Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: Re: MALE SEXUALITY RESEARCH Message-ID: <526@cci632.UUCP> Date: Wed, 15-Oct-86 21:15:54 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.526 Posted: Wed Oct 15 21:15:54 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 02:08:37 EDT References: <958@tekig4.UUCP> <620@dg_rtp.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 71 Summary: general comments. In article <620@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: >> charlesd@tekig4.UUCP (Charles Davis) >> (questionaire by Carmen Stukas, R.N., M.A) > >Is the first part of the questionaire in the referenced posting really >state-of-the-art in sexual attitude surveys? Actually, it looked very similar to an older test, given to determine "masculine/feminine" characteristics. >This first part certainly >has the "flavor" of being a "standard attitude survey". A personality profile test would be a more appropriate description. As mentioned before, this test (or something like it) has been given before, and results have been used in surveys. It appears they are trying to link profile to various causes, particularly pedophilic episodes. >If it is a >standard survey, then I'm disappointed in the current state of the art, >in particular the phrasings of the questions. >I found (especially in the first part of the questionaire, dealing with >"attitudes"), I could rarely understand what the statements were getting >at, and thus (to put it mildly) had some difficulty in saying how much I >"agreed" with them. If you feel most women seem to not respect men who don't make their intentions clear, put "somewhat agree". They're looking for a gut level reaction, not a philisophical analysis. >Just what does this mish-mash measure, anyhow? Does it measure sexual >attitudes, or just measure what the respondents think the ambiguous >questions mean? It measures attitudes, not philisophical integrety, moral superiority, or even intellegence. The composite "score" is a pretty good measure of one's attitude or leanings. >Don't others of you find this sort >of survey intriguing, and would just love to participate, but can't make >heads nor tails of the questions? Hmmmmm? Sure, after looking at my answers a third and fourth time, and letting someone else see the answers, I could probably have added a paragraph to each one. The intent however is more like a "free association" test. Put down the first answer that comes to your head. It appears that the test was trying to determine any relationships between sexuality attitudes, sexual interests, and pediphilic experiences. What I found even more interesting was the attempt to exclude certain types of information. It was interesting that they were specifically interested ONLY in pre-16 sexual experiences with adults. In some cases, an earlier experience with another minor may have had a more significant effect. The child-adult relationship may have either positively or negatively reinforced the earlier experience. It might have been more useful to include earliest experiences as well as early child-adult experiences. Whatever it was for, it was certainly an eye opener for me. >Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw Rex B. P.S. when will the results be published? And where?