A COHPARISCN OF THE ATTITUDES
OF FRESIll-:EN AND SENIOR HALE HONORS
STUDENTS TOWARD PREEARITAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
I. D. 499
Dr. Gordon
Judy Frensemeier
July 8, 1965
',1."
I
,
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Selected Background Literature . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem and Procedures. • • •
• • • 3
Results:
· . • 4
Section I, Evaluation of Prostitutes •
Results: Section II, Evaluation of Dating Partners
and Peers • • • • • • • •
.a
/
Discussion •
• • .15
Conclusion •
· •. 16
Footnotes •••
· . .17
Bibliography
• •• 18
Appendix
INTRODUCTION AND SEIECTED BACKGROUND LITERATUFtE
When parents "righteously admonish ll their Gons and
de~ughters
for participating in premru.'i tal sexual activities which they, themselves, did not undertake as youth, they are
correct than even they seriously realize.
2.ctU2~ly
morE: nearly
For, although l.t is
argued that there h...as always been premarital sexual intercourse,
adultery, and prostitution, all three now exist to
grees than in forner generations.
differ€~nt
de-
There seems to be an increase in
total premarital sexual acti vi ty betvreen dating partners and a decrease L"'1 contacts betvreen prostitutes and customers of the younger
generation.
Kinsey
~eports:
••• intercourse with prostitutes increases in
frequency until it reaches its m~~ (over
0.6 per week) between 26 ru1d 35 years of age.
This increase in frecuency is not an effect
of aging, but a social effect. Younger males
find it easier to secure intercourse "\{ith girls
of the ir mID age and social level. The older
males find it more convenient and less dangerous to sfcure intercov~se from professional
sources.
In most cases the average frequencies of intercourse ltd. th prostitutes are dot-ro to 2/3 or even
1/2 of ',kat they vrere in the ,eneration that
uas most active 22 years ago.'"
Further evidence substantiates the thesis of "a sexual revolution, II
~.
a.,
Kinsey faund that women born after 1 c;oC, and therefore
Inaturing in the 1920' s, ',rere Irore sexually active before marriace
tr..an ,·!Omen born prior to 1900.
Ehrmann concurs by ci tine; "the stud-
ies of Har.:.i1ton (1929), Terrnnn (1938), u,cke (1951), and Kinsey ~ !JJ...
2
(1953) (which) indicated (s) tbat premarit.al se:xual experience has
increased so;ne"wrJ8.t for males and markedly for fe:nales ."3
The smaller
increase for males seens to represent an increase in outlet with dating partners ul'.ich supplements the utilization of prosti tu tes.
This tr:esis has recently been sucported by the surveys of Blaine,
\.[ho points out, as does Kinsey, that p::-emari tal sexual intercourse
has increased significantly for college wonen since 1929--35 per cent
non-virgins at the time of marriage to 50 per cent in 195.3.
There
has been a lm-rer rate of increase of 17 per cent for college males,
fron 50 per cent to 67 per cent. 4
It also seems that women tend to have premarit.al sexual intercourse with nen '.·]i th irlhon they are strongly a-rnotionully involved and
with their fiancees.
Ehrmann states that:
The premarital sexual experience ••• of the female but not of the :r..ale are (is) consistently
correlated \n th ideas of love, ,. rhether measured
by going or not going steady or by being or not
being in love. The reason for this sex difference stems frO:-.l variations in degrees of adherence to s$ngle and double standards of seAual
behavior.
That is, more women
a~~
participating in premarital seXutu inter-
course thc1.l1 previously, but they are doing so Hi th Dore reservation
tr~
their masculine contempories.
Thus it appear8 reasonable to infer from this evidence that a
sexual
revolution has been occurring, probably since Horld 1.var I,
and "\,fUI nost likely continue.
indication of abatement.
In any event, there seems to be no
The revolution is largely a change in actual
female participation in premarital sexual activity and a chanEe in
social attitudes tm,rard her actions.
It is not the purpose of this
paper to discuss all the so-called causes of this revolution, but a
3
few have considerable relevonce.
Ebrr.'..ann cites the follO'.,ring factors:
" ••• the increase in individualism for both se::es... (and) ••• the
greater understanding of the physiology of reproduction and contra'
cep t ~on
••• u6
Hith the "democratization of SeA'1.lal expression" comes
a new status for \fomen.
The Victorinn double standard is collapsinG.
be classified as "virtuous ll .Q!: as "lustful. It
cannot be r:w.intained.
nodern wanen, .1.
by the5.r
~.,
societ~T?n
Rat~er,
Women eannot nov'
That Doral dichotomy
the germane question neil i::;, uHow are
't.fomen of the younger generation, to be regarded
Since tl:ese '..fomen are participatinG in premarital
coitus to u l&rCG degree with the !:len they intend to r..arr;y, perhaps
some indiC<.'ltion of the attitudes of AmericO-n males to'\rrard them as
~
beings is pertinent.
STATEl.E[T OF TEE PHCBLEH .AND PROCEDURES
The
v~itcr
chose to explore and dialate upon the attitudes, not
behavior, of freshman and senior DwUe Honor students
(at Ball State
Unive!'sity) in regard to t'le status tt.ey accord fenale sexual partners.
A continuum progressi:1g fron the 1011er class prostitute through
the respectable call girl up to tbe woman they intend to marry ·,taS
employed.
T\:e 'I.1ri ter also sought to discern any difference in attitudes
betr.reen the freshmen and senior ':cen.
The universe of Eonors fresbmen and. seniors
'·lB.S
sele,cted.
None of the twenty-one fresr--.Jna!1 students 't'lere over nineteen years of
age and none of the ten senior students over tvrenty-two.
Only tl.JO
4
of the seniors and one of the freshmen Here married.
any military service.
None hnd conpleted
The thirty-one students qualified for the Honors
program on the basis of their high sctaol grade record an::l ac!:ieveI1ent
on college entrance examinations. 7
lni tially the students 'Jere contacted by letter in Hhich it
indicated that
t~,ey
'...rere to be ir.tervievred for a senior
to explore their attitudes to',rard IIconmercb.l
Eonor~,
courtG~ip.1I
vlUS
thesis
They then
completed tr~;e questionnaire at individual conferences ,Ti t1. the researcher. 8
Follovling tbe completion of the (luestionnaire, student
sub~octs
\.Jere
drmID into a focused intervie'vT in '.-Illich aspects of the qU!3stionnaire
were explored and expanded.
RESULTS:
SECTION I, EVAL'JXamr OF PROSTITUTES
'l'he subjects ',:ere requested to define a "female prosti tute ll before
completing tlJe quesUonn::d.rc.
students (57 :;er ce::1t,
r":O
The naj ori ty of both fresrllilG.n and senior
per cent) defined a prostitute as a 1lonan
vlho has il:discriJ,inate intercourse for monetary or fin:mc:Lal gaLll.
(See Table I)
Thirty-ei:"ht per cent of the fresrnen and t" ..renty per
cent of t'18 senior students categorized her as haviq; indh:cril'linate
intercourse
for
financial Gain
her ovm or her partner's.
for erotic
gratifica'~ion,
either
Five per cent of the fresbn.er. (or one
student) tllOllC::t of a prosti tu te
course:
~
Q,
any HOman havinG prel11ari ta.l inter-
liTe chni c:11ly , I would say :my ,.:onan i.;ho has premarital
relations 3ho",1d be :in this cb.ss, but genera.lly I '.:mud ::;ay a 'Woman
'-lho has premarital relations O!uy for the sake of relations."
5
T~e
oubjects then ar'.swered que:::tiol1s in
'.J~lich :'~1ey
were as::ed
to rate categories of prostitutes ire decrees of po:::itive ar..d negative
terns 0:::' hu.1JlliJl respect.
(88e Table II)
Neither the freshnen nor the
seniors regarded t,;le IIflea-bac presti tute of skidrm·T" as livery favcrable, II but tI.-rcn "7' po:- cent of
t~le
seniors held a "favorable It opinion
of her ""bile c:w:L!.ifyinC this '.,i th tel'L1S sucb as tlindifference.1I
Tbey
explained that they felt pity and social concern for tel' ire her
(probabi.e) ace, "1 0nel y ezif.ter.cc,1I and "poor envircn..r:lont. 1I
Althollgh the percentages of unfavorable opinion Here very close
(forty-throe per cent, frcrbnen; forty per cent, seniors), tho rationales for the unsuel'S seC:l to differ.
Hhile ti'Je rationale of morality
and religi01:s transgression '"ras utilized five tines by
fresr~'!1or:,
only
tHO seniors considered ita ;Joral question and, for one of thl3 seniors,
it ,-las but a natter of receiving rcir::burser'ent for a basic hlli."1ill1
function.
T~·!o
frest:men :md
t'Jl(',
Eeniors stated that it
for a flea-bag to prosti tl1.te herself
beca~lse
1..]'8.S
more tlright"
of her destitution; but,
in an absohlte sense, both she and other hi0"ber clo.ss prostitutes ,.Jere
iremore.l in tb.,::;.t coitus
Furthor
reason~
ta~ces
place before narriage and "Jj.thout love.
fo r em unfavorable judgment of the flea-baG \1Ore
their class position (fol'r fresb..':l8n, one senior) and their lack of
ambition t tuo
fresr!I,~'n).
Sever31 inforn'.o.nts expressed inuifference
in regard to flea-beE prostitutes even tho"J.£rh the;,;, \ threE~ freshmen
and one senior) voted tlunfavoracle. tI
The livery unfavorable" opinions tmrard the flea-bag may sugcest
religious B.nd morcll IIblac1c and ·vfhi te"
six: fresh,,"':1en and
t'.l0
judgm~~nts
by the frestL'11en, for
seniors based their judgment on such criticism
6
Their
derc t,:ntiol1 ',r8.: t'_en trc.nsferrod to the transgresso::-, the pros-
ti tute.
She ',m.::: accused of beiE[; the "loucst oi' the 10'.1."
she ',,ras regarded qul to unfavorable bec8.v_se of
~1cr 10\-1
Ll.ko'vJi;::e,
soc:hl pas i tion,
her poor envirollI1cnt, and '1er possible venereal disco.se .:lnd
l~,ck
of
a."":1bition.
In e:n:n'ninc the l.'ntine;s of cntecories of prostitute:s in Table II
b. general
tfrOL1 flea-bac to call girl), 8. basic pattern emerses.
the norc
favor.
I1
rc !:"Jx:ctable ll (?) prostitr.tes are regQ:.~d8d"Jit~1 increasing
'tlhilc the seniors' percei1tages rer,1ained fnirlr cO::1sta.nt t':::rough-
out all tl::e cateGories ,probably due to the small nlli"10er of subjects),
the fres:-men' s perccmtaC8f; c'c:lLCed sporadi.cally fro': cater-;ory to cateFor 8}T.J1ple ,~he flea-bug ',ras rated aG "unfavorable II b:r forty-
gory.
three pcr cent and as livery unfavorablo ll by fifty-seven p3r C€lr.t,
but the
streetHall::~r v18.;::; cC~l::.idcred
more favorabJ y.
The
stre()t\1a.l~:er
Has regarded as "unfavorablc!1 by eiJ1ty-one per cent and livery unfavorable" by nincte;n per cent.
varied onl:7 ten
pCI'
In conparison the ratings by tbe seniors
cent in t'-1ese sa."ne catesories (see nunber:3 2 Ql1d
3, Table II).
The correlation bet'\reen favorable percentage and class position
is also
i~lustrat.cd
by the seniors in
t~e
last t;lree catesories--
strestuaJl:er, middle class prostitute and co.ll Girl.
The street. ."alker
Has rD.ted as "favorable" by t',renty per cent; the midci.le class prostitute, Itfmrorablel1 by forty per cent; and the call Cirl, "favorable"
by fifty per cent.
Tt:ere uas a diver?ence among the qualif"<.ring statements in regard
to the :1iddle class prosti tt:te.
Those fresbT:len t 24~~) vho moved up~'Jard
from negative terms t01;.rard V:e streot\-mJ.ker to IIfavorable" tmmrd the
7
middle class prostit;lte did so, as did tHenty per cent of the seniors,
because of ttc "better" and more faniliQr social cl.:18::::.
per cent of the freshn:en '.ho rated the streetwalker QS
EOl,lever, nine
l1
unfavorable l1
rated the niddle clasG prostitute as IIver"'J unfQvorable l1 because financial need cmile. no longer be t.he rationale for her behavior.
The one
senior ll110 mnintQined his livery u:nfayorable ll sta..'1d ago.inst the middle
class prostitute had conte:-rpt for her
"1aterialis~.1.
:previOl~s
One fresm'l8.n and one senior deviate fr02 tlle
wrong" !)erspective.
class
pro~ti tute
These
t~'lO
subjects ta:e
is doing sonething l:lorally
t~c
"norally
vie'.1 that the niddle
wrO~lg,
but they suggest
that there are u.:.1controllable social and psycholOGical factors determining her behavior.
The tendency to
regard the hiGher class prostitutes nore favor-
ably continued i::.1 tbe case of the profesdonal call girl.
Wh:lle the
livery lUlfcworablc 11 re::ained tillchanged for both fresbnen and
the "favorable!! gained ten per cent for tb.e tvlO groups.
sE~:'1iors,
This ch:mge
,.....,.
\I,-,as due, apparently, to her higber social statllS.
S::e is cons idered
a "professio:lal"-the aristocrat of prosti tption.
The call ',-rife Has not regarded "very favorably" b:t either group.
Furtherr:J.oJ:'c, she vms eval'_'uted nore nerratively- tban any other co.teSOr"'J of p.:-ostitute.
Seventy-one ner cent of the freshmen and fifty
per cent of t:}e senior;:: regarded ber
2S
livery unfavorable."
Twenty-
four per cent of the freshmen and forty per cent of the seniors "Here
lI
unfavo.:-able. II
Sixty-five per cent of tho freshmen vievred call uire
prosti tl1_tes "very unfavorably; 11 as a negation of tbo sacred vows •
Similarly, nineteen
and
adu~terous
per cent of tl:1e freshmen decla.red it Itunfavorable"
but also vie"\led the call wife prostitute uith some
8
indHfere'1ce.
Fifty per cent of the senior:::: \ thirty--"very unfavor-
able, II t'..J'enty per ccmt-"ul1favorablc") also decided call ,;'ife prostitution "'...J'oDld be detrimental to the purpose of r.arriD.Ce.
a :-:wro Iiberal point of vie\!, t-,lO seniors' reactions ("unfavor-
FrOJ:l
able" and
II
favorable" ) depended on the reason
fo:..~
the act.
T0.8 one
fres!:ll'nen ,:!ho beld a "favorable" attitude to'/18.rd the call '.dfe :9rostitute jl;.stified it on the Grounds that the "husb:::.nds probably don't
satisfy
t!1e!~.11
Ire. conjunction
'\{i th
sub.~ects
prosti tt,tes,
\. seG Table III).
the Tlreceding evaluation of cateGories of
Here asked L.' prostitution shoclld be legalized
Tilirty-ei'~'ht
per cont of tbe freslL"'1cn and fifty
per cent of the seniors '.Jere in
favol~
of lega.lizing :,;:Jrosti tution.
Together '::'hey presented seven posi ti ve ration:.u.es.
Tbe nest frequent
rationale stated ,·ras thcct of better heal tl.: and better 10.'.; enforenent
l tHcnty-eight
~er
cent of the freshm8n; forty '-:-er cent of the ;seniors).
Eleven p;.;r cent of the fresr.nen considered t:1C l'iCbt of personal l)rivileGe bportant ,,,hile thirty :?cr cent of t'1e seniors suggested that
legalization uouJ.d ac'mowledge the existence of prostitution in realistic ter:-:ls.
Tbese seniors also mentioned the
be derived fron lecalization.
~;sycholoCicQl
benefit to
Of t;}e sixty-tHO per cent of fresbr;:en
'.ho opposed lecalization, sb:ty-one per cent thougbt legalization
would represent a
~oral
?J1d religious transgression.
TIle dissenti.tlg
seniors gave t'.ro major rationales--moral and religiom:, transgression
l thirt:r
cent. )
per cent) a..11cJ. Heakening of
t:~e
80ciol structure lfort:r per
9
RESULTS:
SECTIW II, EVALUATIOl' OF' DATI:TG PARTIrERS JrD PEERS
Of the four categories of dates tbar pick-up, party girl, status
seeker, and sincere girl fricYld), ol:ly the girl friend 't-las Vie\led as
liver;:.' favorable" by both fresh."'1en
.
and f,eniors tfourtccn !ler cent and
ten per cent.)
,See Ta1Jle IV)
IntercOllrse
",JaS
seen
:lS
an indication
of trust arld love and also a T1eans of IIbetter, deeper co::!";tmication."
The cirl frieYlc1 also receivcd the highcst lIfavorable ll rQting
\Sixty-t-,lO per cent, fresl'L'Cen; eiChty per cent, seniors).
rationale
i·]f:',S
Here the
t,:at intercourse is 1Ir:OIT.1a.l" in love, and that love is
an "abstract" and !lintellectual bonel lt uhict cannot be destroyed.
student decided t::at premaritv_l intercourse
I.J:l.S
O:'le
an indication of "flex-
ibility," (her "reasonable attitude to"mrd life 1l ) .
AlthOl:gh ",:,he gen-
er:::.l reaction 1,1a:-' favorable, 't.':.ere ':Tere severa.l who -,[auld have gu::'J..t
fe8lings about having premari t~ 1 sexual
intercour~e.
,.,.10111d have blaned the:J.selvos alone, tone 1.w'Jld
m.ro.y her "unrcf:ainable virC;iYlityll).
~:lave
Ten fres:lIl1en
reQ;retted talcL-.g
'.Jm~ld
One senior stated tl;at he
feel guU toy only i f 11i8 girl friend felt guiJ ty ap.d re:10rseful.
The facer s11bjects (fo',~rteen per cent, freshmen; ten per cent,
seniors) ',ho o.esjEnated premari t2.1 intercGun;e '.lith their ,;irl friend
as "unfavorable 11 felt that t>w:T . . lOuld be disappointed in t!::.emscl vas
anc1 tb.eir girl friend ',..[8re inti.T!l.:lcieG to occur.
i tely pl::ns to '.2arry n virSin.
One fres::r:an, IIdefin-
If she I s done it "\-li th r::e, :she I
S
done
it i1i th others. tI
Nene of the seniors regarded the girl friend who alloHs premarital
intercourse as I1very "lmfavorable, II but ten per cent oi tbe fresrJ-r.J.en
(t',lO st.udents) regarded her as
snc~l.
Both fresbI1en stated that they
10
1'Tould feel disappointed in and aslla"'Tled of' 118r and of
One
fres~l1:ll1
considered
purity of Jove."
'~}:e2i1sel ves.
prc:r:ari tal il1 tercourse a "blad: ;:;pot on the
He stated that narriage and love are tThonore.ble ll
and did not rec;," ire intercourse.
The other freshIJ.an did not, "like
to blsne other people for my (his) mm actions, II b1)t, IIs~1e should
have the SDl.1e beliefn (sexual standctrds) and '.JOuld be cOIT'Jaitting tLe
same 'criner (premarital intercol.'.rse)."
A nost stri:dng comparison :may be observed ir, the "high society
party girl ll category.
such wonen as
nve~r
Thirty-eight
pOl'
cent of the fresc.u:J.e:::: regarded
'Lmfavorable" ir;, contrast to none of the seniors.
Al though one of the freshnen clctb.ed prejudice against her :tigh social
posi tior.., t~le rcw..ainder (six freshmen) tho1.'EDt preD:ari tal intercourse
Has morally Hron~·:, a.Let that the party girl "laS even more "lustful"
and liable because she
UClC
rich.
There is slight difference i.n tlu..'Y1favorable" percentaces (t,>:.irt.ye igl:t per cent a'1d forty), b1;t the Itfavorable ll S~lOW a greater difference bet',reen freshnnJl and senior opinion.
Sixty
~')er
cent of t.he seniors
and t'wenty-i'our per cent of the freshPlen regard the party girl as
Itfavorablc."
Fo'.'r of t.he seriors cOEsidered it the part.y girl's per-
sonal choice, and tHO felt that such behavior '..laS typical of her high
social
C],'lSG.
The fresbpen 81'ls'!rered thatche party girl uas E;ociall;y
acceptable, because rhe discriT'inates in her selection of partners,
she holds high social position, and she does not sell the privilege
of havinG intercourse 1.1ith her.
In alr.10St evcI"J set 0:': ratings the seniors regarded the bar
pick-up and the status
than did the fresbnen.
see:~er
:-:lore favirably and leSt1 unfavorably
ThL:-ty per cent of the seniors and ten Der cent
11
of the fresbrnen '.-lere "favorable" tOi·rard the bar pick-up.
per cEmt of the seniors and. ten per cent of the freSr.1jlen
able ll to,\·!8.I'd t\:e
\..]'0~1l1
~')ic:*up
marl:ing the bar
marr:rinc; for status or money.
T>'.irty
~·rere
"favor-
All the subjects
as lIfavorablell used tr:is category to express
the ir actuo.l feeline of indifference tm!8.I'd :18r.
Those ".Jbo hldicated
the status seckel' as IIfavorable" felt that she ',·;as nateris.listic but
underst.:IDdable c.nd acceptable if the marryi:lg partners Here
Fe',ler of
t~_e
sOLiors uere
freshmen (fifty per cent
seniors Here
l1
lI
II
satisfied. fI
unfavorable 1t tOHard the bar pi.c;:-up than
-:;0
fifty-seven 1'81' cent), and sJ.ightly nore
unfavorable ll to',i3.rd t'le party girl (forty per cent to
thirty-eight per cent).
A greater contrast occurs in that t'.renty per cent of the seniors
and
t~~irty-three
unfavorable. !1
i.
Q.,
per ce!'lt of the freslmen r?.ted t:'le bar pick-up livery
Although the
reG.~ons
l.'ere the sa.,':1e as previously 8:i ven,
noral:!. ty and lust, one frest:1llan thoueht the bar
"10',·1er ll than all
Vl€
Has
prostitutes on the argu:uent that she had no
valid reason for bel' be[:ayior:
is ...;rang. II
p:~ck-up
"Sex just for sex anytine, any place,
There ",;a8 little observed difference bet'..J'een the livery
favoro.ble ll ratings of V"le status seeker \ t\-lOnty-eicht pe::, cent,
freshmen; thirty
pel~
cent, seniors).
One senior consideJ:,ed the status
seeker relations'lip "1e g:a lized prosti tution. 1I
declared r:lal'rj-:i..:1G for none:r or status
0.
Both
fre~~hnen
and seniors
negation of the purpose of
narriage, family, and love; therei'ore, such behavior see::1S a detrir:.ent
to society.
Table V concerns the eva11J.atii)n by the subjects of tbe coital
pre~l~l..l'i tal
sext'.al behavior of tl1e:i.r peers.
The subjects vlere to con-
sider the relations:1ip itself; both as affection and as eroticisT:1.
12
Only one subject, a freshnan,
'v!3.S
flvel""J favorablc tl to-,rard any
couple vTho is decyly and crlotionally involved and having intercourse.
But seventy
pCI'
cent of
t.~)e
Tl.~e
fresb!::er.. -,lere tlfavora"ble."
reasoned that interco:'Tse
s~lip
seniors and t\.renty-nine per ce.at of the
Wlf
one fresbYn.an './10 wo.::: livery favorable"
IIneccss&V'ytl in tbis type of relation-
to detennine the, I1physic::l, emotiwal, 8nd l":'£nt.al compatibility"
of the couple.
One of t-,TO most chosen reCC.SC:lS for the "desirable but
not necessar-/ I or "favorc.ble tl choice by the seniors
course
i::.
~.re.s
that inter-
a natural biological need but that it should be inc1uJ.ged
in '.d th SO:1,e reservation.
The:r also su[gested that intercoc;rse Has
the "expected bel:avior ll of these cOll.:r;-Jles.
The najority cf tbe "favor-
able ll fresbner (fo'_tr) judged intercourse as posribly
not necessary' for a good
relations~'ip.1I
III
desirable but
EO't.)'ever, most of these fresh-
men preferred to 1l3.i t untn !:larriaze because of such factors as prcgnancy and "Bible morality."
In tbe less negative category a sor::ei.1hat larger percentage of
seniors than frcs1::men (U:irty yOI' cent, fourteen per cent) '..)'ere tlunfavorable ll to pre:narital intercm.crse •. hc~n deep enotional involvement is
present.
(LoHBver, there Has a Ducll larGer discrepancy in the "verJ
unfavornble Tf
the seniors.)
cho~ce;
fift:r-tvlo per cent of t:,e i'resr.:::en and none of
T:1e essence of all tho lI1.illfavoro.ble IT stat.ene!'lt.s uas
the dancer of pr8gr}£-2!.CY and ellotional dar.age.
of
fl
very l.mfavor2.ble" were centered around
The £'reshmen IE ::::.nSHers
l~loral
and rel:LgioL:s aspects
VTith concurrent. but subsidiary objections to pregnancy, aninalistic
drive, and selfishness.
In regard to t:lO relationsl:ip of "obvious sexual gratificatl'on,"
'--'
decrees of favor chosen by the 8er:.iors Here quite sinila..r t.o tbe
13
previous
relQtions1i~.
There
-\"':1S
only a change of ten per cent from
sGventy per cent ITfavorablell for tldeeply emotionally involved ll to
sixty per cent "favorable ll for "obvious sexual gratifice.t:Lon. 1I
vie\ilinc this relationship ·be
"favorable" and les:3
l
senio:.~s
unfavorc.blc"
conbined poslti ve ratings of
eacY~
In
-Jere, again, usuall:r more
H'..:l.':"l
the fresrr;len.
Thus, for the
group of sFbjects, the !3cniors had
much the higher perCE!ntage (sever.ty !,'leI' cent to tl:irty-threc
:;::'01'
cent.)
Two of the three frer;ilInen 1.Jhc 1.lere ver:, positive tm·rard the fran.:uy
erotic relatimship found i t IInecessary and velJ- grat:"fying" and also
"H'i t:,o-~:t stigrna. II
Tr.e other
freshrr~
felt it
nutual understandbg of the relationship.
·.-iD..S
c.:ependent upon the
T'.'e one senior \'Tho ex:pressed
a "very favoro..ble ll opinion stated that intercourse Has flneces:;:a..ry for
the
ver~r
rc~Latiorls\~ip
nature of the relationshiptl--!.l flsexual datinG
IIFavorable ll qualifying cO;':nents of both
grou~s
.11
-.rere q1:ite se::d.lo.r to
the above relli'U'-:cs but V·Q IIfavorable" enp>asized r:r,,:tuality, discretion,
and maturity.
In constructing the other tHO types of relationship::>;, adaption
to the double stD..l1dard of American societ.y
',,1US
nade.
Fe:nale friends
Here described as tboEe ,ho trare engaging or have enga[ed in o. prenari teJ. sexual relations 1 ipr! in contrast to :r:;ake friends
in extensive ?rcIlari tal sex. tI
The pat.Lern of
f:~eshmen
~ko
l1engo..ge
and senior
anS',Ters arc al:r::ost entirely reviLed in regard to fenale frien(s.
One senior \,)'as e::tremely favorable; one fresb::--;Q'1, livery unfavorable."
Thirt:r-three ::::or cont of the freshI;len vrere !Ifavorable ll a'1c1 t''.i.rty :?8r
cent of Vle seniors Here !I1J.nfavorable."
..'\s a reSlll t si::t:r-t-".]O per cent
of tbe fresn.'"::cn 'Jere flunfavorable," and sb:ty
\,)'c1'e
II
favorable. "
pOI'
cent of t'.18 seniors
The senior
~"ho
considered this fe:nale
come the fen.:'1.le phobia about sex. n
of the cOCltinmUD. fel t
person. II
t.'.1:--~t,
T~-_c
fri.G~1d
livery favorablyll
fres:'1.'a11 at tbe OPl)os"i te end
tlce:::ual arousal does:1' t excuse eit:1er
Generally, all tjc "favorable ll corl-::cnts revolved around
feelings of indiffer()ncG.
Bot!:
2:rou~s
1:Tere of the opinioCl th:lt the
male and fe:l<'lle ·,·lOro Ifequc.lly respon:::ii=,lel! and
force his mm s"k'Uldards." . Oilly si:,: of
able lf cho:'ce
actuC1ll~{
~1~1
o:h.7res::ecl a ne!]ativ0
:~1co.t
a person
fl
can.!10t
those indicating an "unfavoratt~ t'.lde.
One fresh..';1aJl
cited the dodlic sta.:dard and elaborated tLat, "girls Get the rat-!
end of the deal.!1
Three fres:1JT'on and t,·ro ser..iors respected a fencle
friend lese for havL:f, pr0nari tal interccurse, becam:e they felt pre:Jlarital interco'..'rse is ::lorallY"!:JI'ol1f::.
Nine freshncm and one
~3enior
qualified their anmmrs s:Wi'.{· the:' '.rculd have less d:I.srespect if the
female friencl ·'c.d h8.cl 5.nt.ercOl:roe lor love.
The one :ro:::;",:::a11 1,1ho
narked "very tLl1favorable" also cateGorized his hy)otiletical G;,rl friend
and male :ric;nd flver:r unfavorably."
He
c!)'~sidered
them :::.11, "lou
(c:md) morall;l '..rrong.1!
Since nenc of the subjects had a livery favorable" attitv.de to'.;ard
male friends
,-11,0
h3.d participated in extensi.ve prenari tal serJal
relationships, the choices remained near the middle degrees of favor.
The percentages tended to be approximately equal.
divided "favorable tl and "unfavorable
cent).
,I
The se::1i ors uere
trifty per cent to :rift;)' per
The freshmen 110re slig';tly more "unfavorable" than "favorable ll
(fi:'ty-t,{O per cent to forty-three per cent).
15
The tHO seniors thoucht these naJ.e friends Here beinc selfish and
·..rere attenpting to assert their nasculini ty by "using tIle girls. II
One senior thouGht that eJ,.-tensive participation in prerJ8.ri ta.l intercourse WO'lld be "dehu.l"'13l1izinC" and the ville 1:1oulo. becone, "too concerned Hith sex to ImOvT another person."
i-lere to the effect ti)at judgment
but th.:'l. t the si tuation
tW.S
ivaS
The t',·10 subjects' cOC".'":'.ents
relative to U:.e circ:ur;wt.snces
T.'.orally . . rrong.
Seven fres:u':len had di.srespe ct for, "just laying her out."
They
also disa~,proved of their T,1ale friends because "they (nrues) are
selfish and brag.1!
Of the "favorable" responses by freshnen, only
one indicated adherence to the d01J.ble st,'.ndard.
The other eight i·rere
indifferent.
The IIfavorable" responses of the selCiors in regard to their male
friends vIere largely
couc~:ed
in a fro.r.le"lOrl,: of indifference -.:i tl: the
qualifyins; criterion of d:J.scretion af5 to the e:xtent and L'1 regard to
the location of sexual activity_
One informant expressed
and that of other subjects uith the statement:
~-:.is
til care very little
",hat others do, so long as I do not in any ,·ray have to uitness
of the prcceedbes.
attitude
ill".y
There:'oro, if engaged privately, it bothers De
not, but on the ccl."llpus Green it is repulsive and perhaps 'tl...'t1scenly.
til
DISCUSSION
From the precedinG discussion, it is observable tbat in [lost
instances e hi,shor percentaGe of senior nale Honors students L."1dicccted
a positive attit:ude tm·rard tlo:::en
than freshnen.
For
eX3111']
,
.
~laVlnG
ir.terco~'rse
outside of narriace
e, a larcer ntmbcr of seniors than fresbmen
,.Jere favorable tOimrd prostitution tfift;,( per cent, seniors;
16
fres\~ ,en).
thirty-ciglc.t per cent,
tutcs,
nOl"O
sn::-~ior8
of the
In rating
t~e
cuteeory of
~)rosti­
consistently chose 1tfo.vorablell 1:L.'1d usuclly
le::s often chose "Unfavorable. 1I
In general, norc of the seniors thnn
freshnen had positive opinions of their datinG j)artncrs ',lith ;,Ihom
they had participated in
prenari tal seJ::ual intercourse.
also regarded tbeir female friends ';';::0
:.;i th morc res:,ect
t~j.:J.n
~.:ad
their raale friends.
Tl,e seniors
prcrnnr:!.tal interco·CArse
On the contrary, a higher
percentage of fresb.nen lo(,:{ed ',,;i th disfo.vor on such
fcn~.J.e
friends
than male friends.
The
qU3...1ify~ng
cO::-J,lents also supf-ort a basic differences in atti-
~'rf1ile fresr~'":1.en
tude.
'.Jere jud;::;inC prostitutes, dating pa.rtners and
relations"ips nore frecuently on the basis of religious cmd abe,olute
moral sta..'1dards, the seniors ;;lore ofter. to01: a stru:d of 1.ndifference
or of toleration.
Rc'U'ely elid seniors conde:nn prostitution or prcmri tal
intercoc::.rse on the grounds of
rcli~iO:1s
or moral violation.
lIore often
prosti tu tes and prosti t1..1.tion Here judced unfavorably because of Im-ler
socio-eco~o~ic
position and
~ateri~~istic ~otivQtion.
COHCLUSIm~
Thus, it seens reasonable to conclude that a large l1Thilber of
senior male ::onors students have abandoned the Victorian dO;lble standard and have ta::on up a :core ec;ali tar ian vievr t01,m.rd ,-ronen
ing i...'1 prenari tal se:z:ual intercourse and a r,lore
to the ensuinG relations:lipE.
pragnati'~
partici~~at­
o.pproc.ch
It re::1ains a noot I'oint 'i!ether such
shifts over four years roflect an increasing recard for ·,.;orlcn as
beings.
bl'J;ill.Il
17
FOOTNOTES
1Alfred Kinzey, ~ S!J.. Sexual Behavior in the ~~.
(Philadelphia: ~(. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p. 251.
2~., p. 411.
3J.Jinston U. Ehrmann. "Social Deterr:inCJ.1ts of Human SeJ..'Ual
Behavior. II Determinants.Q! ~ SeA.'Ual Behavior. 4th Edition.
(Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publishing), p. 148.
tNe~'l
/-i(}raham B. Blaine. It Sex on the Campus. II
York: Bontam Bool-:s, Inc., 1964), p. 18.
Sex j,n Ame~.
5.Q:g • .QU., ~olinston 1..1. Er.rmaru" , p. 155.
6Ibi c.., p. 149.
7To graduate on Honors, the seniors are required to conplete
wi th success three years on the program, to accu.rnmu1a te a. r:inimum
grade point of 3.25 tB+), and to satisfactorily cor::ple:'e a senior
thesis.
SRe.
J.
1\,
,-
11.ppel1Q~x.
18
BIBLIOORAPHY
Adler, Polly. A ~
pany, Inc., 1953.
Ie W
~
Home.
New York:
Rinehart and Com-
Benjamin, Harry and R. E. L. Hasters. Prostitution
New York: Julian Press, Inc., 1964.
Eullough, Vean L. .Ihe. Eistory
Universal Books, 1964.
~
Prostitution.
Ehrmann, :~inston W. Determinants.Q!
field, Illinois:
Ehrmann, Winston \-1. Premarital
Holt and Co., 1959.
~
Datin~
Sexual
Behayior.
BehaviO,~.
Spring-
New York:
Henry
Irew York:
Sexual Behavior in Amer;i.c;an Society.
Kinsey, Alfred C. ~~. Sexual Behavior 111
delphia: l'J. B. Saunders Co., 1948.
~rton,
Hobert K. Contemporary Social Problems.
Brace, and World, Inc., 1961.
Selltiz, Claire.
Neil York:
~ ~ H,~.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F. The Lanwa.~e .Qi.: Social Resear2h.
Il1inois: The Free Press Publishers, 1955.
Mlrtagh, John H. and. Sara Harris. ~ ~
HcGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957.
£rorality.
New Hyde Park:
Goode, i,-lilliam rut~. Hethods.in Social ResearCh.
HcGral.-1-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952.
Himelhock, Jerome.
Norton, 1955.
~
~
Glencoe,
New York:
Stone.
Resegr2h l'¥?Vlods in Social Relations.
Phila-
Harcourt.,
N'evJ' York:
Nev.T York:
19
Benjamin, Harry. !1Prosti tution, II The Encyclopedia ~ ~.fiqrual Behayior.
Vo. 2. New York: F.awthorne Books, Inc., 1961, 869-.$80.
l-1erriam, Eve.
tlSex as a Selling :lid, II
Nation, CLXXXVIH narch 21,
1959), 239-242.
News-yreek.
ItSuburbia:
the Call Wives,1t
LXIII (February 17, 1964), 18.
~)ources:
Co1UI:1bia Broadcasting Company.
January 19, 1959. (Tape)
liThe Business of Sex."
Nei-l York:
APPENDIX
March
29. 1965
Deer Student,
On the ba sis of your grade point and/or pa:rticipation
In the Honors Program, you have been statlstIc:ally selected
to be interviewed for s sociologicsl study cOIlducted by another Honors student Who is working on B seni"r thesis
The purpose of the study 1s to explore the attitudes of
freshman and senior male students in regard tel some aspeots
of "commeroial courtship." No embarrsssing questions relating to personsl experience will be asked. mElrely your
opinion. The objective of this study is scier:ltl.f1c inquIry so your anonymity is entirely sssured.
II
The interview will requlreabout 30 to
45
minutes st
s convenient site on campus. You will be contacted soon
about date and time of your appOintment ..
If you have any questions about the stud,. please feel
free to inquire of Dr~ Gordon (-1350) or of me (284-0926).
Your particIpation will reauire candor and sophistication.
I hope that you will find the interview interesting and
provoca tive"
S1ncerely,
-------_._-------_._--------
_-
QU.cS'dONN.AIR-:S
.....
--
AGE
HARITAL STATUS
CLA"!!!'SS~'---
-_._-
HILITARY SERVIC!:r-
The purpose of the follol-r.i.ng questionnaire is to find oui; yout' a.ttitude
toward premarital sexual partners as "people" not as potential sazu.al partiners",
For the survey to be valid, y<)U must view them as other hun-an beings in as objective and candid manner posnible"
Your opinion v.Ul rama..i.n confideni;,:ta.1.u
1",
ltJhat is a i'emal.e pl"ostitute?
2..
How do you regard., as a porson~ a so ..-c~d £lea-bag pros't.1tuta of akidrew?
(Please
ans-n'aX'
before continuing.)
Very
favorab:ly_ _
Fa.wrabJ.sr
Unfa'VOzoabW-----"--
---
Very unf'avorablj'
IIO'tf do Y9u ~el'r a straetwaJ.ker in a nc~ ooction of thE} ci:t.:r? (She 10 .
physicaJJ~y avtl"<lctive but social.ly, aducatl.onally" and cul.tuxal..ly deprived .. )
Very ravol'ably
Favorably
-UnfavorablY"'''''
Very u.n.fa"lora.'6lY
1Iid~
...
4.., \fuat do
yO'll. think of -t,h.e "middle cltlss!1 prostitute 1;,ilo can be cont..acted at a
bar or ho-!:.el in a respectable pa:t~~!.l o:f t.o-w"1'l? (She is physically at-tractive,)
dressed neatly,,:, and is pe~;:th.aps a. high school graduate ~)
Very favorably
Favorably '" --_._-Unt'avorab$ • Vary unfavorabiY
-,-
5", ,What is your impression or the proi'essionru. call. girl? (She is ch.az·acterized
by her excellent dreSG" r.1anp-S1 con-.rersation(, She is usually a r-...9.,nasome career
4
;;
girl uho anticipates an expensive time ",)
6"
tfuat is your frank opinion of a bar pick-up who is simply a. "good tiroo girlll 01"
an ueasy Uwrf ?
Ve" favorable
Favorable
-----
Unfavorabre--
Very unfavorable__
. __
1 <>
\<Jb.at do you honestly tj1J.nk of the "high sod.ety·r, party girl W(l is jsophi:sti~
cated,t malthy.) v1vad.oU8~ and ,iho 'uillingly has p:remaJ'ital se~U.1a.1 intercouroo?
Very favorably___
Favorably
a._u
untavorab~ Very un£avor~_._
. 8
0
Hou do you feel about a woman who marries for status or maney not
t~)r
sex or
love?
Very favorably
Fawrabl.v
-,
UnfavorablY' ...
-
Very untavoi8J5J'.Y
9"
How do you regard wives who eomm:H occasional. acts of prostitution?
(Call-\1ivea)
Very favol~ll
Favorably
-"
Ul'lf'avorabli .
_____
u __
.w
Very untavora'b$'
10~
Ara you in .favor of
ll...
WJ.v or
12$
In regard to pre-mari tal. sexual
l.ega1i~~ing
_._--,
prostitution? Yes_ _ No
why not?
rolat10ns~
If the couple i13 deeply...emottona.ll.y
involved~
(perhaps engaged) sexual inter....
course is
Necessary
De8irable"""'bU
L""""'r
t '"":not necessalT
Desirable but not indulged "'£u--becauee of .fear of pregnaDCy'
or emotioaal damage
Undesirabl.e because mo-r-amr"'ll"a"
and reU{!1ously wrong
II
_
13. It the relationship 1s maintained
1'01'
1nte%'Cou.2'S& 18
Neeesaary aDd very gratifying._ _
Normal biological ~d.
Normal biologi(".al need bUt'
should be avoided.
Unacceptable un.aer -'S.ny-cirOUlllStallOe8
--
the obViolls goal or
aexuaL
grll.t.t.t1cation It
TABIE I
DEFINITION OF A PROSTITUTE
----------------------
, Qu~stion­
nal.re
I Item
!
1
1
Indiscriminate Intercourse
for l:onetary or Naterial
Gain*
I Indiscriminate
Intercourse
'for Erotic Gratification
and Financial Gain*
l
1
Total
.Total ITotal
FreshnenSeniors iInterviewees
SUlllmary of Ans\.rer
IPremarital
Intercourse*
-
21
; 10
I
31
r3;
I
I
;--10
~
iPerce~~ge I
Number or/Number orlPercentage
Freshmen I Seniors lor Fre_shmen of Seniors
12
I
$
57%
00%
2
3$%
20%
!
I
21
10
______ ~_______
JI __ _31
$
- I
1
---r- -----
o
5%
*Researcher's categories based on written LUlSvlers by interviews to "vlhat is a female prostitute?"
0%
TABlE II
ATTITUDES TOiV-ARD PROSTITUTES
Questionnaire
Category of
Prostitute
117
Flea-bag
Prostitute
I
!I
Total
Total
Total
Freshnen Seniors ,Interviewees
21
I-~~
-1---;~------------I
iNUlilber
'I
Degree of Favor
Very Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
of :Number of Percentage Percentage
Freshmen :Seniors
of Freshmen of Seniors
I
0
0
',9
12
0%
0
2
0%
20%
4
i
0%
43%
57%
17
5
II
81%
Very Unfavorable
4
3
19%
Very Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
0
0
5
4
5
0%
24J,
48%
40%
50%
1
28%
10%
4
:
I
--3---+I-S-~-e-e-t-~--e-r-~-n--+I-l-O--~-~----~1~v-e-ry-F-a-w~1-~--~~-~--~
Favorable
0'
2
I 0%
Unfavorable
l1iddle class
Prostitute
4
5
I
Profressional
Call Girl
10
21
n
1
10
31
-PI
I
n
___ •
I
.,
-Qill.wire-----+--2-_1--+-l-0---i--3-l------i~~:~r!~~~rable
_ _ _ _ . . . _________
6
40%
I
20%
I~
I' 50%
-.-J--~-~~--
Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
L-. __________ . _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
~
5
15
I
I
--r---~---- -----.~~-
I
4
5
0%
50%
I net.
'+'-' /W
10%
.
0%
10%
40%
24%
.~'
_ _.
0%
Very Fa~~rrible---To'----rl' -o--r---07~Favorable
7
5
33.5%
n
'}001
unIaVOr"aDJ.8
0
4
--,up
Very Unfavorable
6
1
28.5%
TT'
9
10
L{)%
!
7l~~
_---L_ _ _ _ _
~
50%
,- -I
,!
I
i
_ _ _ ___...l
TABLE III
LEGALIZATION OF PROSTITUTION
Question- i
naira
,
Item
10
I
Essay
---
Total
Total ! Total
i Nu...'1lber of Number of !Percentage IPercentage
Freshmen Seniors: Intervievree s 'Freshmen Seniors iof Freshmen of Seniors
Positive Rationale (Content of
:Conunents)
i
i
21
10
21
--L
10
I 31
:a. Better Heal tb and Law Enforcement
b. Admittrulce of EXistence, Social
Need
c. Psychological Benefit
d. Right of Personal Privilege
e. Control and Alleviation of
Sex Crimes
f. Potential Tax Source
g. Improved .tale-Female Da tirrg
Relationship
21
10
21
21
21
10
Negative Rationale (Content of
Comr::ten ts)
11
a. Indication of l.loral and
II
-r--~---l-----
I
i
I
31
) 5
,-!
--- I
6 (3*)
-- -.
--. -- --
! 4 (3*)
I
31
0
3*
10
10
10
31
31
31
1*
3 (2*)
2 (1*)
3 (2*)
0
0
21
21
10
10
31
31
2*
0
1*
2l
10
31
13
0
5
I
38%
50%
I
28.5%
40%
0%
307~
4%
14%
30%
0%
0%
oe!
,<J
9%
0%
10%
62%
50%
9%
1-.---------
Iteligious
I
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
-
21
10
31
8 (2*)
'),
10
10
10
10
10
31
31
31
31
31
1*
0
2 (1*)
1
1*
Tl~a.nsgression
Indication of Condonation
Heal:ening of Social Structure
Need for Stronger Restriction
Presence of Sufficient Cutlet
Spread of Venereal Disease
--- - - - - - - - - ----._------
*Interviewees l:ill.de multiple cOIllIJents.
,,:-I.
21
21
21
21
I
I
i
I
I
I
8
1
3
I ~ (2*)
0
0
0
38%
4~~
30%
O)~
0%
11)%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
9%
I
TABLE IV
EVALUATION OF' DATING PARTlTEP.s
.
f Quest~onnaire
. Item
'1
---y------_._---- _.- ._---_._.- . _-------.. -:-
I--------~
I
6
Bar Pick-up
Total
Total
Total
Freshmen Seniors Intervietrees
3
14
Party Girl
Status Seeker
Girl Friend
(In Love)
Degree of Favor
I
21
10
I
21
21
21
10
I
31
31
10
31
10
31
I
__
:
Number of Ntunber of /PercentaGe Percentage i
Freshmen Seniors lof Freshmen of Seniors I
I
I
7
I
'I
Category
of Date
Very Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Very Favorable
Very Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
Very Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
Very Favorable
Favorable
.. _
II ....unl'avorab-Le
lY~ry Unfavorable
0
0
2
3
5
2
12
7
0
0
5
6
4
8
8
Q
1.0%
10%
0%.1
30%
50%
20%
57%
33%
0%
60%
/.,fJ%
0%
0%
24%
,38%
38%
0
2
13
0.
0%
Oj$
3
30%
6
3
9.5%
62%
28.5%
4
3
1
11$
13. . . .8 . , . ,62%
,d
j.1.
2
0
40%
30%
10%
l
~O%___
.1.4/0
80%
.,
~d
.1.UjO
___
O_%_ _---,-
TABLE V
EVAllJATION OF COITAL PRENAIUTAL SEXUAL BEEAVIOR OF PEERS
Questionnaire
Item
Circumstance
----- - - - - - - -----12
13
15
16
l
21
10
\TOtal
t
31
iI
Obvious Sexual
Gratification
(any other couple)
21
Prernari tal Sexual
Relationship
(by female friend)
21
Extensive Premarital
Sexual Relations
by uale friend)
.- ________ . __ .,__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
jTOtal
I
,FreshnenlSeniors ,Interviewees Degree of Favor
Deeply Enotiona11y
Involved (any other
coun1e)
'\
l
Total
21
10
10
10
31
31
Fresb,,'1len Seniors
1
6
3
0
7
11
0
3
4
1
6
2
1
19%
38%
29%
1
6
3
0'"
33%
62%
[very Favorable
I
Favorable
/unfavorab1e
Very Unfavorable
Very Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
Very Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
~
u
6
0
7
13
1
_ _ ___1._ _ _
3
0
0
0
Very Favorable
('.
Favorable
5"
.. Unfavorable
.Ll
~
Very Unfavorable
0__
_L.._ _ _ _ _..l!__::.._
_ _ _ _ __!__ 1
_ _ _=___....:..
31
-
~
Perc entage
of Fresbmen of' Seniors
Nwnber OrlllUlliber of Percentage
-
5%
29%
14%
52%
14%
fJ
5%
0%
'0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Or)!/"
0%
0%
0%
43%
0%
0%
:;';GP
,0%
5%
05;
__ M
__L_ _ _ ___"_ _ _ ____I.
QUALIFYIIJG COlIEIT'l'S FOR TABLE I
ATTITUDES '.i'O:,UUill PR(:S'l'ITUTES
--.----- ---- --- -------.. -'---T-- -. ------ .-.-...---- .-.--' --- --. 1 Question-
naire
Item
2
Category of
Prostitute
+-----, -- .... _..
---------~
IFlea-bag
I
of H.esEondents
'Number oflNu..'llber of
(legree of ~avor ~_ __
RatiOMlo For ilnstler
Freshmen
;
I
I
a. Indifference, pity and eocial concern
0
Unfavorable
a. Intercourse Hithollt :r.J.8.rri3.;0 or Hithout love-nora11y wronG
b. L01.-rer socio-econorlic class position
c. La 01: of &';1bi tion
d. Indifference
e. Fault of society
f. Dctrincnt to society
g. I c. terio..l i 8m
5 (4*)
II
1; ()*)
!
I
0
::' (1*) !
:3 (2*) I
~ (1*) !
0
0
I
1*
0
1*
2
2 (1*)
2 (1*)
6 (2*)
I
2 (l*)
6 (1*)
1*
I
I
2 (l*)
1
I
I
a. IntercourGe intnol1t marriaGe or without love
morally i-Irone
b. LevIer socio-economic class position
c •. Lack of ambition
2
I
Streetvralker
.,
ISeniors
Fuvorable
Verj- Unfavorable
.3
-~
I number
Favorable
Q..
Unfavorable
a. Alleviation of Eloral wrong by social
logical forces
b. Eigher social class than flea-bag
c. Prosti tution--morally ilI'ong
d. Lack of ambition
e. Physical and social reptusion
I
Very Unfavorable
Indifference, pity and social concern
~_nd
psycho-
0
2
4
.3
N
I
I
(
( . , ... \
\.J."
.:.
"
0
0
0
J
4 (1*)
1
1
a. Prosti tution--morally ,-irong
L~
1
b. iU1eviation of :',lOral '.-Trong by social and psycbological forces
c. Physical al1~_r;o.ci.al_ ~_?'py~sio~ ___________________ . ____0
*IntervieHces made multiple cOr1J'1onts.
"-
I
.--. . .
I
2 (1*)
0
I
__. _ 1. _2*
_,____
..-'
(QUALIFYIrJG COlJ7ENTS FCiR Ti\.l?IE I)
Continued
Questionnaire
Category of
I_t~_
Prostitute
_I.
4
Hiddle-clu[;:}
Prosti tute
Continued
INQ~ber
of Respondonts
of! Number of
: Freshmen
Seniors
rNunber
Degree of Fuvor
Favorable
Ro.tiono~e li' or
immwr
5
0
0
0
3
1
a. Prostitution--morally I1rong
b. Alleviation of noral ',Irani; by :1igher Gocial class
c. Alleviat:~on of mor::.l '.11'onc by social and pSydlOlogical
forces
d. Soci::llly unacceptnble and unnecos:::;ary
e. Lorally wrollb--110 fin3.ncio.l need
6
1
1
1
1
2
o
a. Pr~stitution--norally ",rong
b. Lor0..1 ,lr011[;--nO financial need
c. Indifference (sane contor.1pt for ;natcric.lism)
,'),
a. Higher social. c1uGS
b. Indifference but recognition of highor social cla.ss
c. SocioJ. concern
I
Unfavorable
Very Unfavorable
o
o
o
3
o
3
o
1
1.
5
Call Girl
Favorable
Unfavorable
I
-.----
~
a. AriGtocrat of prostitution
b. EiCh social class tr.1oral degradation)
c. Inc1i ffo1'o;'lco, social concern
a. ProsLit;uU,on--r.1or:JJ,ly ·,JrOLe, no financial need
b. iJ.ITevin tion of :·:or0..1rrons by 8ocb,l and ps;;rci;olOEj~cal forces
c. i',llcvlation of ;lOrlll "Trang by high 00cioJ. class
d. Illcli"(,fcrence \110 i'iflD.rlCi;J~ nC8(1)
Very Unfavorable la. Religious urong
b. 1:01'a1 Hrong (no fino.ncial need)
,c. Pcrsonrcl peror:ative (but Raterialisn)
___ --4--_ _ _ _ _
4
4
2
1
0
1
5
1
i
I
4
0
!
I
1
0
0
1+
0
0
0
')
(0
1
..
( I)U,lIIFYI''''
Continued
"'",
J. ....
.1~Ll"
.J
C('j"'"'l-'TC'
,1.J....j,,;J,........J..,'Ci{ TAB~TT;'
. .LJ.:J
I)
Continued
==:.-:---
Q':e::;tionnaire
Category of
I teLl.
Prostitute
-'-'
9
----~.-----
Call IIife
Degree of Favor
0----
Unfavorable
Very 1nfavorablc
-.
a. lack of sexual satisfaction by
b. Indifference
a.
b.
c.
d.
Adultery
Prosti tution--filorally ",rong
Indifference
Laterialism
a.
b.
c.
d.
Adul te1'Y
Indifference
Detl'L'":lcntal to fOJnil7 ::;tructurc
SociDJ.ly unacceptable
*Intervimlees nade nultiple COIruJents.
~._.p
_
----Number of----_·_--------1
Resnondents
-.----~
Number of Number o f Freshmen Seniors
j
Ra.tionale For !ms'Jcr
-
Favorable
__ L _ _
~1Usb3l1ds
I
0
4
I
I
1
2*
0
14
1
0
0
I
I
0
I
,"
0
1
1
J
0
1
I
,
QUA1IFYII'G CUl]' .ElJT~: FOIl Tl'J3LE III
EVALUATIC'I; CF' DATIl:G PARTHEHS
1Questiorc-,
- - - - -
I naire
Iten
6
I
. CateGory of Date Degree of Favor
Bar pick-up
Favorable
Unfavorable
Ver'-J Unfavorable
Rationale for Ansl..;er
a. Indifference
b. Psycholor,ical drive
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Pre~'U'i tal
intercoi.'rse--J:1crally HronG
Louer f'ocio-ecohonic class
Indifference
"Anti-oocial D.ctl1
Psycholoe;iccl motivation
Ia.
PrAnlari tal interco:Jrs0--coro.l wrong
b. 1m·Ier soc:io-econo;;}ic clae.s
c. Lust (10Her tl ' 8.n prostitute)
---
1
1
4
5
2
0
0
5
1
I
Very Favorable
a. PiC\: social position
--"1
Favorable
D.. Soci:.llly acceptable
b. ?ir:h social position
c. Indifferehce
1
0
__ w_,, __..... _______ ._. _ _ _ _______
7
Party girl
Unfavorable
a. Alleviation of ,lOra1 wrong by higL class
b. Prenarital intercourse lustful
c. lientally ill
d. Respectable; i f emotionally attachment
Ver'-J Unfavorable la. Premari tal interc01'rse--r:~oral vll'ong
, (~-1orse beca;.~se ricb)
b. Prejudice D{;ainst hiGh secial class
,
--.-.--~-----
----
Number of rtes']ondents
Nwnber of Number of
Fresbmen Iseniors
4
-..I.
I
:
3
0
I
0
2
0
I
I
II
I
0
1
--~~-~~
y
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
0
1
1
6
0
1
0
3
1
I
------J
Continued
(QUALIFYUiG COlliElJ'l'S FOR TABLE III)
. Questioninaire
Item
Category of Date
_._--.-
---~-,~.,-
8
Degree of Favor
Continued
Number of Res ondents
Nwnber of Number of
Freshmer: Seniors
Rationale For [msuer
~----------"-~
Status Seeker
Favorable
a. Laterialiatic, bl1t .'lcceptable
b. llcalistic
Unfavorable
2
o
a. Latorialistic, but acceptable
5
5
3
b. Lorally ,frong Hi :'hout love
c. Indifference
ja;:
--
14
Girl Friend
(in love)
Very Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
+--"--____- - 1 - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--1. Very
*Intervie,.;oes
l'laUO
Unfavorable_
t" - - - - - - " " --". a. Indication of t~~st, love
b. Deeper emotional tie
a. Strong self-guilt
b. Ho guilt
c. Ho self-cuil t
d. Indication of reasonable
to'. ]aI'd life
a.
3
4
o
o
.-.. -.::.c.:t=
--~
2
1
10 (2*)
5 (2*)
attitude
in selves, danger of
pregnancy anu emotional instabilit,r
b. Pronaritul intercol~se--moral wrong
D:i.sa:npoi.ntr~ent
10.. Premarital intercourso--Lloral wrong
multiple oonments.
o
l
o
1
o
6
o
o
1
1
o
1
3
o
2
0
_
_____ _
I
QUALIFYIEG COl JIENTS
FUn
TABLE
EVAlUATIon OF eCITAL P&11.!l11I7,ll. SEXUAL
QUestion":":,.
naire
i
Item
12
---~~,~--
~'E;;AVICH
eli' PEEns
_._"
Nunber of I(espondents ....;
of!Number of
Freshmen ISeniors
-I
,
N~~ber
Circumstance
Degree of Favor
1
jDeeplyemotionally Very Favorable
!involved (for any
iother couple)
Favorable
i
v
f
Ratio~'lale
a. necessary for physical
adjustment
IlHd
emotional
5
relaUonsilip
b. Indifference
2
! a. Indifference
1
2
I a. ]',oral and religious HrOrlg
'}
1
----- ---.
Obvious sexual
Ver'! Favorable
~ratification
(for any other
couple)
a.. Uecessa.r:r ~naturc of relationship)
b. Dependent on mutual relationship
i
I
5
II
2
i
b. Pos:Jible but r,:oraUy .:rong
13
i
I
b. Pregnancy
Very Unfavorable
a
1
a. Desirable but not necessary for stro'lg
I
I
Unfavorable
For i'l.nmrer
1
1
I
I
2
1
I,
a
a
I
I
I
+-~--.------1
i
I
a
\
6
Favorable
I
a. Indifference
4
Unfavorable
I a. Indifference
a
1
4
1
I
lb.c. Eil10tional attaCnl"lent necessary
Pre,'1Ilri tal intercc';.l'Se--'-1oral "\[rong
i
i
i
V-eI'"';! Unfavorable a. Pregnancy, emotional danuGc
II
b. Promari"k'1.l
l
:i.ntcrc()1.U~8e--moral
·,·lrong
c. Prenari t~lJ_ intel'cc>urSe-{,1orcJ. VlrOYlg
(Ho condemnation)
---_._----_._-----------.-
L.
a
a
1
5
0
0
1
"
_.J
(QUALIFYIEG CCHIISNTS FOR TfLSLE V)
Continued
- Nllillber -o{-ReSPol1dents
Questionnaire
Item
Circumstance
15
IDecree
__
Premarito.l sexual
relationchip (by
'femnle friend)
~
_t~
_. _
Number
of Favor
orrUlnber or
Freshmen
Senior~_. __
J
a. Heasonablc attitude tm.rard sex
o
,1
!
Favorable
a. Indifference
b. Disappointment in relationship
6
!
6
I
II
00
i
! a. Dependent on notivation
1
lb.
Prenal' i tal in tercourse--moral '..!rong
4
1
2
Ia.
Prc:::w.ri tal ir!tr;rco~1rse--r'lorol vlrong
1
0
9
5
9
_':''':::==-_7.:.
E:1.'"tensive prenaritn1 I Favorable
sexual reb. tions (by
male friond)
I Unfavorable
j ---------_._----
I
-i
Very Favorable
Very UnfavorabJe
16
Rationale For Ans",rer
__, _____ .. ' ___ _
Unfavorable
--~--"-.'::::";::-":'-~=-'~.--:,'-~~~~...::-
Continued
a. Indifference
a. Hale "bragging l1 attitude
b. Relative to circumstance
c. PrcY:1ari tal interco 1 1rSe--T"Oral ,;rong
Very Unfavorable ta. Prerm.ri tal intercOl'rse--moral v;rong
----_________
*Interviet.:ecs l:mde T1111 tiple
11 (l*)
:3
0
0
1
1
1
0
~_~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
COlnT:-1EH1t[~.
I
i