[COLLEGE] SEEMS TO BE SUCH A DECADENT PLACE . . . IT SEEMS THAT EVERYONE HERE IS ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT SEX OR THE PERSON THEY'VE BEEN HAVING SEX WITH. --Sophomore female, anonymous paper, 1986
College was the place, or so the dean had proposed back in orientation, where the students should try to broaden themselves by seeking out new and different experiences. This was the meaning of a liberal education. And college authorities as well as undergraduates often took pride in the diversity of Rutgers, in the wide range of choices available to those students who wanted the broadening experiences of college. On the evidence of the students' anonymous sexual self-reports,1 Rutgers as a sexual institution--presumably without its policymakers exactly thinking of it this way--did indeed give its undergraduates an opportunity to realize these institutional values. Not all the students did so, however. Not every student enrolled in the whole sexual extracurriculum, and there were even some nonmatriculators. What were the crude Kinseyian facts of undergraduate sexual behavior in the college as they were reported in these papers? How might a numbers-oriented sexologist, reading these papers, have summarized these Rutgers students sexually?
WHO WAS DOING WHAT TO WHOM, AND HOW OFTEN . . . ?
The simplest statistical generalization from the sexual self-reports is that there was no typical Rutgers woman or typical Rutgers man in terms of sexual behavior. Sexual meanings might have been largely uniform and consensual among the students (see chapter 5). Sexual actions, on the other hand, were distinctly idiosyncratic. Morally, the students came in or moved through the ethical varieties outlined in chapter 5: neotraditional, romantic, experimentalist, liberal, radical, and nonheterosexual. Behaviorally, the students reported as many different levels and patterns of sex