ajf@pyuxa.UUCP (A Figura) (01/24/85)
[ "72% of USENETTER's prefer a hug to a bug" - Film at 11] Here are the results of my version of the Ann Landers Sex Preferences survey, conducted over the Net using the same scientifically-proven and statistically- sound sampling techniques as A.L.: > How about it, netters (male and female)? - Which do you prefer: > 1) Sex, 2) a hug, 3) reading Ann Landers, 4) none of the above (for Jeff :-) Of the 20 responses I received: Preference Percentage 1* 45% 2 15% 3 0% 4 5% 5** 35% * See below. ** Note that 5 is a new category, indicating people who'd rather just go bowling with Mike Royko :-). (By the way Mike, great article!!!) Now, let me try to interpret these results. Hmmm? On second thought, why bother!!! (Although the number of those preferring question 3 showed me that there IS some hope for this NET after all!) Note (*) that most of the respondents who picked 1 pointed out that, at least in their relationships, 1 always included 2 anyway. I assumed the same when I formulated the choices. It never occurred to me that I should have included one more category - namely, sex without hugs - since I personally can't conceive of such a thing. Unfortunately, it does seem to happen, at least to Ann Landers' readers. Maybe thats what Ann's survey really proved - it seems, from some of the comments she included in the article, that most of the women who wanted "hugs, no sex" felt this way because their personal sex lives were empty and lacking affection. Their partners were not warm and caring. In their particlular relationships, 1 and 2 *were* completely separate! To me, this would obviously make 2 a whole lot less appealing. That's a real shame! I wonder why so many women feel this way? My conclusion is that it's the relationships that are in trouble, not these people's sex drives. (Any ideas, netters?) Thanks to all who responded, both by mail and over the net. I received several interesting side comments concerning such topics as: Jerry Fallwell (pro and con); the psychological and physiological benefits of a hug; the mental/emotional state of A.L. and her readers; the mental/emotional state of Ann Landers' statistics teacher; a statement from someone who preferred #2 to #1 because he likes "the known over the unknown" (No, it wasn't Jeff :-); the observation that "if you read A.L., you risk a 72% chance of ruining your sex life". I'll spare you all from these comments; I also won't expand on what other meaning (if any) one can derive from Ann Landers "survey", since I really don't (can't) take it too seriously. I too found her survey (and the techniques) totally bogus - and at first I was amused by the whole premise; now, it seems a little sad that so many people could have such a big problem with their relationships! Actually, I originally posted the "survey" request half in jest, and I was really just hoping to initiate a new topic for conversation on the net; I think I was successful in this regard, and I hope the discussion continues! In conlusion, I think Mark Mullen sums up the whole situation pretty nicely: >> I agree, it's time to move on to new ground. Nuke Jeff, Ann Landers, >> and all paranoid pornographers!!!!!! >> Me, I'm all for hugs, as long as there's no scarcity of sex!!!! >> >> mark@ozone USENET: !decvax!dartvax!tdxsys ------------------------------ Al F @ Bellcore (...!pyuxa!ajf) "Have you hugged you Aardvark today?"