bathroom banter: sex, love, and the bathroom wall.

In a bar bathroom outside the campus, on a brightly colored wall, an anonymous author inscribed \". . .
The bold black ink is \"shesaid \".
Under this message, another author crossed her out and replaced it with \"your mom.
\"Is this a clever insult? Perhaps not.
But the exchange that happens in time involves many nuances.
The author of the creative joke. . .
She said it could mean a popular line for successful TV show the office.
\"This is what she said\" is a sexy joke that you can attach to anyone\'s sentence and immediately turn the seemingly mild statement of the target into an asexual hint.
However, the insulting author turned his joking eyes to jokester with an insult beyond humor and questioned jokester\'s mother with chastity.
Graffiti is not a simple wall marker, but a public revelation of many psychological tendencies and motivations that are usually lurking in other settings.
Although the digital age provides a public place for people to express their attitudes (e. g.
Twitter and Facebook)
The text on the wall still exists
The anonymous veil seems to retain the appeal of graffiti as it allows users of bathroom stalls to secretly express any views, ideas or statements.
This leads people to share information that they will not disclose, such as sexual cues and cruel insults.
In addition, this information has social consequences.
For example, onearticle (Barnett, 2006)
According to the report, a student wrote his malefriend phone number on the bathroom wall of the male bathroom.
The bill led men to call multiple times to ask questions about sex.
Information is common and drives existing Graffiti Research.
While most of these studies took place in the 1970 s, the research over the past 40 years has been more sporadic, suggesting that the literature may be out of date.
The current situation shows that there are differences in the degree of prominence of interactive graffiti and sexual content written by men and women.
In addition, evolutionary psychology provides a strong framework for predicting and interpreting the phenomenon of social sexuality.
Nevertheless, it was largely absent from previous work.
Given the limited current study of graffiti and its strong ability to report anonymously, but with public sharing of social attitudes, the study providesneeded present-
A day outside of literature.
In addition, the use of evolutionary psychology provides another perspective for approaching and discussing graffiti.
The central focus of the current study is to investigate the differences in content between men and women
Graffitied based on evolutionary psychology.
In order to achieve this goal, we made a satisfactory analysis of the graffiti on the wall of the bathroom partition wall of the nine bars in the central and western university city.
Since ancient times, from cave art to bathroom graffiti, humans have tried to leave their mark on the surface, whether it is text, pictures or symbols.
The location of these marks varies from cave to tree to table to toilet booth.
The meaning of the word graffiti itself is extensive because it is derived from the Greek term \"grapheon\", meaning \"towrite \"(Phillips, 1996).
Recently, graffiti is understood to contain any type of text or picture on many surfaces, and graffiti is often considered abnormal due to its vandalistic nature.
There are three main categories of graffiti.
The first is tourist graffiti, found mainly on rocks, picnic tables, stumps, and monuments, consisting mainly of names and dates. Inner-
Urban graffiti is the second category, identified by the author\'s attention to his own name and identity and territorial signs. Inner-
City graffiti is often found on large building walls, subways and bridges.
Finally, refer to the study of Dundes, latrinalia (1966)
Is the third type of graffiti.
Refers to the pictures and information found in the toilet or toilet compartment (
Anderson & Frank, 1983).
In terms of categories, latrinalia is the only focus of current research.
This type of graffiti is the most attractive due to the three main features.
The first is its ability as a barometer of social and cultural events.
This ability is partly driven by the inherent privacy provided to the user by the bathroom compartment (
Anderson & Frank, 1983).
Anonymous promises allow authors to write some public information that is relatively free from social pressure.
The second feature of latelia is its endurance, which is in some way a common feature of the three graffiti.
In an era when social networking giant Facebook has 0. 845 billion active users (Facebook, 2012)
It is strange that some seemingly quaint things still exist.
Web 2 is not by comparison.
The trend of commenting and leaving a mark in the digital space has an amazing connection with graffiti.
In many ways, one can view these examples in emerging media as modern manifestations of cave paintings or hieroglyphs ---
The next stage of evolution in graffiti history.
Even the terms on social networking sites are similar to graffiti.
On facebook, for example, where all public communication takes place is called a \"wall \".
Nevertheless, despite the opportunity to leave digital marks in a networked environment, graffiti on the wall continues to exist in the form of bathroom graffiti.
The third and final feature of La Tennia is its audience.
This final component strongly places latria in a unique position.
Instead of talking to a friend or the general public, bathroom graffiti talks strictly about the author\'s gender.
In fact, these booth walls may be one of the few places in the world that guarantees that all audiences are very diverse except for the single dimension.
This allows the author to talk about gender
Specific issues, incentives and celebrations;
However, it also makes it possible to attack and detract from gender.
In this way, conversations that occur at the Booth may provide evidence for gender
Specific thoughts and behaviors predicted by evolutionary psychology.
As mentioned earlier, anything that forces people to leave traces on the walls has existed since prehistoric times.
Under the guidance of evolutionary psychology, our view is that human beings have an ancient brain that has evolved for a long time.
Despite the great differences between modern society and prehistoric society, our minds still respond to primitive dynamics.
These trends are not necessarily-or even mostly--conscious.
Instead, they are back-office incentives that guide ideas and behaviors to seize positive opportunities and avoid negative possibilities.
The use of this framework can form assumptions about gender differences, as the main focus of this view is on spouse selection and attractiveness (
1993, basschmidt; Buss, 1994).
In the remaining literature reviews, we present previous graffiti works and try to incorporate evolutionary psychology into each category of inquiry.
In this way, the current research under the guidance of previous literature, but based on psychology, developed hypotheses.
Previous Content Analysis of graffiti in the 1970 s, the study of bathroom graffiti received great attention, but recent research is not common.
The existing research focuses mainly on three topics: gender difference, sex and prevention of graffiti.
Due to their popularity and applicability in evolutionary psychology, the existing literature on gender differences and sexuality is a major interest in current research.
In 1953, Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues conducted the first and most groundbreaking study of bathroom graffiti.
The influence and long term of golden race
A long-standing claim on the importance of studying bathroom graffiti as a source of information for men and women to suppress sexual desire.
Their findings reveal profound differences in graffiti content between genders.
Specifically, 86% of the male bathroom is pornographic, while 25% of the female bathroom is pornographic.
After Jin Sai and others(1953)
Many studies re-examined the prevalence and sexual differences between different genders.
In general, the results of the survey are different, but most people think that the overall male graffiti is more (
Arluke, Kutakoff, and Lai 1987; Kutakoff, 1972; Otta, 1993; Stockeret al. , 1972)
More sexual content (
Farr & Gordon, 1975
Wales and Brewer, 1976).
However, some studies challenge this conclusion.
Otta and others, for example. (1996)
Age was found to promote gender differences in numbers.
Their results suggest that women create fewer graffiti than men in secondary schools, but the difference disappears in college bathrooms.
No gender differences were found in similar studies (e. g.
, Schreer & Strichartz, 1997).
Finally by batand Martin (1980)
Indicates a complete reversal of Kinsey et al. (1953).
They found that women had more graffiti overall and more sexual graffiti than men.
In interpreting these results, the above-mentioned literature is in line with the rationalisation of sociology.
For example, Kinsey and others. (1953)
They think men will write more sexual graffiti because of sexual stimulation.
In addition, they claim that women write less because they are more sensitive to ethics and customs, and because they have not found graffiti to cause the situation.
Farr and Gordon (1975)
The explanation of gender differences is due to social pressure on men and appropriate emphasis on women.
Also, Arluke and others. (1987)
It is believed that gender roles such as traditionalism and negativity affect women.
While these explanations are informative, from an evolutionary point of view, there may be more reasons and insights for the phenomenon of the opponent\'s head.
Given the sex of latria
A particular audience may have some evolutionary mechanism to play a role.
The first and most applicable driver is the desire to find and attract partners to reproduce.
Since everyone thinks that reproduction is successful, everyone has a different motivation in this regard.
Women are driven to build a long-term
Strategic Investment.
This is due to the high cost of getting pregnant and raising children.
Because of this, men who are able and willing to provide support through resources or sharing the burden of parenting are most attractive to women (
Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
On the other hand, men are looking for
Mating strategy.
Because male parents invest much less, they measure reproductive success with the number of partners they encounter to provide.
The goal for men is to minimize costs, risks and commitments as the number of partners limits their reproductive success (
Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Trivers, 1972).
Due to the importance of sexual success, technologies designed to protect partners and improve status abound, but vary greatly between genders (
Bath and shakerford, 1997).
According to Campbell (2005)
Women tend to declare their relationship to identify their partner, thus killing the possibility that the partner is derailed.
In addition, in order to attract their partner, women enhance their appearance with sexual dishonesty and threaten their current partner.
Therefore, men consider loyalty to be a more important feature of their partner than women.
On the contrary, in order to prevent the loss of a partner, men will close their relationship.
At the same time, they also threatened and acted violently against their competitors.
Because what women value is
The ability of long-term bonds and partners to provide resources, and men try to protect their relationship partners by complying with their partners\' wishes (Campbell, 2005).
In addition, men try to surpass qualities related to wealth and resources, such as ambition, self
Confidence, authority and status (Buss, 1994;
Kenrick & Vershure, Sadala, 1987).
According to the above study, it seems that the bathroom can be used as a place to show these properties
Specific strategies and trends.
However, there are also a large number of gay toilets in the bathroom, which seems to complicate these sexual strategies.
Sometimes graffiti of a gay nature contains most male information, not examples of sports (Dundes, 1966; Kinsey, 1953).
As mentioned earlier, previous researchers believe that the general non-reactivity of graffitii makes it a good way to study human attitudes (
Bates and Martin, 1980; Webb et al. , 1966).
For example, Flores and Sechrest (1969)
Graffiti is used to measure different attitudes towards homosexuality.
In this sense, graffiti can act as a private and semi-private role.
A permanent bastion of gay expression
Although evolutionary psychology on the surface seems to have failed in explaining homosexuality, Simmons\'s research (1979)
Gay people use the same strategy to attract and protect gay people, explained.
More specifically, heterosexual and gay men have similar behaviors, such as monopolizing the time of their partner, punishing the threat of infidelity, intimidating their competitors by compromising, and sexual induction (
Vanderlaan & Vasey, 2007).
This happened despite not having a father\'s investment.
Due to these factors, we assume that the content of Latin will show evolution-
Dependency policy
Graffiti in words shows that men write more information about sex (
Bruna and so, 1980).
The literature based on evolutionary psychology would agree because men should be more likely to discuss their sexual success as evidence of their successful mating strategies.
Instead, women should be more likely to avoid creating sexually involved information because they do not want to have sexual intercourse.
Based on these trends, we predict the following: H1: men create more sexual graffiti than women.
Women usually have open relationships to curb their partner\'s ability to interact with other partners.
This trend is the result of women\'s drive to build long-term stability.
Term relationship.
According to Buss (1994)
The display of love is a long-lasting sign
Long-term commitment is the most effective in obtaining a permanent partner.
Similarly, research by Jin Sai and others. (1953)
It is predicted that women will create more romantic graffiti than sexual graffiti.
However, the authors predict this result on the assumption that women are more financially and morally conscious than men.
On the other hand, men\'s matching strategies aim to attract as many partners as possible.
Compared with women, this motivation prompted men to be much more strict during mateselection.
In addition, short
The term mating competition that hides relationships to increase the likelihood of obtaining additional spouses.
According to this trend, a study by Green (2003)
Men were found to have sex more frequently than women, and most of the information was gay.
These strategies and findings lead to the following assumptions about Latin: H2: men create graffiti more often for sex than women.
Women create more natural and romantic graffiti.
Boys will create more graffiti for gay people.
Learn graffiti, Bruna and so (1980)
Significant gender differences in the interactive style between authors were noted.
Women interact with previous information by providing helpful advice to other authors.
Generally speaking, female graffiti contains more interaction than male, especially beneficial interaction
News written (Cole, 1991; Green, 2003;
Ponticus & Paludi, 1982).
In addition, few supportive reviews are provided by men.
Instead, they tend to use insults and comments on their sexual abilities (
Bruna and so, 1980).
Linking these findings to evolutionary theory1994)
Humans can gain partners in two ways, explained: cooperation or competition.
In order to achieve the latter, men have diminished the same
Sexual competitors make negative comments about their resource potential.
Similarly, women make them stronger by attacking the appearance or loyalty of their opponents.
Male attacks are mainly manifested in direct physical attacks.
On the contrary, women\'s attacks are often expressed as relationship attacks, which are more indirect (Archer, 2004).
When a woman belittles an opponent, it reduces the evaluation of male and female attractiveness to the opponent (
Fisher & Cox, 2009).
Gallup, O\'Brien and Wilson (2007, pg. 259)
, \"The use of indirect forms of aggression can generate a negative view of the opponent\'s peers and may provide a fitness advantage for the aggressor.
\"Plus the discovery of Van der LA and Vasi (2007)
This shows that gay people use similar sexual strategies and women may create more graffiti with insults.
Nevertheless, this conclusion is inconsistent with the work of the past on latalia.
This raises the following research questions: RQ1: Will men or women create more interactive graffiti?
Will men or women make more insults?
Existing analysis (Green, 2003; Otta et al. 1996)
On latrinalia, the discussion about the prevalence of personal markers indicating the existence of the author\'s body.
Names, initials, and group relationships are elements of this kind of graffiti.
The conclusion based on literature is that sex produces more of this kind of graffiti. Green (2003)
Discover that men, not women, have created more physical presence in the bathroom and public learning kiosks.
Other studies, on the contrary (Kutakoff, 1972; Otta et al. , 1996)
Women are shown to record more information about the presence of the body.
Although previous studies on graffiti provided uncertain results on the existence of bodies of different genders, evolutionary psychology showed significant differences.
Showing that the presence of the body may be equivalent to marking its own territory to prevent competitors.
Because of this, it is likely that men will constitute more presence --
Reference message.
However, the lack of consensus in literary works has prompted the following research questions: RQ3: Will men or women create more graffiti about the existence of the body?
A small study of graffiti (Green, 2003; Otta et al. ,1996)
Including the analysis of painting graffiti (i. e. , images).
Research shows that men draw more images than women.
However, the existing literature largely ignores painting graffiti.
This is surprising because human acceptance of visual processing is paramount compared to written text.
As has been entered with Bucy (2009)
\"Image processing is very effective and basic recognition and emotional response will occur before conscience registration \"(p. 13).
In addition, Malamuth (1996)
Study the meaning of visual effects from a psychological point of view and recognize the differences between genders.
Specifically, visual stimuli are more likely to attract men, while auditory and tactile stimuli attract women.
Because of this, we put forward the following assumption: H5: Men will create more graffiti for painting.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, men tend to doodle more than women;
Although some studies have found the opposite.
Unfortunately, evolutionary psychology is not able to determine which gender can be predicted as a potential motivation for more graffiti.
One can argue, for example, that because men tend to mark territory and discuss sex, they should be combined.
However, it can be easily claimed that women should write more articles to determine their own relationship and devalue their opponents.
Because of this, we raise a research question: RQ4: Will men or women create more graffiti?
Current research attempts to update existing literature on latrinalia from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.
In many ways, evolutionary psychology is consistent with previous studies of graffiti.
However, there were some differences.
Methods current studies were sampled from 9 local bars in amemedia
University Town in the Midwest.
We chose to use a purposeful bathroom as we could not find a complete list of all the public bathrooms.
In addition, random samples can lead to very little graffiti, as there is no guarantee that the selected building contains graffiti.
The bar in the city center is sampled along two of the most popular streets.
Separate male and female restrooms are only included (i. e.
, Excluding shared/shared restrooms for men and women).
This guarantees the gender of each author, because we assume that men create all the graffiti of the male restroom, and women create all the graffiti of the female washroom.
None of the bars included are dedicated to the gay community.
Still, these places are located in progressive and gayfriendly town.
Because of this, at least a small number of customers are gay.
In each bathroom, we scribble on the booth walls in the room, or in the case of a single person
All the walls have bathrooms with cloakrooms.
This decision was driven by privacy issues.
More specifically, because the act of creating graffiti is abnormal, the content generated is often sexual. when a bathroom provides anonymity, the author is likely to be more willing to be free and free.
To avoid inconvenience to the bar owners and customers, we collected these earlier in the day.
There are at least 3 digital photos taken with a camera. 0 mega-
Ensure pixel resolution of image clarity.
To avoid any event, all photos are taken in one day-
Consistency (e. g.
The main team wins important sports events).
The walls of each booth, we took a lot of closure-
Combine the photos and then use the photos to make a single composite image of the entire wall
Editing software for post-coding.
This technology allows us to track the location of each graffiti and even find the smallest instance of the graffiti.
Our analysis unit code is a single instance of graffiti (graffito).
We transcribed 1,201 graffiti from synthetic images.
All transcription groups are entered into the word processor for later analysis.
All coding of images
Graffiti-based graffiti does not rely on transcription, but uses the original image as a reference.
Any unreadable graffiti will not be transcribed unless the instance is a label.
Labels are any unique words used to symbolize the author.
Labels are similar to names and usually look more like abstract shapes than text.
In the end, they usually happen (and reoccur)
In the outdoor urban environment.
We think ashape is a label if it (1)
Occurs many times in the sample, and (2)
All coders think the shape doesn\'t look like an image or a random Unreadable word.
Each author coded 1 out of 3 of the sample.
First of all, we decide the dominant framework of graffiti, from sex to society. political (e. g.
Religion, Politics, race, etc. )Entertainment (e. g.
Music, TV, etc. )
Physical existence (i. e.
, Write the name of a person or the name of a group to mark the territory or commemoration)
, Romantic, romantic (i. e.
, Stool or stool reference), and other.
More specifically, if graffiti mentions any form of sex, masturbation, promiscuity or proposition of any kind, we will code it as sex.
On the other hand, romance refers to graffiti that mentions love in words or symbols (e. g.
, Drew a moving name).
In addition, in order to adapt to this framework, Graffiti cannot imply sexual relations between individuals.
If graffiti is encoded as sex, we first determine whether it is proposition in essence.
For example, if graffiti appears to be seeking sexual contact by providing an aphone number or a meeting time/place, we code it as a proposition.
Second, we identified the sexual orientation of graffiti (
This will also be done if graffiti is classified as having a love/romantic frame).
In retrospect, we decided on the gender of the authorized restroom where we recorded the graffiti.
Because of this, I would be straight if I found Jim in the women\'s bathroom, but if I found it in the men\'s bathroom, I would be gay.
However, no matter where it is found, the word Pam love Jim will be coded as straight.
Finally, a vague reference is determined by voting between coders.
If consensus cannot be reached, sex is classified as uncertain.
Next, we coded whether graffiti was interactive or independent.
For the purposes of this study, interaction is defined as graffiti (1)
For other graffiti or (2)
Caused the reference graffiti.
Groups of interactive doodles are often obvious because they refer to each other or sametopic and use arrows or other visual relationship indicators.
We use a grouping of individual words, handwriting, and writing implementation (e. g.
Pencils, pens, marker pens, knives, etc. )
Determine if the graffiti is done by an author in a meeting.
Regardless of the category, we indicate whether or not graffitowas suggests it is an insult.
If this message is mostly to disappoint someone or a group by making fun of them, we consider it an insult.
Graffiti, however, is just trying to cause positive reactions such as self.
Reference message without target (e. g. , kiss my ass)
Not considered an insult.
As far as pictures are concerned, if graffiti is just an art, just text, or both pictures and text, we will code it.
The picture includes symbols, charts, and drawings, but does not include Greek letters.
Reliability before coding the entire sample
Using 99 graffito instances as training cases, the reliability of the encoder is established. Theaverage pre-
The coding reliability of all categories is.
Each category is or above. 85 (
Krippendorff\'s alpha of the named variable).
Confirm post-
In 19% cases, we randomly selected nearly 1,201 cases for re-coding. Post-
The test alpha is as follows: advantage frame (. 89), insult (. 88), picture (. 93), interactive(. 93)
Sexual orientation (. 85)
And Proposition (. 94)
The nominal variable uses the alpha of krippendorff.
As a result, only by sampling the stalls, the total box office of female graffiti was overestimated, 50 female stalls, and only 17 male stalls.
Due to this difference, all of the following analyses use the percentage of comments within the gender range to control the number of booths.
For example, if a male (N = 424)
49 graffi paintings and women were made (N = 777)
Made 59 graffiti about religion instead of comparing the original score (49 vs. 59)
We compared the percentage core (12% vs. 8%).
The first hypothesis predicts more sexual graffiti in men.
Observe the dominant frame (see Figure 1)
This assumption was confirmed to be 17.
3% of male reviews were sexual, compared to 13.
Female reviews accounted for 6%.
As stated by aChi, this difference is significant
Square analysis]chi square](6, N = 1201)= 95. 71, p < .
The effect size is 001 [phi]= .
Phi using Cramer. [
Figure 1 slightly][
Figure 2:[
Figure 3 slightly]
Suppose 2 assume that the male will produce the maximum number of sexual proposition doodles.
This is not supported.
For the second paper, we only chose the case of sex (
According to the dominant framework).
We then determined the percentage of comments on propositions in each gender.
Male graffiti making proposition (19.
2% within gender)
Almost twice as much as women (10.
7% within gender)
But the difference is only trend. AChi-
The square analysis reveals the lack of meaning ,[chi squared](2, N = 176)= 2.
53, see figure 3)than females (17.
5% within gender).
As Chi-shows, the difference is significant
Square analysis]chi square](2, N = 366)= 13.
74, see figure 2)thanfemales (1.
3% within gender).
However, women produce more examples of combining pictures with words (28.
7% within gender)thanmales (5.
9% within gender). A Chi-
The square analysis showed significant differences ,[chi square](2, N = 1198)= 94. 66, p