1. Abstract
The Sexual Correlates of Female Homosexual Experience survey instrument, alternatively designated within sexological archives as the Sexual Experience Questionnaire (SEQ), was formulated by sociologists Erich Goode and Lynn Haber in 1975 and published in 1977. Designed during a transformative epoch characterized by the second-wave feminist movement and the demedicalization of non-heterosexual orientations, the instrument operates as a comprehensive, descriptive epidemiological inventory examining the behavioral, affective, and physiological correlates of same-sex sexual experiences among collegiate women. Comprising an extensive 66-question operational protocol (yielding over 100 individual discrete response stems spanning conditional skip-patterns, forced-choice checklists, Likert-type frequency scales, continuous numerical parameters, and qualitative text fields), the instrument assesses six overarching behavioral and experiential domains: heterosexual coital engagement, fellatio, cunnilingus within heterosexual contexts, same-sex female erotic practices, solitary masturbation and autoerotic agency, and subjective orgasmic valuation and sexual fantasy. Psychometrically, the instrument was engineered within an exploratory, non-parametric sociological framework rather than a classical latent trait scaling paradigm; hence, it dispenses with composite linear summative scoring in favor of discrete behavioral percentage differentials, cross-tabulations, and item-level ordinal comparisons. Initial administration among residential undergraduate women (N = 160) at the State University of New York at Stony Brook revealed that homosexually experienced women exhibited significantly greater sexual behavioral repertoire diversity, earlier ages of coital initiation, elevated partner totals, and distinct orgasmic hierarchies relative to their homosexually inexperienced peers. This article delivers a rigorous psychometric deconstruction, historical critique, theoretical contextualization, and complete verbatim documentation of the Goode and Haber instrument.
2. Keywords
Sexual Experience Questionnaire, Erich Goode, Lynn Haber, female homosexuality, sexual repertoires, orgasmic frequency, lesbian sexuality, cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation practices, female sexual behavior, sexological survey methodology, sexual orientation measurement, autoeroticism, psychosexual development.
3. Authors
The instrument was collaboratively conceived, drafted, and administered by Erich Goode, Ph.D., and Lynn Haber.
- Erich Goode, Ph.D.: Emerited Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook (now Stony Brook University), where he conducted foundational scholarship in deviance, sociology of drug use, collective behavior, and human sexuality. Correspondence regarding the historical instrument has historically been directed to Erich Goode at 3 Washington Square Village, Apartment 3B, New York, NY 10012; e-mail: [email protected].
- Lynn Haber: Sociological researcher and collaborator at the State University of New York at Stony Brook during the mid-1970s. Haber was instrumental in authoring the feminist-aligned participatory instructions and qualitative framing embedded within the questionnaire’s introduction, specifically challenging androcentric paradigms of female sexual definition.
4. Purpose
The overarching purpose of the Sexual Correlates of Female Homosexual Experience instrument was to investigate whether, and to what empirical extent, young adult women who had engaged in same-sex erotic contact differed systematically in their broader sexual practices, partner trajectories, physical responses, and psychological orientations from women whose sexual histories were exclusively heterosexual. Originating in an era when psychiatric nomenclature had only recently ceased classifying homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance (following the American Psychiatric Association’s pivotal 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II), empirical sex research remained starkly deficient regarding non-clinical, normative populations of women who had engaged in female homosexual behaviors.
Prior to Goode and Haber’s study, predominant psychoanalytic models asserted that female same-sex attraction was rooted in severe neurotic arrest, trauma-induced revulsion toward male genitalia, or an inability to achieve physiological sexual climax. Goode and Haber sought to replace pathological speculation with empirical behavioral inventorying. Rather than treating homosexual behavior as a global, monolithic identity variable or an inherent medical outcome, the researchers operationalized it as an independent descriptive marker across a non-clinical cohort of collegiate women. The purpose was distinctly multi-fold:
- To quantify the historical lifetime prevalence of discrete same-sex physical behaviors (ranging from non-genital nude caressing to cunnilingus, manual genital manipulation, and tribadism/pubic rubbing) within an unselected university residential cohort.
- To evaluate whether same-sex sexual contact correlated with an avoidance of heterosexual interactions or, conversely, whether it signaled broader general sexual experimentation, characterized by elevated coital frequency, earlier sexual debut, and a higher multiplicity of male sexual partners.
- To scrutinize experiential orgasmic dynamics across differentiated modalities—comparing the subjective pleasure and physical reliability of orgasms achieved via penile-vaginal intercourse, heterosexual oral-genital stimulation, same-sex erotic practices, and solitary masturbation.
- To probe the psychosocial tensions, communication inhibitions, body image apprehensions, and affective outcomes surrounding loveless sexual intercourse and partner-directed requests for oral sex.
In modern research and clinical historiography, the questionnaire serves as a primary exemplar of transitional 1970s sexological instrumentation that bridged Kinseyan behavioral taxonomy and emergent feminist sociological inquiries into female bodily autonomy, sexual communication, and the de-centering of coitus-dependent models of female pleasure.
5. Psychological Construct
The construct assessed by Goode and Haber’s instrument does not reflect a singular latent dimensional trait (such as generalized sexual satisfaction or erotophobia-erotophilia), but rather a multidimensional matrix of behavioral, physiological, and affective facets of female sexual expression. This operational construct conceptualizes human sexuality as a constellation of distinct, quantifiable practices interacting with subjective emotional appraisals and communicative efficacy. The questionnaire delineates six principal sub-constructs:
Heterosexual Intercourse and Partner Dynamics
This dimension examines the trajectory of penile-vaginal coitus, operationalized through chronological onset (age at first intercourse), cumulative lifetime partner counts, total behavioral frequency, and the affective context of coital activity. Critically, it isolates non-relational or uncommitted sex through inquiries assessing experiences with partners with whom the respondent was not in love, coupled with a systematic affective appraisal measuring post-coital outcomes (e.g., negative feelings such as sadness, depression, or guilt versus neutral, situational, or positive expressions of personal agency).
Heterosexual Oro-Genital Practices (Fellatio and Cunnilingus)
This sub-construct interrogates the gendered reciprocity of oral sexual practices. For fellatio, the instrument captures behavioral onset, partner volume, ejaculatory success rates, subjective female enjoyment, and behavioral initiation patterns (spontaneous execution versus compliance with male solicitation). For heterosexual cunnilingus, the construct measures exposure, frequency, partner totals, orgasmic reliability, communicative inhibition (fear of requesting cunnilingus based on assumptions of male distaste), and perceived etiology of orgasmic dysfunction during oral stimulation.
Female Same-Sex Erotic Experiences
Operationalized without presupposing a rigid sociopolitical identity label (such as “lesbian” or “bisexual”), this dimension taxonomizes specific anatomical same-sex practices: non-genital erotic caressing and kissing, cunnilingus between women, manual genital contact, and mutual pubic rubbing. It probes cumulative behavioral incidence, proportional distribution of specific techniques, age at onset, female partner counts, presence of male observers (voyeuristic/threesome contexts), and conditional orgasmic attainment rates.
Autoerotic Agency and Solitary Masturbation
Reflecting an essential milestone in feminist sexological theory, solitary masturbation is conceptualized as an autonomous metric of sexual agency rather than a mere secondary outlet. This construct assesses the age of masturbatory debut, age at first autoerotic orgasm, contemporary monthly frequency, subjective orgasmic consistency, and cognitive appraisal of the practice—specifically evaluating whether masturbation is construed as an inadequate substitute for dyadic coitus or valued as an intrinsically pleasurable, sovereign activity.
Subjective Orgasmic Hierarchy and Phenomenology
Rather than presuming that all climactic events possess uniform psychological or somatic equivalence, this facet measures qualitative differences across orgasms. It captures experiential variability (whether some orgasms are markedly superior to others), subjective attributions of pleasure, comparative ranking of orgasmic quality across five distinct sexual modalities, emotional reactions to coital orgasmic failure (ranging from acute frustration to indifference), and somatic-cognitive indicators of orgasmic occurrence.
Sexual Assertiveness, Body Image, and Desired Fantasies
This dimension assesses latent inhibitions and aspirations, measuring unacted sexual desires, communicative reticence in dyadic bed settings, body-related nudity anxiety during initial encounters, cognitive fantasy during sexual interactions, ideal orgasmic and coital weekly frequencies, and overarching utopian qualitative visions of an optimized sexual life.
6. Theoretical Framework
The construction of the Goode and Haber questionnaire is situated at the intersection of three major intellectual movements in mid-twentieth-century behavioral science: Kinseyan empirical taxonomy, social script theory, and second-wave feminist epistemology.
Kinseyan Behavioral Empiricism
Following the pioneering epistemological framework established by Alfred Kinsey and colleagues (1948, 1953), Goode and Haber adhered to strict behavioral operationalism. Kinsey posited that human sexual response occurs across a continuum that cannot be forced into rigid dichotomous typologies without severe empirical distortion. Goode and Haber rejected the medicalized presumption that female same-sex experimentation represented an intractable characterological syndrome. By measuring discrete physical acts (e.g., manual genital stimulation, cunnilingus) and recording behavioral partner tallies and frequencies, the instrument operationalizes sexuality through behavioral realities rather than psychiatric dogmatism.
Sociological Scripting and Deviance Theory
Rooted in John Gagnon and William Simon’s (1973) Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality, sociological script theory postulates that sexual behavior is governed not by biological instincts alone, but by intrapsychic, interpersonal, and cultural scenarios. Goode, a prominent deviance scholar, recognized that engaging in same-sex contact in the 1970s represented a profound transgression of normative heterosocial scripts. Goode and Haber theorized that individuals who violated foundational gender norms regarding partner choice were also structurally uncoupled from conventional gender role restrictions governing heterosexual passivity. Consequently, homosexually experienced women were hypothesized to possess broader sexual scripts—exhibiting what the authors termed an “adventurous” or exploratory sexual orientation characterized by reduced adherence to traditional sexual scripts of female passivity, shame, and domestic containment.
Feminist Epistemology and the Demedicalization of Female Pleasure
The instrument’s conceptualization explicitly incorporates themes advanced by second-wave feminist theorists, such as Anne Koedt’s (1970) The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm and Masters and Johnson’s (1966) physiological discoveries demonstrating that female orgasms are physiologically clitoral in locus regardless of the mode of stimulation. For decades, orthodox psychoanalytic doctrine asserted that mature women must transfer sexual sensitivity from the clitoris to the vagina, framing inability to climax during penile thrusting as psychosexual immaturity. The introductory text of the instrument—penned by Lynn Haber—openly asserts a feminist manifesto: “It is my belief that we, as women, have been letting one another down by allowing men to define our sexuality for us. The time has come for us to speak candidly and frankly about our sexual lives.” The instrument thereby directly decoupled female sexual pleasure from male ejaculation, investigating cunnilingus, autoeroticism, and same-sex eroticism as fully legitimate sources of female climax.
7. Validity
Because the Goode and Haber (1977) investigation was executed as an exploratory, descriptive epidemiological inquiry within an emerging sociological paradigm, classical psychometric scale construction techniques—such as formal construct validation protocols, multi-trait multi-method matrices, and convergent/discriminant statistical testing—were not formally executed by the authors. Nevertheless, modern psychometric examination reveals substantial evidence of validity embedded in its construction and findings:
Content and Face Validity
The instrument demonstrates exceptional face validity and content validity for mid-1970s female sexuality research. By covering an exhaustive array of sexual acts (vaginal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, mutual masturbation, same-sex caressing, tribadism, autoeroticism) along with emotional, communicative, and phenomenological variables, the 66-item schedule systematically avoided the construct underrepresentation typical of contemporary instruments that focused narrowly on coital frequency. The integration of qualitative open-ended probes ensured that subjective nuances of female sexual experience were not excluded by rigid researcher-defined categories.
Criterion and Known-Groups Validity
The instrument demonstrated strong known-groups criterion validity, effectively differentiating homosexually experienced women (n = 16) from homosexually inexperienced women (n = 144) across an array of behavioral and attitudinal vectors. In accordance with theoretical expectations of behavioral exploration:
- Partner Volumes: Homosexually experienced women reported significantly higher lifetime numbers of male coital partners (mean = 7.4; median = 5.0; mode = 2) compared to homosexually naive women (mean = 3.6; median = 2.0; mode = 1).
- Age of Sexual Debut: Homosexually experienced respondents initiated heterosexual intercourse at an earlier developmental stage (mean = 16.7 years; median = 16.0; mode = 15.0) than their inexperienced counterparts (mean = 18.3 years; median = 17.0; mode = 17.0).
- Behavioral Repertoire Breadth: Homosexually experienced women exhibited significantly higher lifetime participation rates in heterosexual cunnilingus, fellatio, non-relational intercourse, regular autoeroticism, and sexual fantasy during coitus.
- Affective and Evaluative Divergence: Homosexually naive women were markedly more prone to report subjective enjoyment of fellating a male partner and to identify penile-vaginal intercourse as the single most pleasurable source of orgasm. Conversely, homosexually experienced women were overrepresented among respondents citing same-sex erotic contact or solitary masturbation as their apex orgasmic experience.
Discriminant and Methodological Limitations
Discriminant validity remains circumscribed by the instrument’s cross-sectional, non-blinded survey design. Because the questionnaire was self-administered within university dormitory residences, social desirability bias, recall errors regarding chronological milestones, and self-selection bias (a 64% final response rate across three waves) may have influenced findings. Goode and Haber acknowledged that their sample size of homosexually experienced women (10% of the sample, n = 16) was statistically small, meaning that broad epidemiological generalizability to older, non-collegiate, or racially diverse populations cannot be assumed.
8. Reliability
In their primary 1977 publication, Goode and Haber noted: “Because the study for which the instrument was developed was descriptive and exploratory and not explanatory and definitive, we did not conduct tests of reliability, validity, and significance. We used simple percentage differences—as determined by magnitude—to determine the differences between our two categories of respondents.” Consequently, formal reliability coefficients—such as Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, or systematic test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC)—were neither calculated nor reported.
From a classical test theory standpoint, evaluating internal consistency via a composite Cronbach’s alpha is conceptually inappropriate for an inventory structured around conditional branching skips, categorical checklists, and discrete behavioral milestones. Many items (such as age at first intercourse, frequency of marijuana consumption, or paternal educational attainment) function as independent epidemiological demographic indicators rather than reflective indicators of a single underlying latent continuum.
Nevertheless, internal protocol consistency was structurally bolstered through several methodological safeguards:
- Branching Cross-Verification: The questionnaire employed paired behavioral and frequency verifications. For example, Question 1 assessed coital history; sub-questions 1a through 1f systematically verified this endorsement by cross-referencing age at onset, lifetime partner counts, total intercourse encounters, and orgasmic proportions. Discordant or impossible sequential data could thus be identified during data cleaning.
- Direct Parallel Inquiries: Inquiries assessing fellatio (Questions 2–2h) directly mirrored those examining cunnilingus (Questions 3–3i) in temporal framing, partner enumerations, orgasmic contingency rates, and communicative assertiveness metrics.
- Collection Rigor: Data collection utilized a rigorous three-wave, door-to-door delivery and confidential sealed-envelope pick-up procedure across university residence halls. This protocol minimized immediate peer-surveillance pressures and achieved a cumulative 64% completion rate (160 completed instruments out of 250 distributed), an exceptionally high completion standard for comprehensive self-report sex inventories of that era.
9. Factor Analysis
Neither exploratory factor analysis (EFA) nor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in the original 1977 investigation. During the mid-1970s, computerized multivariate statistical software (such as early iterations of SPSS) was predominantly utilized for cross-tabulation, percentage breakdowns, and basic linear regression, while factor analysis was largely restricted to psychometric instruments built with homogeneous Likert batteries.
Had the 66-item instrument been subjected to modern exploratory factor analytic techniques utilizing robust estimators suitable for mixed-format data (e.g., diagonally weighted least squares [DWLS] on polychoric and tetrachoric correlation matrices), the resulting latent structure would have likely organized into a clear six-factor architecture:
- Factor 1: Heterosexual Experience and Partner Volume (High loadings from coital partner counts [1b], total coital encounters [1f], early coital debut [1a, inverted], fellatio partner count [2c, 2d], and cunnilingus partner volume [3d]).
- Factor 2: Female Same-Sex Repertoire Diversity (High loadings from lifetime same-sex contact endorsement [4], cunnilingus with a woman [4], manual genital contact [4], cumulative frequency of same-sex experiences [4a], and same-sex partner count [4d]).
- Factor 3: Autoerotic Autonomy and Frequency (High loadings from masturbation incidence [5], monthly autoerotic frequency [5c], orgasmic success during masturbation [5d], and viewing masturbation as an independent activity [5e]).
- Factor 4: Heterosexual Coital/Erotic Receptivity and Pleasure (High loadings from coital orgasmic frequency [1e], subjective enjoyment of fellatio [2g], and ranking intercourse as the most pleasurable orgasm [6b]).
- Factor 5: Sexual Communication and Bodily Self-Efficacy (Negative loadings from fear of requesting cunnilingus [3g], reluctance to disrobe due to body shame [8], and unexpressed sexual desires due to fear of partner judgment [7b]).
- Factor 6: Erotic Non-Conformity and Sociosexual Exploration (Moderate-to-high loadings from loveless coitus [1c], positive affective appraisal of uncommitted sex [1d], sexual fantasy during partner sex [8c], and lifetime cannabis consumption [11, 11a]).
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
The Sexual Experience Questionnaire (SEQ) / Sexual Correlates of Female Homosexual Experience instrument is structured as an extensive self-administered pencil-and-paper survey. Below is an exhaustive structural breakdown of the tool:
- Administrative Format: Self-administered paper questionnaire, distributed via door-to-door delivery in sealed envelopes to maintain strict participant anonymity and confidentiality.
- Target Population: Collegiate and young adult women (originally validated on residential university women aged 18 to 23).
- Administration Time: Typically 30 to 60 minutes for complete individual execution.
- Item Count & Structure: Contains 66 numbered primary and nested sub-questions, yielding 112 unique behavioral questions, conditional skip stems, multi-part checklists, and narrative text boxes.
- Item Formats:
- Dichotomous forced-choice: Yes / No items for behavioral exposure.
- Continuous numerical fill-in: Exact chronological age at milestones, total lifetime partner tallies, monthly frequencies, and cumulative lifetime events.
- Ordinal Likert-type scales: Standardized 6-point frequency/probability distributions (e.g., Never, Rarely [<10%], Occasionally [10–25%], About half the time [~50%], Usually, Always or almost always).
- Categorical forced-choice: Affective attributions, communicative initiations, and qualitative perspectives on sexual behaviors.
- Rank-order hierarchy: Direct ranking of orgasmic pleasure across competing sexual activities.
- Qualitative open-ended fields: Descriptive explanations regarding orgasmic somatic indicators, etiology of orgasmic failure, unfulfilled desires, and idealized sexual futures.
- Scoring Paradigm: The instrument requires no composite summative scoring. Responses are treated as discrete behavioral indicators. In empirical analyses, respondents are primarily partitioned into comparative cohorts based on item 4 (engagement in same-sex sexual contact: Yes vs. No). Outcome variables are analyzed through cross-tabulations, median/modal distributions, and percentage magnitude comparisons across behavioral domains.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The instrument was conceived, drafted, and administered in the spring of 1975 at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and formally published in 1977 in The Journal of Sex Research. As an academic assessment developed through university-supported scholarly research and disseminated in public scientific literature, the instrument is situated within the public domain for non-commercial academic, archival, and historical research purposes, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Erich Goode and Lynn Haber.
Commercial utilization, digital software reproduction, or broad institutional re-publication requires courtesy notification or permission from the primary author. Academic correspondence should be directed to Dr. Erich Goode, 3 Washington Square Village, Apt 3B, New York, NY 10012; e-mail: [email protected].
12. References
- Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Aldine Publishing Company.
- Goode, E., & Haber, L. (1977). Sexual correlates of homosexual experience: An exploratory study of college women. The Journal of Sex Research, 13(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224497709550953
- Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. W. B. Saunders.
- Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. W. B. Saunders.
- Koedt, A. (1970). The myth of the vaginal orgasm. New England Free Press.
- Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Little, Brown and Company.
13. Items of the Scale
Instructions: The intent of this study is to find out what and how women feel about their own sexuality. These questions are designed as a means of understanding what women experience in their sexual relationships and activities.
It is my belief that we, as women, have been letting one another down by allowing men to define out sexuality for us. The time has come for us to speak candidly and frankly about our sexual lives. Only in this way can we know the nature of our collective experiences.
It will not be easy to shed the beliefs we were taught and expected to accept pertaining to our sexuality, but it is something we must do for ourselves and for each other.
Several hundred questionnaires will be distributed to a sample of women on the Stony Brook campus. All returned questions will remain confidential. There is no need to write your name on this questionnaire.
Please answer all questions honestly, completely, and seriously. Your cooperation is very much appreciated. Thank you!
- Have you ever engaged in sexual intercourse with a man or a boy? (Please check one) Yes No (If no, skip to Question 2; if yes, proceed to Question 1a)
- 1a. Please write the age when you first engaged in sexual intercourse with a man or boy
- 1b. Please write in the total number of men or boys with whom you have engaged in sexual intercourse
- 1c. Have you ever engaged in sexual intercourse with a man or boy you were not in love with? Yes No
- 1d. If yes to Question 1c, how did you usually feel right after engaging in sexual intercourse when you were not in love? (Please check the alternative that comes closest to your feeling)
- Negative (sad, depressed, guilty, etc.)
- Positive (It was what I wanted to do at the time) Neutral (it didn’t bother me)
- It depended on the man; I felt different with different men It depended on my mood at the time
- Other (please explain)
- 1e. About what proportion of the time do you generally achieve orgasm during intercourse with a man? (Please check the appropriate category)
- Never
- Rarely (less than 10% of the time)
- Occasionally (less than a quarter of the time but more than 10% of the time) About half the time, more or less
- Usually
- Always or almost always
- 1f. Please estimate the total number of times that you have had intercourse with any boy or man. (Please write in the number)
- Have you ever engaged in fellatio with a boy or man (oral stimulation of a man’s penis) whether or not it led to his orgasm? Yes No
- 2a. Could you estimate the number of times that you have engaged in fellatio, with any boy or man
- 2b. About what proportion of this number did your oral stimulation of a boy or a man’s penis lead to his orgasm? Please estimate about what percentage of the time this happened)
- 2c. With how many boys or men have you engaged in fellatio when it did not lead to his orgasm? 2d. With how many men have you engaged in fellatio when it did lead to his orgasm?
- 2e. How old were you when you first engaged in fellatio with a boy or man?
- 2f. How old were you when you first engaged in fellatio when it led to his orgasm? 2g. Do you usually enjoy fellating a man? Yes No
- 2h. Do you usually fellate a man spontaneously, or does the man usually request you to do it?
- Usually spontaneously
- At first, I was asked; later, it’s usually been spontaneous It depends on how much I like the man
- I usually have to be asked to do it There’s no particular pattern to it
- It’s some other way (please explain)
- Has a man ever engaged in cunnilingus (oral stimulation of the woman’s genitals) with you? Yes No
- If no, have you ever wanted a man to engage in cunnilingus with you? Yes No ; if yes, how often has this happened and with how many men? ; If yes, a man has engaged in cunnilingus with you, could you please estimate the total number of times that this has taken place?
- (If no, a man has not engaged in cunnilingus with you, please skip to Question 4; if at least one has, please continue with Question 3a)
- 3a. About what proportion of the time would you say you have achieved orgasm during cunnilingus with a man? (Please check the appropriate category):
- Never
- Rarely (less than 10 % of the time)
- Occasionally (less than a quarter of the time but more than 10% of the time) About half the time, more or less
- Usually
- Always or almost always
- 3b. If you achieved orgasm during cunnilingus with a man less than half the time, why do you think this is so? (Please explain)
- 3c. If a man engages in cunnilingus with you, do you usually ask him to do it or does he usually do it without you having to ask him?
- I always have to ask I usually have to ask
- It depends on the man
- It happens both ways about half the time The man usually does it without my asking The man always does it without my asking
- 3d. How many men have performed cunnilingus with you?
- 3e. How old were you when a man first performed cunnilingus with you?
- 3f. How old were you when a man first performed cunnilingus with you when it led to your orgasm?
- 3g. Have you ever been afraid to ask a man to perform cunnilingus with you because you thought he wouldn’t like it?
- Yes No
- 3h. If yes, about how many times has that taken place? (Please estimate the number of times)
- 3i. If yes, with how many men have you been afraid to ask? (Please estimate the number of men)
- Have you ever engaged in any of the following sexual experiences with another woman? Nude hugging and kissing and caressing without genital contact? Yes No
- Cunnilingus? Yes No
- Mutual pubic rubbing? Yes No Manual genital contact? Yes No
- (If you have not engaged in any of these activities, please skip to Question 5; if you have, please proceed with Question 4a) If you have engaged in any other sexual experiences with another woman, what were they?
- (Please explain)
- 4a. Could you estimate the total number of times that you have had sexual experiences with another woman asked about in Question 4—caressing, cunnilingus, pubic rubbing, and manual genital contact? (Please write in the total number)
- 4b. About what proportion of the time have you engaged in the following activities when you have engaged in sexual experiences with another woman? (Please write in the percentage)
- Nude hugging, kissing, and caressing, without genital contact % Cunnilingus %
- Mutual pubic rubbing % Manual genital contact %
- 4c. How old were you when you had any of these sexual experiences with another woman? 4d. With how many women have you engaged in any of these experiences?
- 4e. Have you ever engaged in any of these sexual experiences with a woman, with a man present? Yes No 4f. If so, how often has this happened?
- 4g. About what proportion of the time that you had a sexual experience with another woman did you achieve orgasm?
- Never Rarely Occasionally About half the time Usually Always or almost always
- Have you ever masturbated yourself? Yes No
- (If no, skip to Question 6; if yes, proceed with Question 5a)
- 5a. How old were you when you first masturbated yourself?
- 5b. How old were you when you first masturbated yourself to orgasm?
- 5c. How frequently would you say you have masturbated yourself per month in the past year?
- 5d. About what proportion of the time would you say that you achieved orgasm when you masturbated yourself?
- Never Rarely Occasionally
- 5e. Do you feel that masturbation is a substitute for having orgasms during sex with another person, or do you think that it is an enjoyable activity in itself? A substitute Enjoyable in itself Something else (Please explain)
- Are some of your orgasms significantly more enjoyable than others, or are they equally enjoyable? Some are far more enjoyable than others
- They are about equally enjoyable I have never had an orgasm
- Something else (Please explain)
- 6a. If some of your orgasms are far more pleasurable than others, what do you think makes them this way? (Please explain)
- 6b. Which of the following activities gives you the most pleasurable orgasm? Which one the least? Please rank all of the following activities in terms of how pleasurable your orgasms have been when you engaged in each one:
- Intercourse with a man Cunnilingus with a man Masturbating yourself A man masturbating me
- Sexual experience with another woman My orgasms are about equally enjoyable I have orgasms only one way
- I have never had an orgasm Something else (Please explain)
- If you fail to achieve an orgasm with a man during intercourse, are you usually: Extremely disappointed and frustrated
- Somewhat disappointed and frustrated
- Indifferent; if it happens, it happens, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t
- I usually feel some other way (Please explain)
- How do you know you are having an orgasm? What are the signs? What happens to your body or mind that tells you that you are having an orgasm? (Please explain)
- Are there any sexual activities that you have not participated in but you would like to try? Yes No If yes, what are they? (Write it/them out)
- When you’ve been in bed with another person, have there been times when you would have liked to engage in a certain activity but didn’t because you were afraid to ask your partner? Yes No
- If yes, what were they? (Please explain)
- When you have been in bed with someone for the first time, have you ever felt reluctant to take off your clothes, or to have your partner take off your clothes, because you were afraid the other person might not like your body? Yes No
- About how many orgasms per week do you feel is ideal for yourself?
- In the best of all possible worlds, how often would you engage in sexual activity each week?
- Do you fantasize during sex, any form of sex? Yes No
- When you have sex, any form of sex, and have an orgasm, do you feel that one orgasm is satisfying for the next few hours, or do you feel that you would like to have more than one?
- One is usually satisfying
- I usually would like to have more than one
- It depends (If it depends, what does it depend on? ) Something else (Please explain) I rarely or never have orgasms
- If you could have things more or less exactly the way you wanted sexually, what would they be likeHow would you change your life? What would your sex life be like?
- What is your age?
- What is your grandparents’ religion?
- How religious would you say you are? Very religious
- Somewhat religious Not very religious
- I’m not religious at all
- Father’s education: Mother’s education:
- Race: Black White Asian Latino
- Other (Please write in your race if it is Other)
- How influential do you feel your parents are now in your life? (Check one) Very influential now
- Somewhat influential now
- Not very influential now Not at all influential now
- Have you ever smoked marijuana? Yes No
- During the past six months or so, how often would you estimate that you have smoked marijuana? Not at all
- Less than monthly
- More than monthly but less than weekly About once a week
- Several times a week Daily or so
- More than once a day
- Are there any questions that we should have asked in this questionnaire but didn’t?