]

A very small sample size, if you know what I mean.

that's why he has to pay?

[FatLazyContractor]

You've proved your ignorance. There are rigorous mathematical ways to tell you if a sample is too small based not only on the sample size relative to the population but on the distribution (and other metrics) observed. So unless you've worked that out, or even made a back of the envelope calculation you'd like to share, you're just guessing.

Alrite smartboy. I presumed, but I am quite sure now that you haven't read the detailed findings. And the point where you lost the plot is between sampling for people who eat frogs for dinner Vs People who mate.

Methods We used a multistage, clustered, and stratifi ed probability sample design. Within each of the 1727
sampled postcode sectors for Natsal-3, 30 or 36 addresses were randomly selected and then assigned to interviewers.
To oversample individuals aged 16–34 years, we randomly allocated addresses to either the core sample (in which
individuals aged 16–74 years were eligible) or the boost sample (in which only individuals aged 16–34 years were
eligible). Interviewers visited all sampled addresses between Sept 6, 2010, and Aug 31, 2012, and randomly selected
one eligible individual from each household to be invited to participate. Participants completed the survey in their
own homes through computer-assisted face-to-face interviews and self-interview. We analysed data from this survey,
weighted to account for unequal selection probabilities and non-response to correct for diff erences in sex, age group,
and region according to 2011 Census fi gures. We then

The clustered, Stratified sample used here is Men and Women as Stratums (Refer to the Lancet link of the detailed study if you know how to get there). Within these Stratums, the classifications were broadly based on the standard parameters of Marital Status, Ethnic groups, Academic qualifications etc. What is doesn't account for (atleast from the report) is:

- Immigrants having sex in UK/EU/Asia/Others against a representative % increase in population through immigration. This figure isn't insignificant between 2010 and 2012 (when the survey happened).
- The boost sample (16 - 34), in this case, may not be a representative of people who pay for sex. Against an assumption of affordability to pay for Sex Vs Age group Vs Socio-Economic Classification. To put it simply, the perspective of "Paid sex" is flawed if your boost sample is 16-34 instead of something more representative like 16-62.
- Socio-economic classification during the years of 2010 - 2012 has to take into account the economic slowdown during those years and the affordability index. The survey doesn't say that the Clustered, Stratified sample is a representative of the inflation/affordability indices.
- Doesn't provide figures on British Nationals who paid for sex outside UK.

[FatLazyContractor]

FLC thinks it should have been 100% of men pay for sex - based on a sample size of 1. Himself.

No, I always think it is better to pay for it 100% of the times!

[d000hg]

So you're arguing the sample is not representative, not that (as you previously said) it is too small?

If you make a claim without supporting data you are automatically in the wrong until such time as you provide that data. It's called science.

You still haven't showed what a suitable sample size on 30m people would be.

[FatLazyContractor]

So you're arguing the sample is not representative, not that (as you previously said) it is too small?

If you make a claim without supporting data you are automatically in the wrong until such time as you provide that data. It's called science.

You still haven't showed what a suitable sample size on 30m people would be.

I will leave that to your brain (same size as the sample used) to decipher who's missing from the statistics. Oh wait, for that you need to be able to read

[mudskipper]

I always assumed you'd pay after, not before.