Lately there's been a lot of discussion of the "average" man -- what he looks like, where he hangs out and, of course, how often he gets laid.

It's occurred to me while reading and participating in these discussions that we're all sort of talking past each other. From what I've seen, there seem to be two camps on this issue. In summary:

Camp 1: The average man does not have casual sex with regularity. If a man is having casual sex more than once or twice a year, that's higher than average. So by definition he is not an average man, regardless of his other traits.

Camp 2: Most men who are otherwise average in looks/wealth/status/social skills/career/etc. can (not necessarily do) get laid more than once or twice a year.

Camp 2 says the fact that a guy may get laid regularly doesn't negate that he's average overall; camp 1 says it does.

I tend to fall into camp 2, but I don't think camp 1 is necessarily wrong. I see where they're coming from and it makes sense. It's just not my interpretation.

But ultimately, I think talking about the average man or woman is too broad to be useful. Every single one of us is an outlier just for posting on PPD and thinking about this stuff at all. But does that mean that none of us can be average people in general? I don't think so.

The average person has brown hair and eyes. I have blonde hair and blue eyes. Does that mean I'm not "average"? Well, by that metric it does, but I can still be average in more ways than I'm not.

Similarly, a guy may be average in terms of looks, height, income and status bet get laid once a month just because he plays the field aggressively and has a charming personality. By those last two metrics he's clearly above-average, but most people who know him would still describe him as an average guy because they're looking at him more holistically.

So this is where I think the disconnect comes from (and the more I think about it, the more I wonder if this is a systematizer/non-systematizer divide.) One camp is thinking in terms of mathematical average -- if the guy's n count is higher than the average, then he's above average. Simple enough. The other camp is using "average" more colloquially, to mean "unremarkable, middle-of-the-road, ordinary."

Personally, when I say that the guys I know who have regular casual sex are average, I'm well aware that they're above average in the n count department. I'm well aware that their sexual experience is not that of the average guy. What I mean when I say they're average is that they are unremarkable and ordinary in most ways -- they are not rich, they are not stunningly handsome, they don't have any special credentials or talents that make them stand out from the general population.

I suspect a lot of people are using "average" the same way I am. But the fact of the matter is these discussions will continue to be fruitless until we're all speaking with a common vocabulary, and I just don't think we are right now.

I don't really want this to turn into another thread where we argue about the average guy's experience; there's at least two of those on the front page right now as it is. But I am curious as to what most people mean when they say "average" here. Do you mean statistical, mathematical average? Or are you using a more colloquial definition? Discuss.

Edit: Also I realize my title sucks and isn't totally reflective of my stance, but I couldn't think of a better way to concisely state my position.