Electrons and sex.

Abstract

Measuring electrons is not easy. They are small, nearly massless, and stubbornly obey Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which places an immutable limit on the precision with which an electron's momentum and position can be simultaneously determined. Indeed, measuring electrons is so difficult that these subatomic particles were quite well integrated into the theory of physics long before any of their physical properties had been accurately measured. Measuring sexual behavior is also not easy, which has led some AIDS researchers to study monkeys rather than people ([1][1]). People lie about their sexuality, both intentionally and unintentionally. Sexuality research is plagued by methodological challenges, including sampling and response bias, mnemonic distortions, and interview effects. How best can these problems be confronted and surmounted, much as physicists overcame difficulties in measuring electrons? The basic issues follow. Can people accurately recall their recent sexual behavior? The evidence suggests that sexual memory is often fallible, especially when the behaviors being remembered are temporally distant or occur relatively frequently. Thus, it becomes critically important to rigorously characterize and quantify the error rates and various biases inherent in sexual behavior data ([2][2]). Similarly, researchers need to recognize the interpersonal nature of the survey procedure. Survey respondents react to the questioner, often in nonobvious ways. Interviewer characteristics, and especially interviewer-respondent similarities and differences, can affect the veracity of the responses obtained. Gender, age, and ethnic characteristics can each play a role in eliciting valid data. The very act of measurement disturbs the system being measured, whether that of electrons or of the sexual behavior of humans. Sex is an intensely private matter. It is also emotionally charged, can be socially stigmatizing, and, depending on the particular act and surrounding circumstances, can even violate criminal statutes. Researchers need to devise methods to minimize distortion and to provide estimates of residual bias. Sampling and generalizability are also problematic. Exhaustive sampling of a target population is seldom feasible, and it is often difficult to ensure the representativeness (hence, generalizability) of a restricted sample, even if it is randomly selected. Care must therefore be exercised both in generalizing results to disparate populations and in designing studies to ensure that generalization is possible. There is also the complex issue of culture, which provides the proximal environment in which sexual behavior unfolds; it is the structure that gives meaning to sex and legitimates alternative forms of sexuality ([3][3], [4][4]). Research tools (including survey instruments and interviewing techniques) should be culturally sensitive and linguistically appropriate, and data must be interpreted in culturally meaningful ways ([5][5]). Finally, the theoretical underpinnings of sex research must be better explicated. Sexual measurement should derive from, and adhere to, theoretical foundations. There is no shortage of sexual theories, ranging from the distal focus of evolutionary psychology ([6][6]) to proximal theories in which sexual pleasure or intimacy take center stage ([3][3]). These seemingly different (although not irreconcilably divergent) theoretical foci suggest somewhat different approaches to the measurement and interpretation of human sexuality. Regardless of the theory selected, the collection of sexual behavior data should be informed by some theory. 1. 1.[↵][7] 1. T. W. Baba 2. et al. , Science 272, 1486 (1996). [OpenUrl][8][Abstract][9] 2. 2.[↵][10] 1. P. R. Abramson, 2. S. D. Pinkerton 1. R. Berk, 2. P. R. Abramson, 3. P. Okami , in Sexual Nature/Sexual Culture, P. R. Abramson, S. D. Pinkerton, Eds. (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995), pp. 371-386. 3. 3.[↵][11] 1. P. R. Abramson, 2. S. D. Pinkerton , With Pleasure: Thoughts on the Nature of Human Sexuality (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1995). 4. 4.[↵][12] 1. P. R. Abramson, 2. S. D. Pinkerton , Eds. Sexual Nature/Sexual Culture (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995). 5. 5.[↵][13] 1. P. R. Abramson, 2. G. H. Herdt , J. Sex Res. 27, 215 (1990). [OpenUrl][14] 6. 6.[↵][15] 1. D. Symons , The Evolution of Human Sexuality (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1979). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #ref-5 [6]: #ref-6 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DBaba%26rft.auinit1%253DT.%2BW.%26rft.volume%253D272%26rft.issue%253D5267%26rft.spage%253D1486%26rft.epage%253D1489%26rft.atitle%253DInfection%2Band%2BAIDS%2Bin%2BAdult%2BMacaques%2BAfter%2BNontraumatic%2BOral%2BExposure%2Bto%2BCell-Free%2BSIV%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.272.5267.1486%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F8633242%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIyNzIvNTI2Ny8xNDg2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjU6Ii9zY2kvMjczLzUyNzkvMTE1NS4zLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [10]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3. in text [12]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4. in text [13]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5. in text [14]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BSex%2BRes.%26rft.volume%253D27%26rft.spage%253D215%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [15]: #xref-ref-6-1 View reference 6. in text