Statistics for People Who Don't Like to Think

I saw a public-service ad on the side of a bus today. It read: "92% of women carry lip protection. 10% carry HIV protection."

Hmmm.

Now, I understand that the purpose of the ad is to contrast the seriousness with which we tackle the dangerous problem of chapped lips, and the astonishingly cavalier way in which we take on the dangers of HIV. Really, I get that.

But those statistics are ludicrous. For starters, exactly who is included in the group "women"? Well, obviously not men, but is a 10 year old girl a "woman"? How about a 90 year old woman? In theory, neither of them is likely to need HIV protection, and therefore the fact that either of them carries lip gloss or Chapstick but not HIV protection is meaningless.

If we limit ourselves to sexually-active women, the group gets relatively smaller, and the statistic perhaps more meaningful, but even there, I'm not so sure. Take married women, for example -- a woman in a monogomous relationship with a man (or a woman) who is not HIV-positive, which describes many married women, has very little reason to carry HIV protection, but may still have reason to carry the aforementioned lip protection. Once again, the statistical comparison is meaningless.

And what about the "carrying" part? It presumes that if you did a spot check on the street, you'd find 92 Chapsticks but only 10 condoms. But is this an accurate test? Think about it -- every time you step outdoors during the day, your lips are at risk of getting damaged from sun, cold and wind, so the fact that a large proportion of the relevant population regularly carries lip protection makes sense, right? Now consider that people are not generally at risk of having sex every time the step outside, and therefore, arguably, don't need to carry HIV protection with them at all times. Isn't it possible that at least some of these 'round-the-clock lip-protectors keep condoms at home, where they're more likely to have sex, or bring condoms with them only when they're considering having sex out of the home?

And what about men? Are there no men who purchase and/or carry their own condoms for encounters that are likely to involve sex? And if a woman is lucky enough to be having sex with such an enlightened man, wouldn't it seem that once again, it's irrelevant whether she is carrying lip protection but not HIV protection?

In any event, I can only speak for myself, but whenever my wife and I go out for the evening, owing to the fact that her dresses frequently don't have pockets, I usually end up holding her lip gloss for her.

Hmmm. I guess that makes her part of the 8% who don't carry either.