Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Results
Please note: Graphs with data results will be posted shortly
Thirty-seven people responded to our survey. Twenty-seven (73%) females and ten (27%) males. The age of respondents ranges from 19-88 years old. We looked for possible associations between age, class (income), gender and region and attitudes about sexual conduct. Comparing their own views with those of their parents, most respondents indicated that their attitudes were more tolerant of sexual activity. This suggests a consistent rate of change in popular sexual morality over the last century, therefore, our analysis pays special attention to age.
We were unable to identify any relationship between class and understanding of promiscuity because many respondents refused to divulge their income, and many others are college students, a group generally without income, though not necessarily poor or working class. Similarly, no clear relationship between the region in which individuals grew up and their attitudes about sexual conduct could be identified by our study, though we suspect this may be a result of our sampling methods.
In terms of how respondents define promiscuity, we identified the following common themes during our preliminary reading: A. Cheating; B. Sex with multiple partners (either at once or sequentially); C. Sexual activity without emotional attachment or outside the context of a committed relationship; D. Excessive flirting or overt displays of sexuality. We found no significant difference between the definitions held by men and women, and found that both genders were consistent with the group total. Interesting though not surprising was the fact that nearly all participants associate promiscuity with women and youth. Often they used quotations around the word when using it in reference to men, i.e. “When I think of promiscuity, I admit I immediately think of a young female. Men can be ‘promiscuous’ too I guess, but they are usually encouraged.” This overwhelming consistency reveals that despite the efforts of the women’s movement and the sexual revolution, popular sexual morality continues to contain a gendered doubled standard in expectations of behavior.
Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated sexual activity with multiple partners as a marker of promiscuity, and 41% indicated that sexual activity without emotional attachment or outside the context of a committed relationship as a marker of promiscuity.
We noticed that definitions of promiscuity increased in complexity and nuance among younger participants compared to older participants. Perhaps this reflects confusing and conflicting messages about sexuality in popular culture today as opposed to pre-sexual revolution ideologies. Promiscuous people are harder to identify for younger people, most likely due to increasing tolerant attitudes toward flirtation and revealing clothing. One thing is clear, whatever the reason, commonly held definitions of promiscuity have destabilized over the course of the last 80 years.
Among females 66-88, definitions of promiscuity are startlingly consistent. When asked “How would you define promiscuity?” one respondent, 88 years old, answered, “Not being honest with your husband.” Another, 78 years old, commented, “I was aware in my youth that divorce was not well accepted and that divorces were generally considered loose women.” Their comments reflect traditional patriarchal values, in that a woman’s position as a sexual being is defined by her relationship to a man.
Younger respondents express far more progressive views about sexual morality. A 52 year old female said, “I don’t believe in the concept of promiscuity. I believe the concept come form a place of judging women because of their choices visa vie sexual activity, and I don’t believe anyone has the right to judge others’ choices.” This comment reflects ideologies of the women’s movement and the sexual revolution following World War II, and, though this individual is certainly an outlier in our study, her comment marks and important shift in social definitions of promiscuity, and perhaps the beginning of the destabilization of these definitions. One 54 year old female respondent said, “I would categorize myself as promiscuous in my twenties. I look at someone today with the same behavior, and I simply think they are looking for the right person.” This comment reflects the essence of our study. This individual recognizes changing meanings and cultural expectations about sexual conduct.
The youngest group of participants, those between the ages of 19 and 42, introduce the vocabulary of the “hook up”. This curious term has unclear meanings, it can refer to anything from kissing to sexual intercourse, and its consistent use highlights the confusion of younger people about sexual morality. This group reported their ideas about sexual conduct, what is permissible and what is not with the greatest degree of diversity of opinion. Seventy-one percent indicated that sexual intercourse with multiple partners is the most important marker of promiscuous behavior, yet many specified that one must be sleeping with multiple partners during the same time period, while others including a rapid, sequential changing of partners in their definition of promiscuity. Because of the comparatively liberal behavior of young people today, we were expecting far more defensive attitudes about female sexuality, perhaps even some mention of empowerment through personal choices about sex, but not a single participant from this group spoke this way. Instead, they spoke of what promiscuity means with uncertainty, citing many exceptions and grey areas in their explanations of appropriate, moral sexual conduct.
At a rate of 82%, participants aged 50 or older were socialized in sexual morality by family and religion, while younger participants, especially those in their 20’s, indicated media (television, magazines, internet) as a major socializing agent at a rate of 78%, friends at a rate of 60%, and family at a rate of 45%. This is not surprising in that access to television and the internet was unavailable during the formative years of many older participants, but, given that participants were not limited in their responses, the rare mention of the family and religion among younger participants reveals a decline in their role in the construction of sexual morality. As we know from common experience, the media, especially television, sends mixed messages about sexual conduct, particularly to women. Shows like Flavor of Love and The Bachelor encourage competition for a man’s attention, while sanctioning a man’s right to date and sexually engage with multiple women at the same time. Representations of female beauty are increasingly sexualized; images of fully clothed, beautiful women promoting a product in print ads have been replaced by exposed models frequently posed in sexually suggestive positions. Celebrity news shows depict young women rewarded (with fame and money) and at the same time punished (by scandal, humiliation, exploitation by paparazzi, etc.) for their sexual behavior, as in the case of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. Pornography glorifies and commodifies female sexuality at the same time.
An analysis of the relationship between media and social definitions of promiscuous behavior lies beyond the scope of this study, but certainly deserves further investigation. The over representation of women in our pool of participants may suggest that women are typically more interested in answering questions about promiscuity and sexual morality. Perhaps this is because they have more at stake in terms of the social, personal and emotional consequences of these definitions.
Thirty-seven people responded to our survey. Twenty-seven (73%) females and ten (27%) males. The age of respondents ranges from 19-88 years old. We looked for possible associations between age, class (income), gender and region and attitudes about sexual conduct. Comparing their own views with those of their parents, most respondents indicated that their attitudes were more tolerant of sexual activity. This suggests a consistent rate of change in popular sexual morality over the last century, therefore, our analysis pays special attention to age.
We were unable to identify any relationship between class and understanding of promiscuity because many respondents refused to divulge their income, and many others are college students, a group generally without income, though not necessarily poor or working class. Similarly, no clear relationship between the region in which individuals grew up and their attitudes about sexual conduct could be identified by our study, though we suspect this may be a result of our sampling methods.
In terms of how respondents define promiscuity, we identified the following common themes during our preliminary reading: A. Cheating; B. Sex with multiple partners (either at once or sequentially); C. Sexual activity without emotional attachment or outside the context of a committed relationship; D. Excessive flirting or overt displays of sexuality. We found no significant difference between the definitions held by men and women, and found that both genders were consistent with the group total. Interesting though not surprising was the fact that nearly all participants associate promiscuity with women and youth. Often they used quotations around the word when using it in reference to men, i.e. “When I think of promiscuity, I admit I immediately think of a young female. Men can be ‘promiscuous’ too I guess, but they are usually encouraged.” This overwhelming consistency reveals that despite the efforts of the women’s movement and the sexual revolution, popular sexual morality continues to contain a gendered doubled standard in expectations of behavior.
Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated sexual activity with multiple partners as a marker of promiscuity, and 41% indicated that sexual activity without emotional attachment or outside the context of a committed relationship as a marker of promiscuity.
We noticed that definitions of promiscuity increased in complexity and nuance among younger participants compared to older participants. Perhaps this reflects confusing and conflicting messages about sexuality in popular culture today as opposed to pre-sexual revolution ideologies. Promiscuous people are harder to identify for younger people, most likely due to increasing tolerant attitudes toward flirtation and revealing clothing. One thing is clear, whatever the reason, commonly held definitions of promiscuity have destabilized over the course of the last 80 years.
Among females 66-88, definitions of promiscuity are startlingly consistent. When asked “How would you define promiscuity?” one respondent, 88 years old, answered, “Not being honest with your husband.” Another, 78 years old, commented, “I was aware in my youth that divorce was not well accepted and that divorces were generally considered loose women.” Their comments reflect traditional patriarchal values, in that a woman’s position as a sexual being is defined by her relationship to a man.
Younger respondents express far more progressive views about sexual morality. A 52 year old female said, “I don’t believe in the concept of promiscuity. I believe the concept come form a place of judging women because of their choices visa vie sexual activity, and I don’t believe anyone has the right to judge others’ choices.” This comment reflects ideologies of the women’s movement and the sexual revolution following World War II, and, though this individual is certainly an outlier in our study, her comment marks and important shift in social definitions of promiscuity, and perhaps the beginning of the destabilization of these definitions. One 54 year old female respondent said, “I would categorize myself as promiscuous in my twenties. I look at someone today with the same behavior, and I simply think they are looking for the right person.” This comment reflects the essence of our study. This individual recognizes changing meanings and cultural expectations about sexual conduct.
The youngest group of participants, those between the ages of 19 and 42, introduce the vocabulary of the “hook up”. This curious term has unclear meanings, it can refer to anything from kissing to sexual intercourse, and its consistent use highlights the confusion of younger people about sexual morality. This group reported their ideas about sexual conduct, what is permissible and what is not with the greatest degree of diversity of opinion. Seventy-one percent indicated that sexual intercourse with multiple partners is the most important marker of promiscuous behavior, yet many specified that one must be sleeping with multiple partners during the same time period, while others including a rapid, sequential changing of partners in their definition of promiscuity. Because of the comparatively liberal behavior of young people today, we were expecting far more defensive attitudes about female sexuality, perhaps even some mention of empowerment through personal choices about sex, but not a single participant from this group spoke this way. Instead, they spoke of what promiscuity means with uncertainty, citing many exceptions and grey areas in their explanations of appropriate, moral sexual conduct.
At a rate of 82%, participants aged 50 or older were socialized in sexual morality by family and religion, while younger participants, especially those in their 20’s, indicated media (television, magazines, internet) as a major socializing agent at a rate of 78%, friends at a rate of 60%, and family at a rate of 45%. This is not surprising in that access to television and the internet was unavailable during the formative years of many older participants, but, given that participants were not limited in their responses, the rare mention of the family and religion among younger participants reveals a decline in their role in the construction of sexual morality. As we know from common experience, the media, especially television, sends mixed messages about sexual conduct, particularly to women. Shows like Flavor of Love and The Bachelor encourage competition for a man’s attention, while sanctioning a man’s right to date and sexually engage with multiple women at the same time. Representations of female beauty are increasingly sexualized; images of fully clothed, beautiful women promoting a product in print ads have been replaced by exposed models frequently posed in sexually suggestive positions. Celebrity news shows depict young women rewarded (with fame and money) and at the same time punished (by scandal, humiliation, exploitation by paparazzi, etc.) for their sexual behavior, as in the case of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. Pornography glorifies and commodifies female sexuality at the same time.
An analysis of the relationship between media and social definitions of promiscuous behavior lies beyond the scope of this study, but certainly deserves further investigation. The over representation of women in our pool of participants may suggest that women are typically more interested in answering questions about promiscuity and sexual morality. Perhaps this is because they have more at stake in terms of the social, personal and emotional consequences of these definitions.
The Survey
This survey is meant to explore changes in the moral characterization of sexual behavior in the last century. None of its content is meant to offend you. As a matter of social scientific ethics, your identity will remain concealed. We are looking specifically for the personal nuances of your opinion on the following matters, so do not hesitate to include any details that you feel are important.
We respectfully and gratefully accept your participation in our study.
Year of birth:
Where did you grow up (what state/country)?
Gender:
Income:
How did you acquire your sexual morality? Religion? Your parents? Education? Media?
What behaviors do you associate with “promiscuous” behavior (e.g. flirting, cheating on one’s partner, etc.)? Please be as detailed as possible.
What kind of person do you typically imagine when you think about promiscuity (e.g. male, female, upper class, lower class, educated, uneducated, etc.)? Please be as detailed as possible.
How would you define “promiscuity”?
Do you believe that your definition of promiscuity is different from that of your parents? If so, how? More liberal? More conservative?
We respectfully and gratefully accept your participation in our study.
Year of birth:
Where did you grow up (what state/country)?
Gender:
Income:
How did you acquire your sexual morality? Religion? Your parents? Education? Media?
What behaviors do you associate with “promiscuous” behavior (e.g. flirting, cheating on one’s partner, etc.)? Please be as detailed as possible.
What kind of person do you typically imagine when you think about promiscuity (e.g. male, female, upper class, lower class, educated, uneducated, etc.)? Please be as detailed as possible.
How would you define “promiscuity”?
Do you believe that your definition of promiscuity is different from that of your parents? If so, how? More liberal? More conservative?
Our Methods
We wrote a brief survey with open-ended and demographic questions. We distributed it via email to friends and family, and posted it on craigslist. Completed surveys were forwarded an email address, created specifically for the purpose of this study, from which we removed any identifying information (such as an email address) before printing the surveys. We read them through to identify common themes, which we then coded and quantified for statistical analysis with a second reading.
Promiscuous Past: The Evolution of Hominid Sexual Response
In his article, Hominid Promiscuity and the Sexual Life of Proto-Savages: Did Australopithecus Swing?, Richard G. Whitten examines the ways in which hominid sexual response might be an indicator that ancestral roots of Homo Sapiens might not be so pure. Whitten explains that studies about sexual response have been limited by the fact that researchers have been more interested in studying sexual relations than primate sexual response. (Whitten 1982: 99) Whitten suggests that further study of primate sexual response would be beneficial to our understanding of our own sexual response.
In regards to primate sexual response, Whitten focuses extensively on female sexual response with special emphasis on the female orgasm. Whitten's reasoning for this is that, "It is possible that we have underestimated the importance of the orgasm as positive reinforcement for primate behavior." (Whitten 1982: 99) In the context of his work, this observation is an important one because Whitten acknowledges that attitudes about sexuality are socially constructed. The evolution of hominid sexual response, it would seem, points to a past where serial mating was not the exception but the norm.
Whitten uses studies on the sexual response of humans, chimpanzees, and macaques to demonstrate the similarities in sexual response and mounting postures. Whitten explains that the use of a variety of positions suggests that "a certain amount of play, learning, and reward is involved" and that the females have the "superior orgasmic potential." (Whitten 1982: 99) In speak of the orgasmic potential, Whitten is referring to the ability to have multiple orgasms without a refractory phase. Whitten explains how in the chimpanzee and macaque populations multiple males copulate with the females, and how "female orgasm is a phenomenon present among several primate groups but most obvious in humans." (Whitten 1982: 101)
Whitten's observations are relevant to our study of promiscuity because they put a new spin on the issue of promiscuity--what if behavior that we view as promiscuous is actually how our bodies' are designed to perform? In many ways, Whitten's observations serve as a reminder of how much sexuality and promiscuity are socially constructed.
Hominid Promiscuity and the Sexual Life of Proto-Savages: Did Australopithecus Swing? Author(s): Richard G. Whitten, Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 99-101, Publisher: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research ,Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742554
In regards to primate sexual response, Whitten focuses extensively on female sexual response with special emphasis on the female orgasm. Whitten's reasoning for this is that, "It is possible that we have underestimated the importance of the orgasm as positive reinforcement for primate behavior." (Whitten 1982: 99) In the context of his work, this observation is an important one because Whitten acknowledges that attitudes about sexuality are socially constructed. The evolution of hominid sexual response, it would seem, points to a past where serial mating was not the exception but the norm.
Whitten uses studies on the sexual response of humans, chimpanzees, and macaques to demonstrate the similarities in sexual response and mounting postures. Whitten explains that the use of a variety of positions suggests that "a certain amount of play, learning, and reward is involved" and that the females have the "superior orgasmic potential." (Whitten 1982: 99) In speak of the orgasmic potential, Whitten is referring to the ability to have multiple orgasms without a refractory phase. Whitten explains how in the chimpanzee and macaque populations multiple males copulate with the females, and how "female orgasm is a phenomenon present among several primate groups but most obvious in humans." (Whitten 1982: 101)
Whitten's observations are relevant to our study of promiscuity because they put a new spin on the issue of promiscuity--what if behavior that we view as promiscuous is actually how our bodies' are designed to perform? In many ways, Whitten's observations serve as a reminder of how much sexuality and promiscuity are socially constructed.
Hominid Promiscuity and the Sexual Life of Proto-Savages: Did Australopithecus Swing? Author(s): Richard G. Whitten, Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 99-101, Publisher: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research ,Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742554
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sexual Liberalization of Women: Will and Has Society Accepted It?
Karl King, Jack O. Balswick and Ira E. Robinson performed a study in 1977 at a southern university based on their beliefs and findings that from the mid 60s-early 70s there was a “dramatic liberalization in both premarital sexual behavior and attitudes for college females” (King et al 1977: 455). The sample of students taken represented a fair population that was representative of the entire student population. Their findings showed that the amount of premarital sex in females doubled in occurrence between 1965 and 1970 as opposed to the previous five years. Similarly, in previous years and studies, “three out of every four males engaged in heavy petting while only approximately one out of three females did so; by 1975 the difference between male and female petting behavior had become almost indistinguishable” (King et al 1977: 456). The students were also asked to answer whether or not they thought that participation in premarital sex was immoral. Between 1965 and 1975 the female population who believed it was immoral decreased from 70 to 20 percent, while “the same attitude among males had changed much less” (King et al 1977: 457).
As a result of the findings in this study, they came to the conclusion that “the difference between male and female behavior and attitudes has greatly diminished” (King et al 1977:458). Since the views of both sexes seem to be so close together and along the same lines, the authors believed that “society is approaching a single premarital sexual standard” (King et al 1977:458). Though their findings are statistically true, and though females’ views and attitudes on sex in general (not just premarital) had certainly liberalized at the time and have ever increasingly over the 30 years since this was published, the fact still remains that despite people’s own personal views and beliefs, men and women will always be viewed differently by one another. Yes, perhaps females are more likely to participate in premarital sex and are more open to the idea of it, however, they are also more likely to be viewed as “sluts” or “promiscuous” by men or even other women who do not share in their same views or behaviors.
The study also presented the idea that their findings only represented the college educated population and that those of lower socioeconomic situations may not share the same new attitudes and “may continue to hold to and practice more of a double sexual standard” (King et al 1977:458). Since people with lower social and economic status would not necessarily have been involved in protests and the feminist movement it makes sense that the differences between males and females attitudes would still hold strong. However, over the past few decades, as premarital sex in itself has become more socially acceptable among most groups (besides in religious and extremely conservative circles), I believe that the difference does not necessarily matter, as men and women will still always be viewed differently.
The fact of the matter still is, and always will be, that even if women are liberalized and continue to grow more comfortable with and accept premarital sex and other sexual behaviors, just the thought of this on their part will be viewed by the rest of the population as “slutty,” promiscuous, or not otherwise accepted. Yes, not only men, but women, enjoy to have sex in college and before they are married (not necessarily just the person that they will spend the rest of their lives with), but to many people, these liberalized women are simply committing sins and wrongdoings, while men are expected to do so and it is easily overlooked and forgiven. This aspect of society will never change…even if women have and continue to do so.
Source: King, Karl, Jack O. Balswick, and Ira E. Robinson. "The Continuing Premarital Sexual Revolution Among College Females." Journal of Marriage and the Family 39 (1977): 455-459. JSTOR. 6 Mar. 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)