NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4863770.stm
The Sex in the City image of women seeking casual encounters for pleasure does not quite fit the latest research.

Nine out of 10 women think one night stands are immoral, psychologists will hear at a conference.

Researchers investigating female attitudes to sex and sexuality found most women had more traditional views of casual sex than they expected.

The Sheffield team's study of 46 women, aged 23 to 83, found only 10% thought "no strings" sex was acceptable.

The team from the University of Sheffield found that although participants thought one-night stands were immoral, they did not condemn women for having them as many of them had indulged themselves.

But there was a view that those that did had "something lacking in their lives".

I've snipped that article a little, but I don't think I've cut anything too important out of it. I find this a very curious survey result, and one that I did not expect to see. Do you think that it true that woman frown on casual sex?

Two things I picked up on: the survey only used people over 23, and the low sample size. Does this discredit the survey, or would a larger poll find the same results? Do woman really speak about sexual freedoms with one hand, while frowning on them with the other?

So we all just wear tuxes next time.

Two things I picked up on: the survey only used people over 23, and the low sample size. Does this discredit the survey, or would a larger poll find the same results? Do woman really speak about sexual freedoms with one hand, while frowning on them with the other?46 people? Heck, if they had 100 it wouldn't be enough...

Wow... I knew I wasn't average, but I had no idea I was this far from average :eek:

I hardly know any woman who would view casual sex as immoral. They may not all be into it, but they definitely wouldn't call it immoral...

Seems a rather tiny sample size, and women up to 83? Thats kind of what I'd expect to see from women that age.

Not surprised, if the pathetically law sample size is uniformy distributed through the age range. Nothing to see here, it's not research, it's utter bullshit. I am amazed the BBC has bothered to print it.

Actually for a survey of people's views to be applicable to the broader population, you need to interview at least a thousand people. The fact they only talked to 43 people says much about the invalidity of the study.

Not surprised, if the pathetically low sample size is uniformly distributed through the age range. Nothing to see here, it's not research, it's utter bullshit. I am amazed the BBC has bothered to print it.

Seconded! 46 people in an age range of 60 years?? That's not even one person of each specific age. How they could call this research "scientific", much less present it at a psychology conference, is beyond me.

Oh...and I edited the quote for spelling. :p

Do woman really speak about sexual freedoms with one hand, while frowning on them with the other?
No.

46 people in an age range of 60 years?? That's not even one person of each specific age. How they could call this research "scientific", much less present it at a psychology conference, is beyond me.
Amen.

Such luck women are of no consequence to sex, then.

I wish I could find that site that calculates the margin of error based on sample size because I'm to lazy to do it myself (mostly because I would have to got through the process of remembering how...) For a sample size that small it must be emmense.

If only one in ten women believe in casual sex, that one in ten are certainly getting a workout...

46 women? Jesus, that's pathetic. It's fine if they were going for a more qualitative brand of analysis, but they seem to have discredited everything by calculating a highly dubious statistic at the end.

46? We need to get this number up, I need the buisness.

If only one in ten women believe in casual sex, that one in ten are certainly getting a workout...
Hee. :p

For a 50 sample size, the margin of error is 14%.

For a 46 sample size, by mathematical calculation, the margin of error is 14.7%.

For a 50 sample size, the margin of error is 14%.
That's surprisingly low.

Perhaps there is some accuracy in the survey, then?

That's surprisingly low.

Perhaps there is some accuracy in the survey, then?Depends entirely where they picked the people from. If all 46 women were nuns...:D

Depends entirely where they picked the people from. If all 46 women were nuns...:D
lol, true... :D

That's surprisingly low.

Perhaps there is some accuracy in the survey, then?

I think the whole margin of error calculation may get incorrect as you get into the lower numbers... It's hard to think that 50 people would represent a whole population at a 14% margin of error.

lol, true... :DJust imagine the implications if 1/10 nuns said casual sex was OK! :eek:

I think the whole margin of error calculation may get incorrect as you get into the lower numbers... It's hard to think that 50 people would represent a whole population at a 14% margin of error.
It does really depend who the people were, as said above. Seeing as it was conducted by a university team for the British Psychological Society, there is something to be said for the argument that they knew what they were doing with the sample, and picked a representative group.

After all, the most successful political parties are the ones that use focus groups to judge the mood of the country, and they are even smaller than this survey.

I have to say that what women do is up to them really, they are the ones who have to look in the mirror every morning, so it's nobody else's decision as to what they want to do the night before now is it?

That said, as a Mum, I would prefer it if my two girls don't go out and have one night stands, the risks are too high and I hope that they can get more from a loving and long standing relationship. I hope that they find love rather than sleep around out of need for something that they are missing.

Just imagine the implications if 1/10 nuns said casual sex was OK! :eek:

*lol
When I think back to my days at Catholic school, more of the nuns would have said that that's ok... as long as you remember to use protection :D
It was a rather unconventional school, I admit.

Depends entirely where they picked the people from. If all 46 women were nuns...:D

I think the 14% depends on the people being chosen randomly.

That's surprisingly low.

Perhaps there is some accuracy in the survey, then?
Gah, me hates statistics. :p
It's still only 46 women, ages varying wildly, ranging from 23 to 83. Apart from the fact that I personally think that chances are that those in the sample over, say, 60, didn't say "Sure, casual sex is great!", if only because they grew up in a time when that was still frowned upon, plus they've gotten older themselves, which often (not always, obviously) also means a hardening of views to the extent of even "forgetting" that one used to think (and act) quite a bit differently in one's own youth.

Plus, we don't even know how this survey was taken.

How were the women chosen?
Were the women randomly called by phone and simply asked a couple of questions, or were lengthy interviews conducted in person, and if so, what else did the interviewers ask, i.e. what was survey supposed to survey?

What were the options the women could pick for their answers? Or were the answers open-ended? What were the surroundings in which the women did have to answer the questions - I'm not sure if a 40-year-old middle-class housewife and mother will so readily say to some 20-year-old male research assistant that, yeah, sure, she thinks one night stands are terrific.

And even then, it's still only a really small group of women. :rolleyes:

For a 50 sample size, the margin of error is 14%.

For a 46 sample size, by mathematical calculation, the margin of error is 14.7%.
For what population size?

Casual sex is not immoral. It is a brainless risk to life and health, however.

Such luck women are of no consequence to sex, then.
:rolleyes:

In your opinion; there are plenty who like women or who like variety.

Worst. Survey. Ever.

:rolleyes:

In your opinion; there are plenty who like women or who like variety.

Sucks to be them, then. The grass is greener on this side.

While there are specific instances where casual sex would be immoral, casual sex as a whole isn't immoral, so I clicked "no".

Oh fer cryin' out loud!
OF COURSE casual sex is immoral, even teenagers know that, deep down.
That doesn't mean we don't DO it, because it's hard to resist.
But immoral?
Yes, it's immoral, as in "not right" to sleep around and be a slut, male or female.
Come on. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
What's the point of pretending we don't know that?
It's immoral.
We do it.
We're a little bit immoral.
We get on with life.

Yes, it's immoral, as in "not right" to sleep around and be a slut, male or female.Why is that?

Oh fer cryin' out loud!
OF COURSE casual sex is immoral, even teenagers know that, deep down.
That doesn't mean we don't DO it, because it's hard to resist.
But immoral?
Yes, it's immoral, as in "not right" to sleep around and be a slut, male or female.
Come on. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
What's the point of pretending we don't know that?
It's immoral.
We do it.
We're a little bit immoral.
We get on with life.

It's not. It's immoral if someone gets hurt in the process, especially if it's emotional hurt. But fucking someone you just met is not immoral, just potentially dangerous.

The grass is greener on this side.

*sniggers*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4863770.stm

snip
Two things I picked up on: the survey only used people over 23, and the low sample size. Does this discredit the survey, or would a larger poll find the same results? snip
Yes this does introduce a rather large error

The over 23 part is fine as long as it is listed in the chriteria for the poll but the small sample size will cause a lot of error

Though with the finding I dont think the error would be enough to compleatly swap the results around it is enough that I would not implicitly trust the hard "facts" that it generates

Oh fer cryin' out loud!
OF COURSE casual sex is immoral, even teenagers know that, deep down.
That doesn't mean we don't DO it, because it's hard to resist.
But immoral?
Yes, it's immoral, as in "not right" to sleep around and be a slut, male or female.
Come on. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
What's the point of pretending we don't know that?
It's immoral.
We do it.
We're a little bit immoral.
We get on with life.

Why is it? All you're doing it repeating your basic viewpoint...

As for me, not that I'm in any way promiscuous myself, but I couldn't care less what other people do. Do what you feel and try not to hurt others too much...

It does really depend who the people were, as said above. Seeing as it was conducted by a university team for the British Psychological Society, there is something to be said for the argument that they knew what they were doing with the sample, and picked a representative group.

After all, the most successful political parties are the ones that use focus groups to judge the mood of the country, and they are even smaller than this survey.
They usualy do a series Of focus groups then use the data from each ... there is a difference that is not survey statistics anymore.

I'm a guy in a stable relationship, so I had to click other. It depends on the circumstance.

For a 50 sample size, the margin of error is 14%.

For a 46 sample size, by mathematical calculation, the margin of error is 14.7%.
I get 14.45% at 46 for a pop of 50 mil to 200 mil (all I tested)
If anyone has a more accurate number for women in the UK ... let me know lol

I had to laugh my ass off looking at how almost all the males answered.

HELL NO, ITS NOT IMMORAL....COME OVER HERE, BABY!

:D

I had to laugh my ass off looking at how almost all the males answered.

HELL NO, ITS NOT IMMORAL....COME OVER HERE, BABY!

:DHey, our survey says something completely different than their's...:D

Hey, our survey says something completely different than their's...:D
Well, even this one shows 40% of women against it, which is a little higher than I expected, especially seeing as no one has really said in the thread why they think that way.

If all the women on the forum vote, we'll probably beat their sample size. :p

Well, even this one shows 40% of women against it, which is a little higher than I expected, especially seeing as no one has really said in the thread why they think that way.

If all the women on the forum vote, we'll probably beat their sample size. :p
Yeah ... though the "randomness" of the selection is in question though

For a 50 sample size, the margin of error is 14%.

For a 46 sample size, by mathematical calculation, the margin of error is 14.7%.interesting.. that would mean that (nation wide) 78-to-100% females are to vote "immoral"..

I think the pollsters are using fuzzy math.. (to give themselves undeserved accuracy)

interesting.. that would mean that (nation wide) 78-to-100% females are to vote "immoral"..

I think the pollsters are using fuzzy math.. (to give themselves undeserved accuracy)
Looks that way to me ... any respectible survey shoots for a 5% or less

interesting.. that would mean that (nation wide) 78-to-100% females are to vote "immoral"..

I think the pollsters are using fuzzy math.. (to give themselves undeserved accuracy)Or does it mean there's a 14% chance the survey is completely off?

Or does it mean there's a 14% chance the survey is completely off?
No thats confidence Level

We are predicting confidence Interval

Here is a simple explination

The confidence interval is the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, if you use a confidence interval of 4 and 47% percent of your sample picks an answer you can be "sure" that if you had asked the question of the entire relevant population between 43% (47-4) and 51% (47+4) would have picked that answer.

The confidence level tells you how sure you can be. It is expressed as a percentage and represents how often the true percentage of the population who would pick an answer lies within the confidence interval. The 95% confidence level means you can be 95% certain; the 99% confidence level means you can be 99% certain. Most researchers use the 95% confidence level.

When you put the confidence level and the confidence interval together, you can say that you are 95% sure that the true percentage of the population is between 43% and 51%.

The wider the confidence interval you are willing to accept, the more certain you can be that the whole population answers would be within that range. For example, if you asked a sample of 1000 people in a city which brand of cola they preferred, and 60% said Brand A, you can be very certain that between 40 and 80% of all the people in the city actually do prefer that brand, but you cannot be so sure that between 59 and 61% of the people in the city prefer the brand.

Or does it mean there's a 14% chance the survey is completely off?
That's the way I remember it, but statistics class was soooo long ago...

No thats confidence Level

We are predicting confidence Interval

Here is a simple explinationDon't bother. My physics professor didn't manage to teach me. It's unlikely it will ever happen ;)

I wish I could find that site that calculates the margin of error based on sample size because I'm to lazy to do it myself (mostly because I would have to got through the process of remembering how...) For a sample size that small it must be emmense.

If only one in ten women believe in casual sex, that one in ten are certainly getting a workout...
The margin of error is going to be very huge because of the small size of the sample. Possible + or - minus 10 which is very huge in terms of error margin.

Leave it to NS General to turn a thread on promiscuity into a statistics class...:p

That's the way I remember it, but statistics class was soooo long ago...
Ocean was right ... if we are talking about CI not CL (last post explains it)

In this case We used a 95% CL which is pretty standard for non technical survey's (like this one which is a population survey)

The margin of error is going to be very huge because of the small size of the sample. Possible + or - minus 10 which is very huge in terms of error margin.

+- 14.45 actualy

It does really depend who the people were, as said above. Seeing as it was conducted by a university team for the British Psychological Society, there is something to be said for the argument that they knew what they were doing with the sample, and picked a representative group.

After all, the most successful political parties are the ones that use focus groups to judge the mood of the country, and they are even smaller than this survey.
In reality, focus groups often get it wrong. They predict one guy winning, but what happens in reality is that the other guy wins.

Don't bother. My physics professor didn't manage to teach me. It's unlikely it will ever happen ;)
Basically CI (Confidence Interval) is how "Wide" The road is CL (Confidence Level) Is the percent chance that you are in fact driving on the road:p

+- 14.45 actualy
I saw your post below. My figure was meant to be a minimum. Hence "at least 10" 14 to 14.5 is even bigger a margin of error and pretty much debunks the validity of the study.

Leave it to NS General to turn a thread on promiscuity into a statistics class...:p

NS General would be even more likely turn a statistics class into a discussion on promiscuity, though I don't have statistical evidence to back that up. ;)

:rolleyes:

In your opinion; there are plenty who like women or who like variety.
I like to get it on with 7 girls at a time. :D

No thats confidence Level

We are predicting confidence Interval

And what would be the confidence level of such a survey?

I'm sure it's not "accurate 19 times out of 20" like most surveys I see in the papers.

And what would be the confidence level of such a survey?

I'm sure it's not "accurate 19 times out of 20" like most surveys I see in the papers.
Normaly with a population survey you are shooting for a 95%
At least in the sample

But you can calculate such things after the survey is done and see what you actualy got

And what would be the confidence level of such a survey?

I'm sure it's not "accurate 19 times out of 20" like most surveys I see in the papers.
Oh note if we were shooting for 99 percent which is low end of technical studies we would be actualy at a CI of 19.02 not 14.45

I was being generous

NS General would be even more likely turn a statistics class into a discussion on promiscuity, though I don't have statistical evidence to back that up. ;)still.. I assign you a whooping 69% accuracy rate. :D :D ;) :D

I've snipped that article a little, but I don't think I've cut anything too important out of it. I find this a very curious survey result, and one that I did not expect to see. Do you think that it true that woman frown on casual sex?

*shrug* I do. A lot of women I know do - frown on it, that is. Many probably wouldn't go as far as to say it is "immoral", but I would, because it is opposed to my moral views. I think sex should be reserved for a loving, committed relationship.

Of course, I would never expect someone else to live by moral views unless I could demonstrate them to be something a little more objective.

Do woman really speak about sexual freedoms with one hand, while frowning on them with the other?

You seem to assume that not exercising your freedom to its full extent is "frowing on it." It is not. I would not go out and have one-night stands, and I don't think it is right to do so. But I would fight for my own right, and the rights of others, to do so if they so chose. The freedom is good, I simply choose not to use it to that extent. I use it to the extent that I see as right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4863770.stm


I've snipped that article a little, but I don't think I've cut anything too important out of it. I find this a very curious survey result, and one that I did not expect to see. Do you think that it true that woman frown on casual sex?

Two things I picked up on: the survey only used people over 23, and the low sample size. Does this discredit the survey, or would a larger poll find the same results? Do woman really speak about sexual freedoms with one hand, while frowning on them with the other?

The afore-mentioned statistical problems aside, I would say that this is consistent with the general belief that sex is immoral except in the traditional romantic setting. As the story itself notes, there is a fairly high level of hypocrisy involved, in that there were many women in the survey who had engaged in casual sex who were nevertheless unwilling to view the same act positively in others.

I'm personally of mixed feelings on the issue. I personally don't do casual-anything, but at the same time, I know how absolutely soul-crushing it can be to go for prolonged periods without any kind of intimate contact, so I don't necessarily blame a man or woman who chooses to indulge.

Casual sex is not immoral. It is a brainless risk to life and health, however.
this is my opinion also

its not necessarily immoral (unless ones moral code disallows nonmarital sex) as it hurts no one.

but if we are talking about casual sex with strangers, its a very stupid practice since you are risking so very much for what may well turn out to be a very disappointing encounter.

If you, guys, think that 46 six women is not enough, try asking some more and you'll see what we think...

why quibble over the statistics?

if most women werent opposed to one night stands you men would be getting laid way more often....

unless you are just plain old unattractive...

why quibble over the statistics?

if most women werent opposed to one night stands you men would be getting laid way more often....

unless you are just plain old unattractive...

I think "opposed" and "simply not interested" are two different things here.
Personally, I'm not opposed. In most cases, I'm just not interested.

Nine out of 10 women think one night stands are immoral, psychologists will hear at a conference.
I don't know if I can find the words to express how deeply saddened I am by this tragedy. :(

I think "opposed" and "simply not interested" are two different things here.
Personally, I'm not opposed. In most cases, I'm just not interested.
That is absolutely true (for me pesonally as well as in the abstract). And it would be a very important point to consider when deciding on the wording of the questions in a survey like this.

I think "opposed" and "simply not interested" are two different things here.
Personally, I'm not opposed. In most cases, I'm just not interested.
cabra, cabra, cabra, leave the boys their dignity

youre not being interested falls under the possibility of their being unattractive. after all, if johnny depp were hitting on me in a bar, even *I* might opt for a one night stand.

this is no time for the truth. we are morally opposed to one-night stands!

I think this topic has to get the "duh" award.

I am female and over 50. I don't think casual sex, in and of itself, is immoral.

I think that there are consequences involved that might be dangerous and possibly fatal. First there are the dangers of STDs. Then there is the risk of unwanted pregnancy. Your chosen partner might be dangerous - sadistic or worse. These have nothing to do with morality.

Certainly, if you're into casual sex, application of common sense is required - use of protection in the case of STDs and pregnancy. I don't know how you can protect yourself from a potentially dangerous partner short of getting to know him/her, but once you get to know the person, it's no longer necessarily casual, is it?

Casual sex is fine AS LONG as both parties knows that there is no strings attached. It's messy when one person starts thinking, "OMG, s/he must love me... we are banging so s/he must love me." I used to think casual sex was wrong and still from time to time do butthat's like calling the kettle black. I tend to get physical with my friends and it not amount to anything other than... well just sex with some one I trust.

More than 30% of the woman on the poll so far call it immoral. That's still higher than I expected.

I would say that it isn't immoral, but it also isn't something that I can picture myself engaging in to any large degree.

Just imagine the implications if 1/10 nuns said casual sex was OK! :eek:

One in ten nuns can think it's fine and still not do it.

Such luck women are of no consequence to sex, then.

Maybe for you. :(

I had to answer "other" above. Casual sex is immoral within my moral code, which, as far as I'm concerned, means only that it would be immoral for me, personally, to engage in casual sex. I know many people who enjoy casual sex, and I don't think less of them for it. I certainly don't consider "casual sex = bad" to be an absolute truth, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of the women who took this survey feel the same way I do. Unfortunately, the poll seems to have left a fair amount of room for confusion between "Casual sex is not something which I happen to find morally appealing" and "OMG if you have casual sex you're an evil whore" - which, to me, are slightly different viewpoints. :p

Casual sex is not immoral. It is a brainless risk to life and health to have unprotected sex, especially with a stranger, however.
Is this what you meant to say?

Two things I picked up on: the survey only used people over 23, and the low sample size. Does this discredit the survey, or would a larger poll find the same results? Do woman really speak about sexual freedoms with one hand, while frowning on them with the other?

This is the thing about freedom that a lot of people dont seem to understand. In freedom there is always a path not taken. Women most proberbly like sexual freedoms but understand what is and isnt abuse of them.