X, Y and Zee

Sexual Conformity and Obedience to Authority: Case Study #9

by Dr. Zvjezdana Knezevic

Overview:

Much has been written about the theory of conformism since Stanley Milgram carried out his infamous "memory studies" in 1961. Milgram sought to prove that human beings would obey an authority figure even when doing something that went against their personal conscience, and his elaborate deception seemed to indicate that in fact they would-sixty-five percent of the unknowing test subjects gave what they believed to be a fatal shock to a mock participant who pretended to fail the memory tests set to them by the experimenter.

Although many have questioned the accuracy of his results, and the very infamy of the experiment makes it impossible to replicate successfully, Milgram's work was definitely ground-breaking. He demonstrated clearly that individuals will do things ordinarily taboo to them when acting under the instructions of another, and that their deference to an authority figure when in an uncertain situation will cause them to behave in ways entirely out of their normal course of behavior.

Or did he? After all, as much as we might like to believe the average person to be incapable of murder, the vast evidence of human history indicates that it is not nearly as much of a taboo as we might hope. Certainly, it would be impossible to determine just how much of a subject's decision to murder is due to the experimenter's influence and how much is innate...at least, not without entering into realms of experimentation that would be highly unethical to say the least.

It was this researcher's decision, then, to reexamine Milgram's theories of conformism and more crucially agentic state (a psychological condition in which a person believes themselves to lack the ability to contest authority, instead seeing themselves as an obedient instrument of another's will) in light of a taboo more amenable to data collection, that of sexual taboos. These taboos are every bit as strong as any moral prohibition against violence, indeed stronger in many cases. And unlike a code against physical harm, they can be confirmed outside of the arena of the experiment. This researcher decided to test whether someone's sexual behavior can be altered purely by manipulating their tendency to obey authority figures. This is one case study in that experiment.

Experiment Journal:

Subjects X and Y were selected for what they were told was a study on stress and its effects on memory retention. They were asked to complete a full personality evaluation in advance of the experiment, for which they would be compensated, and to return in three days' time to participate in the tests.

Subject X is a single Caucasian female, age 22, height 5'7", weight 135 lbs. She has brown hair and hazel eyes, and is currently attending college. X identified as a 0 on the Kinsey scale, exclusively heterosexual, and indicated in her confidential personality evaluation that she had fewer than ten sexual partners over her lifetime. Her sexual experiences were limited to vaginal penetration and mutual oral/manual genital stimulation. She described herself as religious, but not strongly so. She stated that she had "moderate" anxiety regarding her body image and physical appearance.

Subject Y is a married Hispanic female, age 28, height 5'5", weight 145 lbs. She has brown hair and brown eyes, and is a college graduate. Y identified as 1 on the Kinsey scale, predominantly heterosexual, but indicated that she had never acted on any same-sex attraction. She also indicated that her current husband was her only sexual partner over the course of her lifetime, and that their sexual interactions were limited to vaginal penetration. She described herself as strongly religious. She stated that she had "severe" anxiety regarding her body image and physical appearance.

X and Y were observed during their public activities in the three days between the personality evaluation and the test, in order to compare their self-evaluations to the day-to-day manifestations of their personalities. In addition, a female research assistant made contact with them (without disclosing her connection to the study) and expressed interest in a sexual liaison. Both rejected the entreaties in no uncertain terms, confirming their self-described orientation.

On the day of the test, I met both X and Y in the lab. X arrived wearing a t-shirt and a pair of blue jeans, while Y wore a knee-length skirt, a blouse, and a jacket. As per my experimental protocol, I introduced myself with, "Good afternoon. I am Doctor Zvjezdana Knezevic." I then smiled and said, "But you can just call me Zee." (This is Protocol One, designed to create an emotional bond with the subject through mild informality. Protocol Two, described in the even-numbered case studies, involves a request to be addressed as 'Doctor', in order to immediately reinforce this researcher's role as an authority figure.)

Both women smiled back when they realized they would not have to worry about mispronouncing my name, and replied with, "Hi, Zee!" Their body language indicated a certain amount of trepidation regarding the upcoming experiment, and the use of the nickname was clearly an emotional release for them. They looked at each other as they smiled, indicating that they were already beginning to form an emotional attachment due to the shared experience of participating in the test. This was not entirely unexpected, and I am working to eliminate this variable from the experimental process.

"You are going to be participating in a series of tests," I said, "which will help to collect data regarding the ability of women to remain focused and attentive under stressful and distracting situations. I am going to show you a series of pictures on the screen in front of you." I gestured to a tablet sitting on the desk in front of them. "The pictures will disappear after a short period. I will then ask you a yes or no question about an element in each picture. You will press the 'yes' or 'no' button on the control at your side." The two women each looked down at the small remote control next to their chairs. The remotes were only mock-ups, as the true purpose of the experiment did not require answers, but naturally this was not apparent to them.

"Do you understand me?" I asked. Both X and Y indicated affirmatively. "Very well. Then let's begin." Both women picked up their remotes and took a position where they could see the screen. This position required them to sit in close physical proximity, closer than is generally comfortable for women in American culture, and both X and Y displayed a small amount of anxiety over the immediate presence of the other. However, as was anticipated, their desire to obey an authority figure overrode these concerns.

The first series of ten pictures were relatively simple (see attached visual file #009A) and contained no sexual content. Each woman responded relatively quickly and easily to the questions regarding their content. After we were done, I made sure to respond with positive reinforcement, stating, "Very good! Now the next series will be somewhat harder, and you will have less time to memorize the images. Are you ready to begin?"

Both X and Y nodded their assent, and the next series of ten pictures began (attached visual file #009B). This series was less neutral in content, consisting predominantly of women wearing revealing clothing or swimsuits. Neither X nor Y seemed particularly disturbed by the images, and both answered the questions with the same degree of speed and interest as the first series.

"Excellent!" I said, once the series concluded. "Now, for the third series, I'd like you each to put your hand on the other's knee." Y frowned slightly at this, possibly because her skirt was just short enough that X would be touching her knee through her pantyhose, but both women complied without requiring further inducement. "Thank you," I said. "Are you ready to begin?"

Both women nodded their assent, and the third series of images began (attached visual file #009C). These images were selected to be less overtly sexual in content than the second series, but to contain more content that was specifically suggestive of same-sex attraction. The pictures each contained two or more women, and in all cases they were being physically intimate with each other-kissing, holding hands, or resting in an intimate position relative to each other (classic "cuddling" behavior).

Both subjects were noticeably more nervous during the third series. On seeing the second photo, which was a picture of two women with their hands resting on each other's knees, X made an abortive attempt to remove her hand from Y's body, but stopped without requiring any inducement. Y, on the other hand, exhibited compulsive grasping and clutching behavior indicative of internal tension. She appeared to be entirely unaware of her actions during this time.

After the fourth series, I explained to X and Y, "The next series is going to display significantly faster than the previous set. In addition, I will be asking all questions at the end rather than during the course of the viewing. This will make it significantly more difficult, and I will need you to pay close attention to the images. Finally, you will need to remove your outer layers of clothing for the next series. Do you understand?"

Both X and Y looked at each other, then at me. X let out a nervous giggle, clearly releasing tension regarding the proposed course of action. She then said, "Um...I'm sorry? Did you just say we should take off our clothes?"

"The outer layers, yes," I said, making sure to keep my facial expression and tone as neutral as possible. "You will be completing the next test wearing your underwear only."

Given that X and Y both indicated issues with their body images, I was aware that asking them to disrobe in front of others would prove a significant challenge to them. Indeed, their reactions were as expected-both paused, looking at each other as if uncertain how to proceed. This is not uncommon in a social dynamic like this; each member of the group looks to others for cues on whether they are behaving normally. X was waiting for Y to either participate in the requested behavior, or to defy the experimenter, and Y was doing the same.

After ten seconds, I responded to the silence with the first scripted inducement. "Please continue," I said calmly but firmly, making eye contact first with Y, then with X. At this time, it should be noted for purposes of eliminating experimenter bias that I was experiencing mild arousal, and as such I made sure to time my inducements using the wall clock to avoid letting impatience color my actions.

Five more seconds passed before Y began taking off her jacket. Once she removed it, she carefully folded it and set it down next to her chair. By the time she had begun unbuttoning her blouse, X was taking her t-shirt off. (Again, this is consistent with the expected social dynamic-once Y capitulated, it would have been much harder for X to maintain her resistance to the request in the face of social pressure.) She made a pile of her clothes without organizing them, which was consistent with her personality profile.

"Thank you," I replied as they resumed their seated positions. "Please place your hands on each other's knees again." This time, both women hesitated significantly longer before complying, a full nine seconds. However, as expected, their previous capitulation to the request made it harder for them to refuse when asked again, and no inducement was required. "Are you ready to begin?"

Once both X and Y had answered in the affirmative, I began series four (attached visual file #009D). The images in series four were chosen to be sexually provocative; the women in each image were dressed in lingerie or other clothing that had cultural connotations of sexual availability, and many had body language suggesting readiness for sexual relations. (Full disclosure: These were curated from this researcher's personal collection.)

The cumulative effect on X and Y was clear and obvious. Both women were markedly uncomfortable with the images on display, and both of them displayed attempts to minimize their physical contact beyond what was required for the experiment. Interestingly enough, though, Y displayed visible signs of arousal during the process-her breathing quickened, and her panties (white, no patterns or images) changed color noticeably by the time the final image faded out.

After the images had concluded, I asked them a series of questions. Unlike the previous tests, these questions focused primarily on the physical attributes of the women in the images-for #3, for example, I asked, "Did the woman's nipples appear to be stiff?", while for #7, the question was, "Was the subject touching herself inside her panties?" Both women appeared to be extremely uncomfortable with the line of questioning, and hesitated noticeably before pressing their buttons.

"Thank you," I said. "We will now begin the fifth series. Please remove your remaining clothing." There was no immediate response. After ten seconds, I repeated the first inducement. "Please continue," I said, again keeping my tone firm but neutral.

X looked up at me. Her expression indicated significant anxiety. "Um...I mean, I don't want to mess up the test, but...is there any way we could do this in separate rooms?"

"That would invalidate the results," I replied, refusing to provide them with any hint of concession in my facial expression or body language. Seeing their uncertainty, I chose to proceed with the second inducement. "The experiment requires that you continue."

A seven second pause followed, at the end of which X undid her bra (lavender, thin enough to see the nipples through the fabric) with visibly trembling hands. Her breasts were small, and her nipples were fully erect. I believe that to be a temperature reaction, though, as she did not display any physical signs of arousal when she removed her matching panties. (As her pubic mound was shaved entirely bare, it was relatively easy to determine with only casual observation.) She did not meet the gaze of either myself or Y, instead staring fixedly at the screen.

Roughly two seconds after X began to strip naked, Y removed her white bra to reveal large, plump, visibly erect nipples. (Y's breasts were generally larger than X's, not just in the nipples and aureolae but in terms of cup size as well.) She removed her panties, notably attempting to conceal her labia from visual inspection. The olfactory evidence of her arousal was undeniable, though-bluntly, I was able to smell her vaginal lubrication from several feet away. It was entirely pleasant, but distinctly noticeable.

This conflict between conscious modesty and unconscious arousal clearly indicated a state of uncertainty regarding the situation Y found herself in. Although she had no doubt fantasized about a lesbian encounter, she had never intended to act on these fantasies. Finding herself in a position where she was being allowed to participate in same-sex nudity and to view sexually explicit lesbian pornography, all without having to take personal responsibility for her actions, was clearly triggering profound arousal on a level that bypassed her religious beliefs and vows of fidelity. I suspected even at the time that Y would reach a profound agentic state in a relatively brief period.

Both women resumed their expected positions, including placing their hands on each other's knee, without having to be instructed. They did not look at each other during this period. "Are you ready?" I asked. X and Y nodded without speaking. "Then let's begin."

The fifth series (attached visual file #009E) contained twenty images instead of ten. These images displayed for variable lengths of time, some flashing by very quickly and others lingering for up to twenty seconds. All of the images displayed naked women engaging in masturbation, either with fingers or with sex toys, and all of the women involved showed visible signs of arousal. Three images showed women at the threshold of orgasm. (Full disclosure: All twenty images were from this researcher's personal collection.)

Y spent the entire viewing period visibly fixated on the images. Her blink response had slowed almost to non-existence, and the scent of physical arousal increased with each picture she viewed. By the time the series completed, she had almost completely forgotten to conceal her pubic area from view, and I could clearly see that her labia were glistening with lubrication. (I welcomed the visual confirmation at the time, as I was uncertain whether the smell of arousal was coming from Y or from herself.)

X, on the other hand, had difficulty focusing on the images as they cycled. She attempted to look away on multiple occasions, only to look back after less than a second had passed. She showed clear signs of confusion as her mind attempted to resolve the contradiction between her emotional state and her psychological need to fit into the social dynamic being created. I paid close attention to X through the entire cycle of images, knowing that the next few minutes would prove or disprove my theory regarding ingrained obedience to authority.

The question cycle that followed was fascinating from a purely psychological point of view. When I asked questions like, "Do you think the woman in #5 came?" and "Do you use toys like the woman in #14 did?", Y had no difficulty responding. She answered without hesitation, and indeed with more enthusiasm than in the initial neutral series of questions. She had clearly entered willingly, perhaps even knowingly into an agentic state, and had ceded all responsibility for her sexual responses to me.

X, on the other hand, visibly shook as she attempted to answer the questions. Since there had been no previous opportunities during the question period to raise concerns, social conditioning kept her from speaking while I asked her about the images she had seen. This left her with no way to resolve the contradictions in her mind. She must have been desperate to find a way to preserve her sexual orientation and self-image as a woman with a tightly controlled sex drive, even as she was bombarded with stimuli that created an expectation of uninhibited, lesbian sexual proclivities. (I confess that I found her conflict highly erotic, a trend that began with Case Study #1 and has only increased in all subsequent experiments. I was squeezing my legs together rhythmically in order to enhance the experience, but I do not believe this biased my observations significantly.)

At the end of the fifth series, I said, "Thank you for your responses. The next set of images will-" I was interrupted by X, who let out an audible whimper when she heard the words, 'the next set'. I paused, making direct eye contact and giving her a firm, unspeaking stare for a full ten seconds. She opened her mouth, but at this point the social inhibition against challenging authority was strong enough that she could not bring herself to speak.

Once I had satisfied myself that X no longer possessed the nerve to directly challenge the progression of the experiment, I continued. "The next set of images will move quicker than the last. You will need to pay exceedingly close attention to this set of images. Please pay particular attention to the details of the pictures, or your scores will suffer. Now, please place your hands between each other's legs."

Y reached out towards X, with a vacant expression on her face that suggested she had completely transitioned into an agentic state in which she submitted completely to my authority. X, however, stood up rapidly and took a step away from the desk. She was breathing rapidly, and her face betrayed extreme anxiety and stress over the situation. "I-" she said, before returning to the same state of strong social inhibition that prevented her from continuing her statement.