{"id":2633,"date":"2011-04-29T20:20:33","date_gmt":"2011-04-30T01:20:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/girlwpen.com\/?p=2633"},"modified":"2013-07-14T16:41:41","modified_gmt":"2013-07-14T21:41:41","slug":"relating-radically-defining-sexual-acts-through-survey-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/2011\/04\/29\/relating-radically-defining-sexual-acts-through-survey-design\/","title":{"rendered":"RELATING RADICALLY: Defining Sexual Acts Through Survey Design"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last month, the CDC released a report that I\u2019m going to pick on a little bit, though I\u2019ve seen numerous researchers make similar faux pas in surveys I\u2019ve taken and studies I\u2019ve read. \u00a0The report, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States<\/a>, uses data from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth to summarize findings on these topics. \u00a0I\u2019m just going to harp on a tiny bit of the survey design, because I think it\u2019s illustrative of a broader point about how survey design can reflect and even shape attitudes about what is and isn\u2019t a sex act, and what is and isn\u2019t a sexual relationship.<\/p>\n

Now, to be fair, the NSFG is primarily about addressing things like pregnancy, marriage, and STIs. \u00a0The portion of the survey that focuses on sexual acts includes same-sex partners but it\u2019s still geared towards things like STI risk, and thus focuses on sex acts that have a high STI risk like penetration and oral sex. \u00a0But there\u2019s still a big problem in the way it describes the possible sex acts for males and females.<\/p>\n

Note: The portion below the cut may not be safe for work due to frank descriptions of sexual acts.<\/em><\/p>\n

Women and men who take the survey both get the same set of three questions about sexual history with members of the opposite sex–one about penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse and two about oral sex, giving to or receiving from an opposite-sex partner. \u00a0However, the section on same-sex behavior is different. \u00a0The differences begin with the instructions:<\/p>\n

The next questions ask about sexual experiences you may had with another female<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The next questions ask about sexual experiences you may have had with another male<\/span>. \u00a0Have you ever<\/span> done any of the following with another male?<\/p>\n

Ignoring the typo, the only difference is in the second question, which females don\u2019t get. \u00a0It seems to me that the ever<\/span> might encourage men taking the survey to think harder about whether they\u2019ve done anything might qualify, while the women who don\u2019t receive that directive could conceivably write off behavior they\u2019re not sure about, which they might have included if they\u2019d been given the second sentence.<\/p>\n

More troubling, to me, are the questions themselves. \u00a0Women are first asked two questions about oral sex, giving or receiving. \u00a0Then, if they answer \u201cno\u201d to either of those questions, they get a third question, \u201chave you ever had any sexual experience of any kind with another female?\u201d<\/p>\n

The justification for this method is that when the last question was used alone, it was too vague. \u00a0The researchers presumably still use it in order to catch sexual activity that doesn\u2019t fall under oral sex, but to me this seems sloppy. \u00a0If they\u2019re only looking for activities that they consider risky, why not define and ask the specific questions? \u00a0Using a vague definition might lead to inclusion of activities (clothes-on grinding or fingering, for example) that are very low-risk, skewing the numbers.<\/p>\n

Men don\u2019t get a question like this, but instead four specific questions about specific activities: oral, giving or receiving, and anal, giving or receiving. \u00a0This is going to be more clear when it comes to risk; however, my problem with the way the questions are worded is less about the results and more about how they both reflect our perceptions of \u201cnormal\u201d activity and communicate what is \u201cnormal\u201d to survey-takers.<\/p>\n

There are plenty of sex acts not covered by the survey, and some of those do carry an STI risk. \u00a0The researchers could do two things to avoid alienating those whose sexual practices are different. \u00a0First, they could state that the following questions are being used to find out about STI risks, and therefore the acts described do not include very low-risk behaviors. \u00a0In that scenario, a more exhaustive list should be given (for example, rimming or mouth-to-anus contact, vaginal or anal penetration with toys, frottage without clothes on). \u00a0Second, they could list a wider variety of acts in order to include everyone, presenting all the options as normal, and simply not use the answers about low-risk activities in the work on STIs. \u00a0Either way, it would make sense to evaluate the results and use them in the context of STI prevention based on sex act, not on the broad category of \u201csame-sex\u201d activity that includes acts carrying varying degrees of associated risk.<\/p>\n

Without more explanation, those taking the survey are likely to feel like certain acts are \u201cstandard\u201d and others are \u201cdeviant.\u201d \u00a0Women who have not had oral sex with a female partner are likely to be confused by the vague question about same-sex activity and any responses given there are pretty much useless, since everyone\u2019s definition would differ. \u00a0It also contributes to the idea that same-sex activity between women is pretty much a mystery, that we have no idea how women can have safe sex, and we kind of want to avoid the topic if at all possible.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t the only survey I\u2019ve seen that does this, by far. \u00a0I think, in most cases, researchers have good intentions. \u00a0They want to get accurate results, focused on whatever they\u2019re studying, be it STIs or pregnancy or relationship behaviors or whatever else. \u00a0But it\u2019s important to think about the impact the survey design may have on those taking it, and also what you might miss when designing a survey to reflect cultural norms about sex acts that might not mirror reality.<\/p>\n

We all receive daily cultural messages to remind us that a particular series of acts is normal: possibly manual contact (entirely optional), followed by oral sex (more important for men than women, perhaps), followed by PIV sex. \u00a0Same-sex couples now hear similar messages: men are expected to have oral or anal sex, and for women oral sex should be the be-all-end-all, possibly with a side of fisting (thanks, Chasing Amy<\/em>!) \u00a0Other forms of sexual contact, such as manual contact for its own sake or using sex toys may not come up. \u00a0The erotic potential of massage, kissing, or \u201cnon-sexual\u201d kinky activities is pretty much ignored in most mainstream conversations. \u00a0This idea of a linear progression, or sex as drawing from a particular list, is an insult to our imaginations.<\/p>\n

A good survey should be specific about the acts it\u2019s describing, and be honest about limitations. \u00a0There\u2019s always the \u201cother\u201d box option where participants can describe things not on the list, but the vague yes-or-no question about sexual activity doesn\u2019t communicate much to the researcher and makes the participant feel like her sexual activity is mystical or unusual without giving her an opportunity to actually say anything about it. \u00a0Researchers shouldn\u2019t make assumptions–for example, in the CDC survey, if someone says that they are married to or cohabit with an opposite-sex partner, history of PIV sex is assumed.<\/p>\n

The whole approach smacks to me as ableist, gender-biased, and just kind of puritanical. \u00a0Let\u2019s try not to assume what anyone does in their sexual relationships. \u00a0When writing a survey to find out about sexual behavior, do the terribly radical thing and… ask about sexual behavior.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We all receive daily cultural messages to remind us that a particular series of acts is normal: possibly manual contact (entirely optional), followed by oral sex (more important for men than women, perhaps), followed by PIV sex. Same-sex couples now hear similar messages: men are expected to have oral or anal sex, and for women oral sex should be the be-all-end-all, possibly with a side of fisting (thanks, Chasing Amy!) Other forms of sexual contact, such as manual contact for its own sake or using sex toys may not come up. The erotic potential of massage, kissing, or \u201cnon-sexual\u201d kinky activities is pretty much ignored in most mainstream conversations. This idea of a linear progression, or sex as drawing from a particular list, is an insult to our imaginations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1922,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21112],"tags":[1934,33,86,120,176,4325],"class_list":["post-2633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-relating-radically","tag-cdc","tag-health","tag-methodology","tag-sex","tag-sexuality","tag-stis"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2633","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1922"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2633"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2633\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6291,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2633\/revisions\/6291"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/girlwpen\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}