My Statistically Significant Girlfriend

My girlfriend is 100% unique. Aren’t they all?

But using only six variables, I can prove that she is 99.99999% unique and that stastically speaking, the odds of me meeting someone with these 6 limiting characteristics is pretty slim…

Total U.S. Population (100%): 301,186,847 (0% unique)

1. Female (50.9% of the population): 153,304,105 (49.1% unique)

2. Female, 25-34 yrs old (6.7%): 20,179,519 (93.3% unique)

3. Female, 25-34 yrs old, Bachelor’s degree or higher (32.5%): 6,558,344 (97.8% unique)

4. Female, 20-34 yrs old, Single (47.1%): 3,088,980 (99.0% unique)

I find it amazing that just these four factors, removes 99% of the population.

5. Male/Female, 25-34 yrs old (10%): 353,749 (99.9% unique)

6. Female, Plays Ultimate Frisbee (0.01% – guestimate at 25% of 100,000): 26 (99.99999% unique)

This is saying that there are roughly 26 single vegetarian female frisbee players 25-34 years old in U.S., which seems a bit low, but the overall point is the same regardless of the exact number…If you’re a heterosexual single male vegetarian frisbee player and you’ve found a match, consider yourself statistically lucky.

DC V-Day – Relationship Equations

What is a relationship if it can’t be defined by an equation? Nothing! Let’s go…

• Self (S) = emotional (E) + spiritual (Sp) + sexual (Sx) + physical (P)
• Partner (Pt) = E + Sp + Sx + P
• Relationship (S + Pt) = E^2 + 2ESp + 2ESx + 2EP + Sp^2 + 2SpSx + 2SpP + Sx^2 + 2SxP + P^2

No wonder relationships are so confusing!

You can also try to formalize your relationship through a committment:

• Committment (C) = personal (P) + legal (L) + religious (R) + spiritual (Sp)
• Committment (C) = your decision + approval of gov’t + approval of religion + metaphysical symbiosis

Let’s review some of the different commitment equations, which have changed over the years as different political and socio-economic changes have occurred:

• Traditional = personal + legal + spiritual + religious
• Hollywood = 0
• GLBT (in the U.S.) = personal + (spiritual) (optional)
• Atheist = personal + legal
• Arranged Marriage = legal + (religious) (by culture)
• Green Card Marriage = legal
• Shotgun = legal + religious
• Others?

Now, here’s what I find interesting. My girlfriend and I have been together for 3 years and own a house together (an obvious financial, and defacto personal, committment). We haven’t formally had an official committment, be it a party with friends, a civil union, or a marriage.

When we visit relatives, some of them make moral objections to us sleeping in the same bed because we’re not married, which we do every night at home, and which I find oddly inconsistent given our likely formal committment equation:

• Traditional = personal + legal + spiritual + religious
• Us = personal + legal

Under no known circumstances would we adopt a traditional committment equation which included religion as a component. But I would bet that the “legal” addition to the equation would miraculously make it okay for them, even though they object on a religious basis. Why is that different? Shouldn’t their moral outrage stay the same since we wouldn’t have a religious or spiritual component to our committment?

Our relationship would have a legally binding committment but nothing more. Their concern isn’t with our legal rights and frankly, that addition is a formality to making the personal decision, which is much more binding in my opinion.

And when they come visit, they don’t have a problem staying at our house, where we’re being immoral. Shouldn’t moral indignation trascend location and ownership?

marriage vs. civil union

This article in the Rake Magazine and this editorial in the Star Tribune about marriage make some good points and got me thinking.

The debate on gay “civil-unions” is trivial in the long-run – it will happen. The libertarian nature of the United States should prevail in saying that the government can’t prevent two consenting adults from choosing to grant legal protections to each other (at its minimum, that’s what marriage is). There will be blips of personal morals being used in the courts, but it’s only a matter of time (see the Rake Magazine article regarding inter-racial marriage history). It’s ultimately not a moral debate about marriage, it’s a debate about legal rights of the individual. That’s little saving grace to the trench fights going on now that will cause swings back and forth but there’s little doubt in my mind that the long-run, homosexual civil unions will prevail.

If nothing else, all these state “defense of marriage” activities that are being put to a vote will come down to language. “Marriage” is the purvue of religion and each religion can sort out their own decisions. “Civil-unions” are legal rights of the individual under the state that is separated (in theory) from the the church. Defining “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman will protect religion’s rights to make decisions but is likely inadequate for the government’s sanction of civil unions.

Honesty

“If honesty kills your relationship, then it was already dying of natural causes.” – Carolyn Hax