Download This PDF File

ISSN: 2347-7474 International Journal Advances in Social Science and Humanities Available online at: www.ijassh.com

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Gender Gap in Reported Homosexuality

Greggor Mattson*

Assistant Professor of Sociology, Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies Institute, Oberlin College.

*Corresponding Author: Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Men consistently report higher rates of homosexual behavior and identity than women in national population surveys of sexuality, a gender gap that has received little attention. Though women express similar levels of same- sex desire, they are far less likely to claim a lesbian identity or to report recent homosexual sex. This paper establishes the gender gap in homosexuality as a robust social by compiling historical and anthropological evidence and population surveys. It then evaluates two competing sociological explanations for differences in homosexuality between men and women: economic inequalities and differences in human capital. I tested these explanations with variables from the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) on the dependent variable of reported same- sex sexual contact in the past five years. The economic hypothesis is not supported, as none of the economic variables are significant. Some of the human capital variables are significant: controlling for age and marital status, education and urban residence together explain 28% of the difference in reported homosexuality between the sexes. This paper considers the implications of human capital and the value of the gender gap for future research on the intersections among sexuality, sex and gender.

Keywords: Sexual orientation, Sex differences, Economic inequality, Human capital, Sexuality research traditions, Gender

Introduction historically and cross-culturally persistent. I Scholars have frequently observed inequalities report two sociological theories that have been among the sexes in the social organization deployed to explain the differences in of homosexuality-men run more gay rights homosexuality between men and women: an organizations, lesbian bars and commercial economic hypothesis citing independent income as establishments are more rare, and gay men have necessary to express homosexuality and one citing much greater presence in gay neighbourhoods and differences in human capital. I then present community life, for example [1-5]. While early logistic regressions modelling these two explanations defined these phenomena as hypotheses, which show no support for the artifacts of the male bias in research or the result influence of economic variables but support for of gay men’s activism around AIDS [6], population the gap’s correlation with levels of education and surveys consistently show that men report higher urbanism. I discuss the implications of these rates of homosexuality than women. Rarely are findings for understanding the intersection of these two trends connected, however. Men are gender and sexuality generally and for twice as likely as women to report a gay or understanding gay and lesbian life specifically. bisexual identity, and are more likely to report recent same-sex sexual behavior. Yet when asked Evidence for Homosexuality’s Gender Gap about their degree of same-sex desire, women report higher rates than men. This gender gap In the 1990s several Western industrialized between expressed homosexuality and countries conducted national population surveys homosexual desire between the sexes has received of sexual behavior in response to the AIDS little explicit discussion, yet has important pandemic. Many of these deployed implications for studies of gay and lesbian life and multidimensional models of sexual orientation for the etiology of homosexual behavior and identity. the first time, allowing researchers to explore differences among rates of sexual identity, This paper presents evidence that behavior, and same-sex sexual desire. These homosexuality’s gender gap is a social fact that is surveys found vastly different rates of

Greggor Mattson | October 2014 | Vol.2 | Issue 10|20-26 20 Available online at: www.ijassh.com homosexuality in the population [7], but also Women claim a gay, lesbian or bisexual (g/l/b) different ratios between men’s and women’s identity at half the rates of men. These findings reports of homosexuality, the indicator I use to raise a puzzle: if women have the same rates of operationalize the gender gap (see table 1): homosexual attraction, why are they nearly twice Table 1: Reports of homosexual behavior from as likely to express this in behavior or identity? national population surveys This gap seems to historically durable. Convenience samples of homosexuality in the Country Measure Women % Men % Ratio United States during the 20th century consistently found higher reports of United States* past 5 years 2.2 4.1 186 United homosexuality among men than women (see Table Kingdom† past 5 years 0.6 1.4 233 3):

France‡ past 5 years 0.4 1.4 350 Table 3: Incidence of homosexuality in American‡‡ convenience samples

United States* same-sex sex ever 1.4 2.8 200 Study Women % Men % Ratio United Kingdom† same-sex sex ever 1.7 2.5 206 Hamilton (1929) 37 57 154 several same- Finland§ sex partners 1.6 2.1 131 Bromley & Britten (1938) 4 13 325 same-sex partners Norway** ever 3.0 3.5 117 Gilbert Youth Research (1951) 6 12 200

Kinsey et. al. (1953) * (Laumann et al.). [8] † (Wellings et al.).[9] Same-sex contact ever 28 50 179 ‡ (Spira, Bajos, and Groupe). [10] § (Kontula and Haavio-Mannila ) [11] Same-sex orgasm ever 13 37 285 The gender gap ranges from 117 reports for men to each 100 for women in Norway to 250 for The ratio of the gender gap ranges from 154 in the France. In the United States, the ratio is 186 for Gilbert Hamilton sample of married, upper- reports of same-sex sexual contact in the last 5 middle-class New Yorkers to 325 among 1,300 years, but 200 for lifetime reports of same- college students in the 1938 study [12]. sex sexual contact. Anthropological surveys also support the The U.S. data are from the National Health and existence of the gender gap in reported Social Life Survey (NHSLS), which conducted in homosexuality as a cross-cultural social fact. The 1992 using a nationally-representative sample of first analysis of the Human Area Resource Files 3,432 Americans. The survey also included a concludes (HRAF), a standardized assessment of question on desire for same-sex sexual contact. anthropological studies, concluded that “it Though men report higher levels appears highly probable that human females are of expressed homosexuality (reported behavior or less likely than males to engage in homosexual claimed identity) than women, the level of relations” [13]. Other reviews of the literature homosexual desire is statistically the same note fewer records of homosexuality among between the sexes (see Table 2): women [14] and evidence for higher rates among men [15]. Though early anthropological data are Table 2: NHSLS Reports of Homosexuality†† limited by their collection by and among men and Measure Women % Men % Ratio the suppression of sexuality in fieldwork accounts [15-16], there are no descriptions of human Any homosexual sex ever 4.3 9.1 212 societies where female homosexuality is more Homosexual sex, past 5 years 2.2 4.1 186 prevalent than male.

Homosexual sex, past year 1.3 2.7 208 Laumann et. al. note that “there does not seem to be an obvious explanation” [8] for women’s lower Homosexual identity (g/l/b) 1.4 2.8 200 rates of same-sex sexual attraction, nor do Pepper Homosexual desire 7.5 7.7 97 Schwartz and Virginia Rutter offer a solution to what they acknowledge as an “interesting puzzle” [17]. Laumann et. al. cite historical factors that Though the ratios for sexual identity or same- may have structured opportunities differently for sex sexual contact vary from 186 to 212, women’s younger versus older cohorts, and note the reported desire for same-sex sexual contact is not importance of education: statistically significantly different from men’s.

Greggor Mattson | October 2014 | Vol.2 | Issue 10|20-26 21 Available online at: www.ijassh.com

On the one hand, more education for women may and Rutter [17]). Integrating findings from represent greater gender nonconformity. But it qualitative and quantitative research traditions, may also represent a higher level of personal and the kinds of questions they ask, hold resources (human capital) that can translate into significant promise to understanding the more economic and social opportunities, which implications gender gaps for theories about the would, in turn, increase one’s ability to please one sexed expressions of sexuality. self rather than others. Study Their invocation of human capital draws upon Gary Becker’s [18] influential application of This study uses multivariate logistic regression economic theory to human behavior. In terms of [24] to evaluate the ability of economic and realizing one’s sexual preferences, human capital human capital variables to explain the gender can be conceived as personality and/or gap. Ioperationalized homosexuality using the attractiveness (ugly ducklings have a harder time NHSLS measure of same-sex partners in the past than swams), selectivity (if you only seek princes, five years. It has the advantage of more your selection pool is small), and competence in respondents than sexual identity because so few seeking (looking for a needle in a haystack takes respondents claimed one. The measure “same- longer than looking for one in a sewing basket). sex sexual contact ever” is so broad as to include While the use of market metaphors has been individuals who had only one homosexual influential in conceptualizations of marriage or experience. The five year time period is short sexual risks, it has attracted criticism from enough to measure only those who are currently sociologists for its inability to explain variability able to engage in homosexuality but long enough in sexual norms that create stratification in to include those who had no sex partner in the sexual markets and the origins of sexual agency last year (a common event, especially for women). [19, 20]. Nevertheless, human capital is the only The 5-year variable is highly correlated with existing hypothesis that has specifically sexual identity at .880 (.000 sig.), supporting its addressed the sexed differences in reported reliability to measure expressed homosexuality. homosexuality in population surveys. There are only N=90 individuals who responded to the question out of 3,432 survey respondents, Earlier historical and qualitative research focused limiting the number of demographic and on economic differences between men and women independent variable categories that could be to explain differences in the organization of gay evaluated. and lesbian lives. This economic hypothesis noted the intersecting disadvantages women face as Demographic dependent variables included women and as homosexuals. Historians noted the respondents’ sex (WOMAN), whether respondents growth of lesbian subcultures with the rise of are heterosexually MARRIED and their AGE, women’s wage labor [3, 21]. As Beth Schneider recoded into 5 cohorts 18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50- has written, lesbians: employed full-time continue 59, and 60+. Three variables measure economic to receive significantly less pay. Most do not have factors, and four to measure human capital. college degrees and enter occupations of Economic resources were tested using the NORC traditional female employment where variable for annual household INCOME and unionization is rare, benefits meager and prestige individual WAGES coded in six groups: lacking. Continued employment in female- <$20K, $20-29K, 30-39K, 40-49K, 50- 59K, dominated occupations maintains women’s $60K+. The only measure of economic stability is disadvantage relative to men, since it is provided by INC CHG, which measures whether associated with lower wages; typically, lower the respondent experienced a 20% change in their wages keep women dependent on men-their income in either direction in the past year. husbands (when they have them) or their bosses [22]. Three broader measures of social class operationalize human capital. These included The wage gap, glass ceiling, and other forms of educational level (EDUC LEV) recoded into five sex discrimination are cited as mechanisms by categories: < high school, high school graduate, which women are disadvantaged in their some college, college degree, and education expression of homosexuality [23]. This gender gap beyond the baccalaureate degree. PRESTIGE uses has received may have received such little the NORC scale of occupational prestige [25] attention because these two observations- recoded into six categories <30, 30-39, 40-49; 50- more men express homosexuality than women, 59, 60-69, 70+. Levels of urbanization of the the organization of lesbian lives is impacted both respondent’s current residence was reflected in by sex and homosexuality-remain separated by the variable URBAN, which recoded the NORC research traditions (for an exception see Schwartz variable

Greggor Mattson | October 2014 | Vol.2 | Issue 10|20-26 22 Available online at: www.ijassh.com

XNORCSIZ into four categories: small cities, I fitted a reduced model containing only towns and open country; unincorporated areas significant variables to mitigate the increased near cities greater than 50,000; suburbs near estimated standard errors for factors that do not cities greater than 50,000; in a city of 50- show explanatory power. To allow each variable 250,000; and living in a city with a population the maximum possibility of showing statistical greater than 250,000. significance, I used backward-removal based on Wald statistics. Below I also display the Human capital variables that capture both univariate model testing the effect of sex on broader conceptions of social class and respondents’ reports of homosexuality. developmental trajectories were captured by parental educational attainment recoded in the Results same way as educational level (MOM ED, DAD ED). Level of urbanization of respondent’s The univariate model testing the effect of sex on residence at the age of 14 reflects greater respondents’ reports of homosexuality is opportunities for exposure to gay and lesbian significant (see Table 4).§§ events, media and individuals at a key moment of adolescence.

Table 4: Correlates of self-reported homosexual behavior in the past five years

Full model Reduced Model Univariate

Variable B SE ExpB B SE ExpB B SE ExpB

WOMAN - .4730† .2814 .6213 -.7102* .2345 0.4915 -.8169*** .2300 .4418

EDUC LEV .3391† .1768 1.4037 .5329**** .1221 1.7039

URBAN 1581† .0907 1.1713 .2430*** .0704 1.2751

MARRIED -1.6221**** .3311 .1975 -1.6952**** .2660

AGE -.0145 .0156 .3536

MOM ED -.0407 .1432 .9601

DAD ED .1472 .1210 .2238

INC CHG .0212 .1074 1.0214

INCOME -.0002 .0843 .9998

PRESTIGE -.0023 .0023 .9977

URBAN14 .1076 .0961 1.1136

WAGES .1246 .0924 1.1327 constant -4.3049**** .6290 -4.2261**** .3359 3.2782**** .1290

-2 log likelihood 529.649 721.40 821.807

N 66 89 90

Chi-square 12.3032 14.1801 -- df 8 8 --

Sig .1382 .0772 --

† significant at .1 *significant at .05 **significant at .001 ***significant at .005 ****significant at .0001

Greggor Mattson | October 2014 | Vol.2 | Issue 10|20-26 23 Available online at: www.ijassh.com

§§ Hosmer and Lemeshow advise a critical value except for economic measures (INCOME, INC of 2 for the univariate Wald, calculated by CHG, PRESTIGE, and WAGES). dividing the beta value by its standard error. Since SPSS reports the Wald statistic as the Wald squared, the suggested critical value (2) must be The reduced model includes only those variables squared as well, yielding 4. that are significant using backwards removal. I ran interaction effects for all of the economic variables against each of the variables in the Being a woman decreases the log odds of reduced model; none of these proved significant. reporting homosexuality by .8169 (.0005 sig.), or a Sex and being in a heterosexual marriage are ratio of 222 when no other variables are controlled strongly negatively correlated with reports of for, and is the benchmark gap against which I homosexual sex in the past 5 years, while compare the multivariate models. In the full educational level (.5329) andmore urban residence model, being married is significant at .0000, while (.2430) are positively correlated. The correlation being a woman, educational level, and degree to between urban residence and homosexuality which current residence is urban are significant echoes previous findings run only for men [26]. at .1, a promising result given the few degrees of freedom present in the sum of categories in the The reduced model explains 28% of the gender dependent variables. gap. Table 5 displays the log odds tabulated as probabilities of reporting homosexuality for eight Univariate models for each of the variables in the hypothetical individuals that reflect the full model showed all variables were significant maximum and minimum effects of the significant variables:

Table 5: Probability of selected cases reporting homosexuality in full model

Case Women p Men p Gap

A: single, > university degree, most urban area .1694 .2933 173

B: married, > university degree, most urban area .0215 .04280 199

C: single, < high school, least urban area .0071 .0144 202

D: married, < high school, least urban area .0013 .0027 203

Type A cases are single with more than a by only 9.4 percent for these individuals of Type D university education living in a central city. The who derive few benefits from the significant reduced model predicts that 29 percent of Type A variables. men and 17 percent of women will report homosexual sex from the past five years. Type As As might be expected, demographic variables had also represents the smallest gender gap of 173, the largest correlations with reports of same- meaning the reduced model has explained 28 sex sexual contact. Marital status has the largest percent of the gap from the benchmark of 222. effect on reports of homosexuality, twice the beta value of the next-largest factor. Its effect on reports of homosexuality varies depending on The size of the effect is significant-the model their levels of education and urbanisation. Among predicts that highly urban and educated married the rural-dwelling, marital status has almost no women will report three times the rate of effect on the gap, but for city-dwellers it reduces homosexual behavior over the last five years than the gap by 13 percent. single, rural women with less than a high school Discussion education. Type D cases have the highest gap, as married individuals with less than a high school The sexed gap in reports of homosexuality as a education living in a rural area. The model social fact that is historically and cross- culturally predicts that only 0.27 percent of men and 0.13 durable. This paper has suggested that percent of women will report homosexuality homosexuality’s gender gap is a useful indicator among individuals of this type. The gap is reduced for assessing hypotheses about the interrelationships among sexuality, sex and

Greggor Mattson | October 2014 | Vol.2 | Issue 10|20-26 24 Available online at: www.ijassh.com gender. Using data from the NHSLS, the satisfaction and well-being whether in interactions among sexual orientation and sex heterosexual or homosexual relationships [31]. were explored to show this relevance. Economic Evidence such as these lend support to the explanations for men’s higher rates of expressing supposition that sexual agency offers one homosexuality were not supported, with none of reasonable mechanism for impact of human the measures of economic resources or stability capital to explain some of the sexual differences showing significance in univariate or multivariate among the sexes. models. This contradicts a long tradition of scholarship in gay and lesbian studies that This study was only able to assess the impact of suggest that financial resources, particularly sex because it was the only variable included in individual wages, are important to realizing the NHSLS. Laumann et. al. use “gender” to homosexuality. Two variables operationalzing describe their findings, an error that has human capital showed modest, statistically attracted just criticism because they did not significant, positive correlations-levels of include any measures of masculinity or education and degree of urban residence, which femininity. Surveys with richer measures of together with demographic variables explained gender as well as sex would provide data against 28% of the gap. Interaction effects of between which the role of gender versus sex could education and economic variables also showed no be tested-suggestions Laumann et. al. raise but significance, suggesting that education’s effect is cannot answer [8]. independent of the economic benefits with which Future quantitative researchers should deploy it is highly correlated. more specialized techniques for small-N results to explore the ability of human capital variables to These findings suggest that the heritage of explain the gap in reports of sexual identity and economic materialism in gay and lesbian reports of sexual contact in the past year. Such historical scholarship may need to be re- techniques should also be used to test models for examined. It is too soon to discount completely the the sexes separately to ensure that the effects are impact of wages or income on homosexual desires, not the result of strong correlations with only one as they mediate many aspects of human capital of the sexes. These techniques may allow for the including education. The models I have explored consideration of a broader panel of demographic in this paper suggest that historical and variables; in particular, race and religiosity. qualitative scholars should attend to the interactions between monetary and human There is also no reason to suggest that the gender capital factors in arguments about the differences gap is historically invariant. This paper used only among lesbians and gay men. Likewise, scholars contemporary population surveys to establish the of human capital should do more work to gap. More recent surveys that have occurred operationalize their concept in ways that take into present time as a potential variable of interest, account the qualitative research traditions of especially controlling for women’s rates of gains in women’s disadvantages in expressing “sexual higher education and variable rates of subjectivity,” “sexual agency”, or their “missing urbanization across countries. The age cohort discourse of desire” [27,28]. A common vocabulary effect hypothesized by Laumann et. al. to and operationalization of human capital in both represent higher rates of human capital among traditions of sexuality research would contribute younger respondents was not supported by the to a deeper understanding of the relative impact reduced model, although it is possible that this of education and geographic location that are was an artifact of an interaction effect with correlated with the gender gap. education levels [8]. Indeed, if sexual agency is the prime mechanism That this preliminary exploration of the gender by which individuals are able to engage gap in reported homosexuality could explain 28% in sexuality in general, much less homosexuality of the difference using simple logistic regression in particular, then women’s lower rates of suggests the utility of taking gender differences as homosexuality can be seen in the context of an object of investigation into sexuality. That 28% women’s lower rates of sexual actions generally. was explained by this initial demonstration of Indeed, women are less likely than men to report multivariate logistic regression suggests that it is ever or frequently masturbating [8, 29], desire for premature to rely exclusively upon biomedical anonymous, recreational, or group sex [8], explanations for the different expression or initiating sexual encounters [30], or use of etiology of homosexuality between the sexes. pornography [8]. Women also cite similar factors Taken together, the gap provides an intriguing as important in their evaluation of sexual object with potential to integrate sexuality research traditions to understand the

Greggor Mattson | October 2014 | Vol.2 | Issue 10|20-26 25 Available online at: www.ijassh.com intersections among sexuality, sex and gender [32-34].

References 1. Altman Dennis (1971) Homosexual; Oppression and 19. Green Adam Isaiah (2008) The social organization of Liberation. New York,: Outerbridge & Dienstfrey; desire: The sexual fields approach. Sociological distributed by Dutton p.29. Theory 26(1):25-50. 2. Armstrong Elizabeth A (2002) Forging Gay Identities: 20. Levi Martin, John, Matt George (2006) Theories of Organizing Sexuality in San Francisco. University Of Sexual Stratification: Toward an Analytics of the Sexual Chicago Press. Field and a Theory of Sexual Capital.”Sociological Theory 24(2):132, 107. 3. D’Emilio John, Estelle B Freedman (2003) Intimate matters: A History of Sexuality in America. University 21. Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll (1989) Discourses of Sexuality of Chicago Press p.240,291. and Subjectivity: The New Woman,1870-1936.” Hidden from history: Reclaiming the gay and lesbian past 264- 4. Meeker Martin (2006) Contacts Desired. Berkeley, CA: 80. University of California. 22. Schneider Beth E (1998) Peril and Promise: Lesbians’ 5. Weeks Jeffrey (1979) Coming Out: Homosexual Politics Workplace Participation.” Pp. 377-89 inSocial in Britain from the Nineteenth Century to the Present. perspectives in lesbian and gay studies: A reader, edited Quartet Books (UK) p.86-87. by P. M. Nardi and B. E. Schneider. 6. Risman, Barbara, Pepper Schwartz (1988) Sociological 23. Hennessy Rosemary, Chrys Ingraham Research on Male and Female Homosexuality. Annual (1997) Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Review of Sociology 14(1):125-47. Difference, and Women’s Lives. New York: Routledge. 7. Priebe Gisela, Carl Göran Svedin (2013) 24. Hosmer David W, Stanley Lemeshow (1989) Applied Operationalization of Three Dimensions of Sexual Logistic Regresion. John Wiley & Sons. Orientation in a National Survey of Late Adolescents. Journal of Sex Research 50(8):727-38. 25. Nakao Keiko, Judith Treas (1990) Computing 1989 Occupational Prestige Scores. National Opinion 8. Laumann Edward O, John H Gagnon, Robert T Research Center Chicago. Retrieved May 24, 2014 Michael, Stuart Michaels (1994) The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the (http://publicdata.norc.org:41000/gss/Documents/Report United States. University of Chicago Press p.303,309. s/Methodological_Reports/Mr07 0.pdf). 9. Wellings Kaye, Julia Field, Anne M Johnson, Jane 26. Binson Diane et al (1995) Prevalence and social Wadsworth, and Sally Bradshaw. 1994 p.187. distribution of men who have sex with men: United States and its urban centers. The Journal of Sex 10. Spira Alfred, Nathalie Bajos, ACSF Groupe Research 32(3):245-54. (1994) Sexual Behaviour and AIDS. Avebury Aldershot p.107. 27. Fine Michelle (1992) Sexuality, Schooling, and Adolescent Females: The Missing Discourse of Desire. 11. Kontula Osmo, Elina Haavio-Mannila (1995) Sexual Pp. 31-59 in Disruptive Voices: The Possibilities of Pleasures: Enhancement of Sex Life in Finland, 1971- Feminist Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan 1992. Brookfield, Vermont: Dartmouth Publishing Press. p.150. 28. Tolman Deborah L (1994) Daring to Desire: Culture and 12. Terry Jennifer (1999) An American Obsession: Science, the Bodies of Adolescent Girls.” Pp. 250-84 in Sexual Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Society. Cultures and the Construction of Adolescent Identities. University of Chicago Press p.137-142. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 13. Ford Clellan S, Frank A Beach (1951) Patterns of 29. Hatfield Elaine, Richard L Rapson (1993) Love, Sex and Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper & Row p.133. Intimacy: Their Psychology, Biology, and 14. Kinsey Alfred Charles (1953) Sexual Behavior in the History. Harper Collins College Publishers. Human Female. Indiana University Press p.474. 30. Schwartz Pepper, Philip Blumstein (1983) American 15. Greenberg, David F (1988) The Construction of Couples: Money, Work & Sex. New York: William Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Morrow. p.74-77. 31. Holmberg, Diane, Karen L Blair, Maggie Phillips (2010) 16. Kulick Don (1995) Introduction: The Sexual Life of “Women’s Sexual Satisfaction as a Predictor of Well- Anthropologists: Erotic Subjectivity and Ethnographic Being in Same-Sex versus Mixed-Sex Work.” Pp. 1-28 in Taboo: Sex, Identity and Erotic Relationships. Journal of Sex Research 47(1):1–11. Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork. New York: 32. Martin Karin A (1996) Puberty, Sexuality, and the Self: Routledge. Boys and Girls at Adolescence. New York: Routledge. 17. Schwartz Pepper, Virginia Rutter (1998) The Gender of 33. Sundet Jon M, IL Kvalem, Per Magnus, Leiv S Sexuality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press p.30- Bakketeig (1988) Prevalence of Risk- Prone Sexual 40. Behaviour in the General Population of Norway. 18. Becker Gary S (1976) The Economic Approach to 34. Sexual Behaviour in Britain: The National Survey of Human Behavior. University of Chicago Press. Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. Penguin Books.

Greggor Mattson | October 2014 | Vol.2 | Issue 10|20-26 26