How Do Heterosexual Undergraduate Students Define Having Sex? A New Approach to an Old Question

This study examined how people define having sex utilizing a new approach to this area of research. A total of 267 men and 327 women rated their degree of confidence that engaging in each of 21 physically intimate behaviors (e.g., penile-vaginal intercourse) counted as “having sex” and then qualitatively explained their reasoning. Separate ratings were made for each behavior when engaged in by the respondent and by his or her partner with someone else. Results showed that, as in previous studies, for both sexes, some behaviors (e.g., penile-vaginal intercourse) were far more confidently rated (i.e., “definitely sex”) than were others (e.g., oral-genital stimulation). Further, both men and women were significantly more certain that a behavior counted as “having sex” when considering their partner's behavior outside the relationship than when they considered their own behavior. Finally, the order in which the two scenarios (i.e., self versus partner) was presented significantly affected participants’ certainty. Qualitative results, paired with quantitative findings, suggest that individuals consider a variety of contextual factors when making these definitional decisions. The methodological and sexual health implications of these results are discussed.     

Rationality from a computational standpoint

A computationally viable choice function possesses, in addition to other important properties, adaptability - as new alternatives become feasible the set of best alternatives corresponding to the new feasible set can be located without having to reconsider previously rejected alternatives. Adaptability is shown to be closely related to, in fact characteristic of, the standard notions of rationality (expressed in terms of transitivity properties). Adaptability provides a generalization of conventional rationality and in addition leads to the choice function proposed by Schwartz, albeit from an entirely different route, that of computational viability.     

Systematic analysis of multiple voting rules

For a class of voting rules, which includes Approval and Cumulative Voting, it is shown how to find and analyze all possible outcomes that arise with a specified profile, and, conversely, how to start with a potential region and determine whether there exist supporting profiles. The geometry of these regions is determined by the “Reversal symmetry” portion of a profile; i.e., components of the Asucc Bsucc C, Csucc Bsucc A{Asucc Bsucc C, Csucc Bsucc A} type.