The Tea Room Sex Study was conducted from 1965-68, by Washington University's Ph.D. student, Laud Humphreys. The results of Humphreys' study were published in 1970 in a book titled, Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places(Humphrey 1970). The motivation for his study was to discover why men were participating in impersonal homosexual sex in public restrooms (Lehmiller 2012). Humphrey's methods were questioned and criticized because his study was conducted without any informed consent. He was able to complete and publish this highly controversial research study without formal or legal reprimand because at the time there were no Institutional Review Boards conducting oversight of research projects (Marsden & Melander 2003).
Time Period
The TeaRoom Sex Study was conducted from 1965-68 by Laud Humphreys. During this time period homosexual sex was a great taboo within society and rarely openly talked about. However, its occurrence was prevalent to the point that there were a great many men being arrested for “tearoom sex” (Lehmiller 2012). 'Tearoom' is a termed used to describe impersonal homosexual encounters in men’s public restrooms. Humphreys' study sought to discover how the participants in the tearoom trade defined their own sexuality and the relationship status they presented in their public and private lives. He released the results of his research in 1970 in the book: Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Humphreys was criticized by many of his peers in the academic community because of the methods by which he conducted himself and his research (Marsden & Melander 2003).
Participants
The participants in The TeaRoom Sex Study had no idea that they were part of a social research study. Humphreys observed about 100 hundred men in public restrooms engaging in homosexual sex acts (Lenza 2012). He was able to watch the participants without them suspecting his true nature by acting as a voyeur or a 'watchqueen' as they were referred to in slang (Lenza 2012). A watchqueen serves as a lookout for the people who are engaging in restroom sex that will raise an alarm in case of any approaching law enforcement officials (Lenza 2012). At no point during this initial observation did Humphreys inform the participants that they were part of a social research study. Humphreys was eventually able to gain the confidence of some of the unwitting participants and disclose his status as a scientist who was studying them (Marsden & Melander 2003). Humphreys was able to convince these participants to share details about their private lives such as marital status and motive for engaging in these sexual acts. Those who did not learn of Humphreys true identity were tracked down by license plate numbers. He wrote down their license plate numbers during the visits to the “tearoom”. A year later he went to the homes of the unsuspecting participants and presented himself as a healthcare worker conducting a health survey. The actuality is that he conducted covert interviews in order to gain demographic information while leaving the subjects unaware of his status as researcher (Lenza 2012).
Research Methods and Results
Humphreys decided to use a participant observation and structured interview as his research method of choice (Marsden & Melander). The participant observation method was chosen for several reasons. One of the more obvious reasons would be that during the time period one could not expect a big enough sample size to come forth and admit to participating in tearoom sex since it was illegal and forbidden. Humphreys was able to observe the sexual interactions of the participants in the study in a natural way. The natural way was important to his research because the attraction for most individuals engaging in tearoom sex was the impersonal nature of the sexual act. The structured interview portion of the study allowed Humphreys to collect demographic data of the men involved. The interview also allowed him to hear from the men themselves how they define their sexuality. The results from the interviews were surprising- 38% of the men were neither bisexual nor homosexual, 24% were bisexual, 24% were single convert homosexuals, and 14% were what would be considered stereotypical homosexuals for that time period (Marsden & Melander). Also the results revealed that 54% of the men were engaged in heterosexual marriages. The publishing of Humphrey’s Tea Room Sex Study led to many law enforcement agencies to divert several of their resources to other tasks since tearoom sex seemed to be a victimless crime (Lehmiller 2012).
Background
The Tea Room Sex Study was conducted from 1965-68, by Washington University's Ph.D. student, Laud Humphreys. The results of Humphreys' study were published in 1970 in a book titled, Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places(Humphrey 1970). The motivation for his study was to discover why men were participating in impersonal homosexual sex in public restrooms (Lehmiller 2012). Humphrey's methods were questioned and criticized because his study was conducted without any informed consent. He was able to complete and publish this highly controversial research study without formal or legal reprimand because at the time there were no Institutional Review Boards conducting oversight of research projects (Marsden & Melander 2003).
Time Period
The TeaRoom Sex Study was conducted from 1965-68 by Laud Humphreys. During this time period homosexual sex was a great taboo within society and rarely openly talked about. However, its occurrence was prevalent to the point that there were a great many men being arrested for “tearoom sex” (Lehmiller 2012). 'Tearoom' is a termed used to describe impersonal homosexual encounters in men’s public restrooms. Humphreys' study sought to discover how the participants in the tearoom trade defined their own sexuality and the relationship status they presented in their public and private lives. He released the results of his research in 1970 in the book: Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Humphreys was criticized by many of his peers in the academic community because of the methods by which he conducted himself and his research (Marsden & Melander 2003).
Participants
The participants in The TeaRoom Sex Study had no idea that they were part of a social research study. Humphreys observed about 100 hundred men in public restrooms engaging in homosexual sex acts (Lenza 2012). He was able to watch the participants without them suspecting his true nature by acting as a voyeur or a 'watchqueen' as they were referred to in slang (Lenza 2012). A watchqueen serves as a lookout for the people who are engaging in restroom sex that will raise an alarm in case of any approaching law enforcement officials (Lenza 2012). At no point during this initial observation did Humphreys inform the participants that they were part of a social research study. Humphreys was eventually able to gain the confidence of some of the unwitting participants and disclose his status as a scientist who was studying them (Marsden & Melander 2003). Humphreys was able to convince these participants to share details about their private lives such as marital status and motive for engaging in these sexual acts. Those who did not learn of Humphreys true identity were tracked down by license plate numbers. He wrote down their license plate numbers during the visits to the “tearoom”. A year later he went to the homes of the unsuspecting participants and presented himself as a healthcare worker conducting a health survey. The actuality is that he conducted covert interviews in order to gain demographic information while leaving the subjects unaware of his status as researcher (Lenza 2012).
Research Methods and Results
Humphreys decided to use a participant observation and structured interview as his research method of choice (Marsden & Melander). The participant observation method was chosen for several reasons. One of the more obvious reasons would be that during the time period one could not expect a big enough sample size to come forth and admit to participating in tearoom sex since it was illegal and forbidden. Humphreys was able to observe the sexual interactions of the participants in the study in a natural way. The natural way was important to his research because the attraction for most individuals engaging in tearoom sex was the impersonal nature of the sexual act. The structured interview portion of the study allowed Humphreys to collect demographic data of the men involved. The interview also allowed him to hear from the men themselves how they define their sexuality. The results from the interviews were surprising- 38% of the men were neither bisexual nor homosexual, 24% were bisexual, 24% were single convert homosexuals, and 14% were what would be considered stereotypical homosexuals for that time period (Marsden & Melander). Also the results revealed that 54% of the men were engaged in heterosexual marriages. The publishing of Humphrey’s Tea Room Sex Study led to many law enforcement agencies to divert several of their resources to other tasks since tearoom sex seemed to be a victimless crime (Lehmiller 2012).