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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Boys Will Be Boys: Differing Cultural Stances on Adolescent Sexuality
In her article, “Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation,” Leora Tanenbaum addresses an issue that she calls “slut-bashing.” Slut-bashing refers to the act of degrading young women by labeling them “slut”, “whore”, or “bitch”. While there are many complex reasons as to why these women are given these derogatory labels, there is one simple outcome—a broad negative impact on the way they practice sexuality. Being labeled a “slut” results in a reputation that “takes months, if not years, to evaporate—if it does at all.” (Tanenbaum 1999: 252) Tanenbaum addresses the ways in which the “slut” label can affect a young woman’s life long after it has been cast upon her.
According to Tanenbaum, any girl can be labeled a "slut" for a wide variety of reasons including but not limited to having a casual attitude towards sex, being a social minority of some kind, and being a victim of a rumor started as an act of revenge. Being labeled a "slut" results in her devaluation as a human being--ownership and responsibility for her body and personal life are undermined by the "slut" label she has branded with. Slut-bashing can be taken as evidence that sexism is still prevalent in society as there is a double standard to the adolescent sexuality of girls and boys. (Tanenbaum 1999: 253)
Tanenbaum explains,"slut-bashing sends the message... that men and boys are free to express themselves sexually, but women and girls are not." (Tanenbaum 1999: 253) Relatively similar sexual behavior and activity can produce drastically different outcomes for young men and women. For what a guy might be praised for, a girl might be chastised for. This results in a power imbalance that leaves some girls thinking that their sexuality is the only power they wield in society. (Tanenbaum 1999: 256) Slut-bashing (on the part of girls) is a way that they can take some power back, and therefore, assume a higher status in the social hierarchy while pushing someone else down.
Tanenbaum's analysis of slut-bashing is extremely relevant and of great social importance. Slut-bashing is concerning because the "slut" label can befall any girl at anytime. As a word "slut" is so incredibly potent, yet it is tossed around as if it were meaningless. Though girls are some of the worst offenders when it comes to slut-bashing, ultimately, the burden of rectifying the situation falls on the shoulders of men. Men must reject this double standard by supporting and empowering the women in their communities and not turning a blind eye to the important social, economic, and political issues facing women today.
According to Tanenbaum, any girl can be labeled a "slut" for a wide variety of reasons including but not limited to having a casual attitude towards sex, being a social minority of some kind, and being a victim of a rumor started as an act of revenge. Being labeled a "slut" results in her devaluation as a human being--ownership and responsibility for her body and personal life are undermined by the "slut" label she has branded with. Slut-bashing can be taken as evidence that sexism is still prevalent in society as there is a double standard to the adolescent sexuality of girls and boys. (Tanenbaum 1999: 253)
Tanenbaum explains,"slut-bashing sends the message... that men and boys are free to express themselves sexually, but women and girls are not." (Tanenbaum 1999: 253) Relatively similar sexual behavior and activity can produce drastically different outcomes for young men and women. For what a guy might be praised for, a girl might be chastised for. This results in a power imbalance that leaves some girls thinking that their sexuality is the only power they wield in society. (Tanenbaum 1999: 256) Slut-bashing (on the part of girls) is a way that they can take some power back, and therefore, assume a higher status in the social hierarchy while pushing someone else down.
Tanenbaum's analysis of slut-bashing is extremely relevant and of great social importance. Slut-bashing is concerning because the "slut" label can befall any girl at anytime. As a word "slut" is so incredibly potent, yet it is tossed around as if it were meaningless. Though girls are some of the worst offenders when it comes to slut-bashing, ultimately, the burden of rectifying the situation falls on the shoulders of men. Men must reject this double standard by supporting and empowering the women in their communities and not turning a blind eye to the important social, economic, and political issues facing women today.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Promiscuity and 'Reality' TV: Real Love in Three Weeks!
It's 2AM, a game of hacky sack from the room above has just awoken you from your peaceful slumber. You peel your face from your copy of Durkheim's Rules of Sociological Method. You have concluded that you aren't one of those lucky individuals who can learn through osmosis. What are you to do? Turn on the good old fashioned boob tube.
Click.
News. Brian Williams. [Yawn] Boring.
Click.
Ocho-Cinco. This might be interesting. Wait...why are there starving children on TV? Why aren't you playing football Chad? Nairobi? Thank god I don't live in Africa.
Click.
FLAVOR FLAAAAAAVVVVV! Yeah boiiiiiiiii! WOOOOWWWWWW! VH1, I bow to thee for once again providing me with mass-consumed sustenance. I really hope that Flav finds the woman he has been looking for. If Brigitte Nielsen can't take care of the little, developmentally-challenged imp, who can? Flavor Flav, you're going to be alright. "Hoopz" and "Deelishis" didn't work out, but what can you expect when you have to find love in three weeks? For you, my man, the third time is the charm! You're going to find your soulmate and the two of you will take care of your seven rugrats. You'll pop another one in the oven, and further share your love with the world. And when it is all said and done, hopefully this will be the last time you have to search for love.
Flav, I just want you to know that I'm trying to be "Sinceer", but it's really hard when you don't seem take love or women very seriously. Come on, "Myammee", "Hotlanta", " Grayvee"--is it me or does this sound like a PA forgot to use spell check when printing out the cue cards? Why can't you call them by their real names? Instead, you choose names that couldn't get much more degrading--"Bunz", "Thing 1 and Thing 2", and "Luscious D" (Okay, I'll admit, this one's kinda hot). The truth of the matter is that the names you give women on your show are the least of your problems. Listen up, Flav, If you're going to find real love you need to look beyond "reality" television.
Flav, try to understand that shows like Rock of Love, A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, I Love New York, and Flavor of Love are simply saying the same thing about love--if, in three weeks, you can get two dozen women together in one house, you'll find real love. I don't know in which alternate dimension this kind of activity passes for "reality", but in our society if people see 24 women in one house they either think it is a safe house for domestic violence victims or brothel. I don't want to be overly critical, because I think we need to understand this illegitimate conception of love is of our own doing. Though it pains me, I'll admit that I frequently watch three out of the four shows I just mentioned. I have had a hand in the devaluation of love by promoting conduct that in every day life is considered promiscuous, but is widely acceptable and commonplace on nearly every major television network.
So Flav, you can spare me those crocodile tears. I'm just as culpable as you are in all of this, but I think I know how I can help you find love. Without sounding too much like Seth Rogen in "The 40-Year Old Virgin", love is like a seed. You plant the seed. You wait for it patiently. You take care of its needs by buying it potting soil and plant food. You wait for it patiently. You see it start to sprout so you mist it for encouragement. You wait for it patiently. Eventually, your plant grows and you realize that it isn't what you expected. It's almost scary how unexpectedly different it is. Then it hits you--the unexpected part was the part that you didn't ask for, but it was what made love worth the wait in the first place.
So you hang in there Flav. Cut it out already. Honestly, the world can't handle a Flavor of Love 4. Be patient, and love will come to you. And for God's sake, wrap it up already.
Click.
News. Brian Williams. [Yawn] Boring.
Click.
Ocho-Cinco. This might be interesting. Wait...why are there starving children on TV? Why aren't you playing football Chad? Nairobi? Thank god I don't live in Africa.
Click.
FLAVOR FLAAAAAAVVVVV! Yeah boiiiiiiiii! WOOOOWWWWWW! VH1, I bow to thee for once again providing me with mass-consumed sustenance. I really hope that Flav finds the woman he has been looking for. If Brigitte Nielsen can't take care of the little, developmentally-challenged imp, who can? Flavor Flav, you're going to be alright. "Hoopz" and "Deelishis" didn't work out, but what can you expect when you have to find love in three weeks? For you, my man, the third time is the charm! You're going to find your soulmate and the two of you will take care of your seven rugrats. You'll pop another one in the oven, and further share your love with the world. And when it is all said and done, hopefully this will be the last time you have to search for love.
Flav, I just want you to know that I'm trying to be "Sinceer", but it's really hard when you don't seem take love or women very seriously. Come on, "Myammee", "Hotlanta", " Grayvee"--is it me or does this sound like a PA forgot to use spell check when printing out the cue cards? Why can't you call them by their real names? Instead, you choose names that couldn't get much more degrading--"Bunz", "Thing 1 and Thing 2", and "Luscious D" (Okay, I'll admit, this one's kinda hot). The truth of the matter is that the names you give women on your show are the least of your problems. Listen up, Flav, If you're going to find real love you need to look beyond "reality" television.
Flav, try to understand that shows like Rock of Love, A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, I Love New York, and Flavor of Love are simply saying the same thing about love--if, in three weeks, you can get two dozen women together in one house, you'll find real love. I don't know in which alternate dimension this kind of activity passes for "reality", but in our society if people see 24 women in one house they either think it is a safe house for domestic violence victims or brothel. I don't want to be overly critical, because I think we need to understand this illegitimate conception of love is of our own doing. Though it pains me, I'll admit that I frequently watch three out of the four shows I just mentioned. I have had a hand in the devaluation of love by promoting conduct that in every day life is considered promiscuous, but is widely acceptable and commonplace on nearly every major television network.
So Flav, you can spare me those crocodile tears. I'm just as culpable as you are in all of this, but I think I know how I can help you find love. Without sounding too much like Seth Rogen in "The 40-Year Old Virgin", love is like a seed. You plant the seed. You wait for it patiently. You take care of its needs by buying it potting soil and plant food. You wait for it patiently. You see it start to sprout so you mist it for encouragement. You wait for it patiently. Eventually, your plant grows and you realize that it isn't what you expected. It's almost scary how unexpectedly different it is. Then it hits you--the unexpected part was the part that you didn't ask for, but it was what made love worth the wait in the first place.
So you hang in there Flav. Cut it out already. Honestly, the world can't handle a Flavor of Love 4. Be patient, and love will come to you. And for God's sake, wrap it up already.
Monday, March 24, 2008
A Double-Standard Institutionalized in Slang
When thinking about the words we use and where they come from, I think it’s important to consider the patriarchal implications of those associated with sexual behavior. Think about the words we use to describe “promiscuous” women: slut, whore, floozy, tramp, cumdumpster, harlot, bitch, ho, and femme fatale. These words are all negative and degrading in their connotation, not to mention, the words themselves are no less than moral indictments. Meanwhile, the words we use for “promiscuous” men are generally glorifying recognitions of conquest and/or domination: pimp, player, casanova, stud, and ladies’ man. I’ve even heard the term “make-out artist” applied in this way. It's no coincidence either that words like "pussy", slang appropriated from female anatomy, refers to men who are relatively inactive sexually or unwilling to have sex outside of a real commitment to another person. Women walk a fine line between sexy and slutty, and to trip over that line may be as unexpected and undeserved as an accusation or rumor spread by an angry ex or jealous friend. Men, on the other hand, enjoy a legacy of being rewarded for wanton, even exploitive sexual behavior as evidenced by language itself and perpetuated therein. In my opinion, a serious look at language exposes a highly gendered contradiction in our characterization (our definition and moral characterization) of sexual behavior. Further, it is clear to me that language plays a significant role in how we interpret expectations. In other words, we are pressured into certain behaviors by the definitions commonly available to us in language.
What do you think? (I invite your comments!)
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Promiscuous Girl
Even the lyrics and dance moves of the most popular songs on the radio and that are shown as music videos on MTV or VH1 promote promiscuity, specifically among teenagers and young adults, as these are the age groups which are being targeted.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
The Internet and Promiscuity
Mass media has become an institution that greatly effects the way people develop relationship with each other. The internet has enabled faster friendships, but with these almost immediate connections, do the bonds between two people strengthen? Or because of the fast paced world we live in, do these relationships (sexual or not) come and go in short spurts?
The creation and popularity of such sites like Myspace, Facebook, and Friendster certainly enable these cyber interactions. In some cases the interaction between two people is so deep that it can distract from an individual's real life. But where does the line of real life end and a virtual life begin? Second Life and World of Warcraft let people "escape" any reality they dislike. For individuals who can not fit in with their social network the internet suddenly allows them to create a new identity and become socially accepted in the cyberspace world.
What about promiscuity? How does the internet affect acceptance of or distaste for the term? How does the internet bring a new meaning to promiscuity? Thoughts?
I believe in a way the internet is desensitizing the term promiscuity. Sites such as myspace have developed a social network that encourages young girls to post promiscuous photos of themselves. (Let me state that I believe it is the network of those on myspace and not the makers of myspace itself that feed this behavior) Yes, there is still a line that can be crossed when it comes to promiscuity, but most girls and young women walk the line between socially accepted (on the internet) and socially deviant. In a way the cyber walls close off an openness, trust, and truth that comes from face-to-face interactions.
What the internet lacks in truth it makes up for in acceptance and encouragement of deviant behavior. The cyber walls allow individuals to step out of their everyday norms and explore their hidden desires. In this masked world promiscuity thrives.
The creation and popularity of such sites like Myspace, Facebook, and Friendster certainly enable these cyber interactions. In some cases the interaction between two people is so deep that it can distract from an individual's real life. But where does the line of real life end and a virtual life begin? Second Life and World of Warcraft let people "escape" any reality they dislike. For individuals who can not fit in with their social network the internet suddenly allows them to create a new identity and become socially accepted in the cyberspace world.
What about promiscuity? How does the internet affect acceptance of or distaste for the term? How does the internet bring a new meaning to promiscuity? Thoughts?
I believe in a way the internet is desensitizing the term promiscuity. Sites such as myspace have developed a social network that encourages young girls to post promiscuous photos of themselves. (Let me state that I believe it is the network of those on myspace and not the makers of myspace itself that feed this behavior) Yes, there is still a line that can be crossed when it comes to promiscuity, but most girls and young women walk the line between socially accepted (on the internet) and socially deviant. In a way the cyber walls close off an openness, trust, and truth that comes from face-to-face interactions.
What the internet lacks in truth it makes up for in acceptance and encouragement of deviant behavior. The cyber walls allow individuals to step out of their everyday norms and explore their hidden desires. In this masked world promiscuity thrives.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Social Network Theory and Procrastination
While sitting here attempting to finish my take home midterm I thought one of the quotations and my response might be of some interest and relevance to our study on the Sociology of Promiscuity.
“…networks orchestrate, at a very basic level, the various social situations with which we, as individuals, are confronted” (Lauman et al. 1994: 29)
Within our social networks, in a very intimate (close friends and family) and broad sense (school community or American culture), we are pressured to adapt to the social norm. The Social Network theory explains how our sexual encounters, relationships, and attitudes towards sexuality are shaped by our intimate and broad networks. In studying sexuality we have to examine the things that shape our beliefs and fears. “At a very basic level,” a group of friends may “affect whether two people will get together to form a sexual relationship” and also how they will act within that relationship. Sexuality does not need to be studied on a partnership level, it is something one has as an individual, but how we perceive and act on our sexuality can clearly be seen in our relationships and our social networks.
Another quote from the reading that I find relevant…
“…fundamental contribution of the network approach is in showing how the social networks in which people are embedded affect whether two people will get together to form a sexual relationship and, if they do, which cultural understandings and economic motivations they will bring to that relationship”
Do you find this to be true? I see things in my everyday life that definitely support the fact that my network influences the situations I get into. On a similar level, all the third parties involved in any relationship I have been in have highly influenced that relationship’s strengths, weaknesses, and ultimate outcome. Those third parties can be parents, siblings, friends, teachers, co-workers, and religious beliefs.
“…networks orchestrate, at a very basic level, the various social situations with which we, as individuals, are confronted” (Lauman et al. 1994: 29)
Within our social networks, in a very intimate (close friends and family) and broad sense (school community or American culture), we are pressured to adapt to the social norm. The Social Network theory explains how our sexual encounters, relationships, and attitudes towards sexuality are shaped by our intimate and broad networks. In studying sexuality we have to examine the things that shape our beliefs and fears. “At a very basic level,” a group of friends may “affect whether two people will get together to form a sexual relationship” and also how they will act within that relationship. Sexuality does not need to be studied on a partnership level, it is something one has as an individual, but how we perceive and act on our sexuality can clearly be seen in our relationships and our social networks.
Another quote from the reading that I find relevant…
“…fundamental contribution of the network approach is in showing how the social networks in which people are embedded affect whether two people will get together to form a sexual relationship and, if they do, which cultural understandings and economic motivations they will bring to that relationship”
Do you find this to be true? I see things in my everyday life that definitely support the fact that my network influences the situations I get into. On a similar level, all the third parties involved in any relationship I have been in have highly influenced that relationship’s strengths, weaknesses, and ultimate outcome. Those third parties can be parents, siblings, friends, teachers, co-workers, and religious beliefs.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Some people might say...
having government funded public service announcements urging condom use promotes promiscuity. I say those people haven't been to India.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Interpersonal Meaning of Sexual Promiscuity: A Review
In 2007, Patrick and Charlotte Markey, psychologists at Villanova and Rutgers University, respectively, published a study in the Journal of Research in Personality called “The Interpersonal Meaning of Sexual Promiscuity”. They measured the interpersonal characteristics of two hundred and ten adults using personality tests, then asked each participant to indicate the number of partners with whom they engaged in specific sexual activities. As previous studies have suggested, socially dominant personalities tended to have more sexual partners than those with submissive dispositions. The Markeys’ study took the relationship between personality and promiscuity one step further: they found that warm, friendly people and cold, misanthropic individuals are typically more promiscuous, while those with more moderate personalities have fewer sexual partners.
A dominant personality makes it possible to take an active role in pursuing sexual relationships, giving those individuals more control over their number of partners. The Markeys speculate that misanthropes prefer to maintain multiple sex partners to avoid intimacy. Meanwhile, overly warm personalities may experience sex as a way to share their warmth with others. It is particularly interesting that warm, friendly people tend to have more sexual partners than people with moderate dispositions because it conflicts with the conventional moral notion that promiscuity is bad—and an indication of a deviant personality. “It could be that someone’s not doing it to achieve the most pleasure. Someone actually might be doing it as an expression of their warmth to other people,” Patrick Markey said in an interview with LiveScience magazine, “A warm person might hug lots of people; a warm person might kiss lots of people. Well, maybe a warm person might sleep with lots of people.”
There has been a lot of research and a lot of speculation about patterns of sexual behavior, some into what accounts for “promiscuous” behavior among human beings. Many attribute promiscuity to biological factors, suggesting that the (sometimes irresistible) impulse to mate with many partners has or had some sort of evolutionary advantage, and is therefore “hardwired” into our genetics. Others claim that social norms govern sexual behavior, independent of genetic programming. This study proposes a causal relationship between personality and promiscuity; it assumes a directionality in the relationship that the data does not support. First of all, the Markeys’ study does not address the social meaning of sexual activity. Sex does not occur in a vacuum—rather it is deeply entrenched in a complex network of meaning. At best, they have discovered a correlation between personality type and number of sexual partners. Further, they did not investigate the role of early sexual experiences in the development of personality (problematic in terms of causal vector), nor did they take into account the impact of those experiences on future decisions about sex. While their findings are certainly interesting, they are hardly conclusive in that they fail to eliminate other variables of an individual’s history as causal elements of their “promiscuous” behavior.
The problem of conceptualization, however, is the most relevant to our research: the Markeys use the term “promiscuity” without clearly defining it. It is clear that, for them, the number of sexual partners is an important constituent of promiscuous behavior, but how many partners must one engage with before he or she can be called “promiscuous”? Is promiscuity characterized by sleeping with a certain number of people within a certain length of time? Suppose one individual has had four sexual partners over the course of five years, while another individual has had four sexual partners in the span of five months, which individual can we call “promiscuous”? Can an individual be promiscuous if they have kissed or had oral sex with a specific number of partners without ever having had sexual intercourse with anyone? Are there different definitions of the word when applied to men and women? Can this word be divorced from its moral connotations and used as a scientific term denoting a numerical assessment of sexual behavior?
These are some of the questions we intend to answer.
Source: Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). The interpersonal meaning of sexual promiscuity. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1199-1212.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
THE SOCIOLOGY OF PROMISCUITY: FIRST MEMO
The staff of New York Magazine conducted an informal study of the self-reported sexual behavior of teenagers from four different New York City public schools, and then asked their parents to guess their child’s answers to the same questions. The results (which can be viewed here: http://nymag.com/lifestyle/sex/annual/2005/15078/) showed that parents consistently underestimate what their adolescent children have experienced. This suggests a significant difference in the normative sexual behavior of these two generations. Our purpose is to investigate how sexual morality changes from generation to generation, specifically, the changing definition of the term “promiscuity”. This blog will document the progress of a qualitative sociological study of the changing meaning of this contentious word, and its implications for and role in dictating sexual behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)