Sexuality in Black and White: Data from 783 Undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The campaign of Barak Obama for the President of the United States revived awareness of the great divide in the United States. During the campaign, a television journalist asked a white male (who was wearing a hat with the Confederate flag) in South Carolina for his thoughts on Obama. His reply, will never be a black man voted President by this state. Maybe not. (But other states gave Obama full support and his ascendancy to the Presidency became a reality). Behind the prejudice of the South Carolina man's Obama prediction is ignorance about Blacks. Our society continues to be segregated by residence, religion and education. Blacks and whites still live in different areas, attend different churches, and school in different universities (while both races may attend the same college, there are still colleges - Howard, Morehouse, Grambling). These divisions perpetuate cross misunderstanding. The purpose of this study was to increase what is known about the respective opinions of Black and white undergraduates on a wide variety of relationship and sexual issues. Previous researchers have largely ignored differences. Netting and Burnett (2005) reported on twenty years of Canadian student sexual behavior research but provided no on differences. Data which compares Black and white students are old (Belcastro, 1985) or focused on adolescents. Barone et al. (1966) included Blacks and whites in their study of adolescent sexual behavior but some of their sample were young 11. Exploring Black Sexuality by Staples (2006) was an attempt to update research in this area. However, Holmes (2007) noted that while the book has strengths, the degree to which the book is scholarly is questioned noting that observations are not linked to data (p. 398). Rather than the traditional review of literature to begin the paper, we begin with the sample and methodology section. This is followed by the findings section which tie the new to the existing literature. We end with sections on limitations and implications. This research is an attempt to provide current comparative on Black and white sexuality. While these are presented racial differences, we recognize that biologically, there is only one living race of human beings, but there are many ethnic groups. Neanderthal, Java Human, Peking Human, and other extinct groups of Homo sapiens were races. Native Americans, Africans, Asians, and Europeans are not races. They are ethnic groups. Sociologically, race refers to shared physical characteristics that are defined socially significant. Obama's being black means nothing except that color is identified having a social meaning. In this article we use the term race because ethnic group is less often used. However, in so doing, we are not suggesting there are biological differences between Blacks and whites, only socially defined differences. Also, in this study we use the term Black because this is the term used on the survey instrument. Respondents were asked to check I regard myself as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Biracial, and Other. Hence, in the material to follow we use the term Black because it is not specific to African-American. Sample and Methodology This study was exploratory - to find out what effect race (independent variable) had on the dependent variables of one's top life value (e.g. financial security over happy marriage), desire to marry, sexual value (e.g. absolutism, relativism, hedonism), regretting one's first sexual experience, experience in hooking up, experience in giving oral sex, approval of living together, view of the importance of two versus one parent families, and approval of same sex marriage/ interracial marriage/inter religious marriage. These factors were selected because they are common relationship and sexual issues yet empirical evidence is lacking in regard to Black white differences. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".