Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watrose.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watmum!watrose!cjsgro From: cjsgro@watrose.UUCP (cjsgro) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Virginity Paper: Why the survey was designed the way it was Message-ID: <7253@watrose.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 15:51:26 EST Article-I.D.: watrose.7253 Posted: Mon Feb 4 15:51:26 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 04:40:26 EST References: <7226@watrose.UUCP> <4993@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: cjsgro@watrose.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 266 Summary: This posting will be an explanation of why the survey was designed in the way it was. It is a direct reply to Laura Creighton's analysis of it. I would like to state that this in no way should be taken as a criticism of Laura's posting. I appreciate very much the fact that she thought enough of the survey to take a close look at it and give her opinion on it. Thank you, Laura. In article <4993@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >I think that cjsgro (who should be C Gro if the Waterloo naming rules >haven't changed) is going to need some help in writing this survey. I didn't realize that my postings were going out without my real name. Sorry about that, folks! As noted in this header, my name is Carlo Sgro. >Writing surveys is hard work. Damn right! :-) >The paper may be a little crocked if some of these aren't fixed. (Then >again, it may not be a rigourous paper at all, in which case all of this >doesn't matter.) Look at the sample population and tell me that this is a rigorous paper :-). It's basically designed as a method of gathering information where none existed before. As an indication, the sex breakdown so far is 39 males and 3 females! But then again, the Hite Reports were not all that strong methodologically, either :-). >At any rate, here are some criticisms of the survey. I hope they are taken >constructively. I hope that I make it clear that they were and will be taken constructively. > > VIRGINITY POLL > >1) What sex are you? (Hmm. Sunny might have trouble with this one, but most > people are going to find this one just fine.) > >2) How old are you? > >3) Are you > a) married? > b) engaged? > c) not engaged but in a serious relationship? > d) not in a serious relationship? > >(This is what a thesis committee calls ``vague''. It doesn't quite >define what a ``serious relationship'' is, so makes it a little >tough to answer. it also leaves some people in limbo as to what >they should answer -- people who are divorced, separated and waiting >for the divorce to come in, and involved in more than one serious >relationship come immediately to mind. From the rest of the survey >I get the impression that ``serious relationship'' is one in which >you either have sex, or think about having sex but don't for some >reason or other. If this is what you mean, then you had better >come out and say it. Of course, you will then eliminate the people >who are involved in not-very-serious sexual relations. If you *know* >that you are eliminating them, fine. Otherwise you are skewing your >results...of course, this readership is already skewed, so this may >not actually matter all that much.) I don't define what a serious relationship is because I feel that a person should know if they would consider the relationship that they are in serious or not. In other words, I'm not imposing *any* definition of "serious" simply because I want you to tell me if you feel, at the gut-level, that you are in that kind of relationship. Vague? Definitely! However, I feel that I would get more valid answers if I left it up to the respondent than by imposing *my own* definition on it. I don't want to say that a "serious" relationship is one in which you have sex, or are thinking of marriage, or are engaged, or are steadily dating for more than a month. All of these definitions are perfectly valid as personal definitions of a "serious" relationship; I want to capture that rather than draw an arbitrary line. I should have included category "e) other". I got a few responses stating that divorces were pending. These responses will be handled appropriately. If there are any respondents who indicated an inappropriate category without stating an explanation, please let me know. >4) Have you ever been: > a) in a serious relationship? > b) married? > >5) Have you ever had sexual intercourse? > >6) If you haven't had sexual intercourse, is the reason that you haven't because > a) you believe that it is wrong outside of marriage. > b) you believe that it is wrong if two people are not strongly in > love. > c) it is too risky (i.e. pregnancy). > d) you haven't had the opportunity. > e) other (specify). > checked> > >(You have to define ``rating'' here -- do you mean if you feel that it is >both wrong outside of marriage and you haven't had the opportunity, but you >think that the first reason is more important you should rank the first as >1 and the second as 2, or should you rank the first as 10 and the second as >1 because you think the first reason is 10X as important?) Again, I left the rating system up to the respondent. I expect that, if the person has some kind of rating, they would specify it (as I asked). The way that I'm handling it is: a) if 1 factor mentioned, rating = 6. b) if numerical ratings given, compute fractions and multiply by 6. c) if 2 factors ordered but no numerical rating, first = 4, second = 2. d) if 3 " " " " " " , first = 3, second = 2, third = 1. A respondent has questioned the use of the word "wrong". Again, I feel that this is subjective. > >7a) If you have had sexual intercourse, how old and in what stage of > your education were you when you first had sexual intercourse? > >(This question implies a continuum of education to be at a stage in. >This sort of question appears on lots of Canadian government surveys, >so don't feel bad about it, but it really freaks out people who do >things like drifting in and out of university, take a few courses, and >don't really work on a degree at all....what about the people who >went to work for years between high school and university? or between >bachelors and grad work? ) Most people stated that they were in a different situation if they were. My purpose was to see if the high school or university/college environment had any bearing on when first sexual intercourse occurred. > b) What circumstances was it under? > a) At own or partner's place when parents were gone. > b) At own or partner's place when parents were there. > c) At own or partner's place; didn't live with parents. > d) At a party or other social gathering (specify). > f) In a car. > g) In a motel room. > h) Other (specify). > >(You had better specify whose parents, if you think that this is important. >The person who first made love at his partner's place, while he was living >with his parents and his partner was *not* (a fairly large number, I >would suspect) are going to find it hard to figure out how to answer >this one.) I *thought* that this one was clear. The difference between a) and b) was the *presence* of *any* set of parents. Reason: parents as a source of risk. The inspiration for this was a quote from *Our Sexuality* (how can you underline on this thing and still make it compatible for all terminals? :-() by Robert Crooks and Karla Baur: "A typical scene in the home might involve a young couple ostensibly watching Johnny Carson, while furtively having intercourse on the living room sofa, one ear listening for the sounds of distant stirring (what a time for Dad to have a late night ham sandwich!)." (pg. 516) Naturally, the risk involved would vary according to the age of the person. Perhaps a more direct question regarding degree of risk would have been more effective but I thought that this would have been difficult to quantify. If any respondent was confused by this, please let me know. > c) Was it a positive or negative experience for you? > > d) Was it a positive or negative experience for your partner? > > e) Do you wish that you had started > a) earlier? > b) when you did? > c) later? > d) upon marriage? > >(To be fair, you should include ``before marriage'' here. I assumed that people who were in this situation would have answered "earlier". >Also, it >assumes that all other things are equal, which is a rather dangerous >assumption to make. Some people are going to answer ``when you did'' >on the assumption that they hadn't met their partner earlier, and >others are going to answer ``earlier'' on the assumption that you >meant ``assuming that they met their partner earlier''. Probably you >will want to group these people together, but this isn't what you are >going to get. > Major BooBoo! The assumption is a dangerous one. The flexibility that it gives w.r.t. interpretation will probably lead to confusion. I had intended to test the "gut level" feeling of "Geez, I wish that I had started earlier," or "Geez, I wish that I had waited." Again, if any respondent was confused by this, PLEASE let me know. >You left out the people who wish that they had never had sex, I assumed that those who had wished that they had never had sex would have replied "later". They could have also added a comment about it. >MOST IMPORTANTLY, you left out the people who really think that the >time that they started to have sex was irrelevant and don't have any >wishes at all in the matter with respect to time.) A *lot* of people said this. If the question was irrelevant, then they were satisfied by the time, n'est pas? > > > f) If you could go back and change the occurrence of your first sexual > intercourse, would you have? Why or why not? Several people have raised the same issue as was raised in 7e. However, in this case, I purposely left it vague. I felt that this would serve as a filter for responses. I'm not concerned about over-filtering. > >8) Other comments. A *LOT* of people have made use of this option to clear up confusion or give additional information/opinions. > >9) Do you want me to post a summary to the net? > >* * * * * * * * * > >I hope you didn't mind this. > >Also, you have left a very large hole here for people whose first >sexual experience was rape, but this may be diliberate. My main concern in my original call for published references was with the topic of voluntarily having sexual intercourse for the first time and the variables affecting it. I felt that extraordinary circumstances (such as rape, homosexuality, sexual disorders, etc.) would be explained in the "Other comments" section. This has, in fact, occurred (with a sexual disorder). Final words: I admit that, for a genuine, honest-to-goodness, psychological survey (not a USENET poll), it has holes. In thas survey, I wanted to test "gut feelings" about first sexual experiences. From the responses so far, I would say that I've been successful. Many responses have been very detailed. People have made use of the "Other comments" section and the flexibility of the medium of response in order to fully express themselves. The net may be surprised at the final results. -- Carlo Sgro ...{ihnp4||allegra}!watmath!watrose!cjsgro "I told you not to do that!"