You may remember earlier in the year Channel 4 ran a new series called The Joy of Teen Sex (JOTS). Series 2 is currently in production. Practitioners and educators were anxious about JOTS while it was being made. When the series aired we continued to be very worried about the core messages shared, the way sex and relationships were presented, and how messages of heteronormativity, commercialised and aspirational views of sex were normalised. We were not alone. Parents and young people also were troubled by the ideas shared in JOTS. This prompted a group of professionals working in education and healthcare to write to the Channel expressing our concerns.

Channel 4 responded, and the remainder of this post shares this and our reply, along with some additional updates about problems with sex/relationships programming at the Channel.

Channel 4′s response (25 February 2011)

“I am writing in response to your letter to Channel 4 of 8 February regarding The Joy of Teen Sex. As the head of Channel 4′s features department which commissioned the series I have been asked to respond on David Abraham’s behalf.

Channel 4 values feedback from viewers and experts and we have considered your letter carefully. I think it is important to confirm, before discussing any of your points, that we share your overarching belief of the importance of young people having access to open and honest information on sex and relationships.

It was in light of the Government’s 2007 Review of Sex and Relationships Education in Schools that we developed a slate of sex education programmes that would address the systematic issues raised in the Review, in particular the paucity of and poor quality of sex education in schools; the importance of complimentary information being provided in and out of school; and that sex and relationship education should be inclusive and meet the needs of all young people. Television is a powerful medium through which we can provide information in a way that is educative authoritative and entertaining, and which can draw-in significant audiences, both watching on their own or with friends and families. Channel 4 has a particular resonance with younger people who see us as a friend and youthful presence, and characteristics that make us uniquely able to bring effective sex education to the screen.

Over the last few years we have provided a range of sex education programmes and online resources – each seeking to reflect different aspects of sex and relationship education. The Joy of Teen Sex formed part of that mix, alongside programmes such as The Sex Education Show, KNTV Sex or Underage and Having Sex. We are proud of our track record in this area – both in terms of a frankness and relevance that young people rarely have access to – and crucially the impact that the programmes have had.

After last year’s Sex Education Show: Am I Normal, Channel 4 commissioned a public value case study, on the impact of the programme among teenagers. The research found that overall the show did a great job for teenagers:
- 78% of 14-19 year olds agreed it told them things that they would be too embarrassed to ask about
- 70% said they learnt things they didn’t know before
- 60% said that the programme made them feel more confident about themselves
- 62% of those who watched ep2 or 4 said they had changed their attitudes towards disabled people having sex
- 76% prefer learning about sex on TV than at school

Although we do not yet have comparative data for The Joy of Teen Sex, we have had some anecdotal evidence that the programme has had a positive impact on young people. Dr Rachael Jones has reported a marked upswing in attendances at sexual health clinics and that often The Joy of Teen Sex has been cited as a motivator for attendance.

In addition, the Sexperience website, which has sat alongside both the Sex Education Show and Joy of Teen Sex strands, has been immensly popular (attracting up to 5,000 user comments/questions a week), providing a forum for discussion and advice sharing. That the programmes and website have had a positive effect on young people seeking sexual healthcare advice or changing behaviour is evidenced by their being referenced or included in various NHS booklets and websites as well as their use in secondary schools.

In response to your particular points of concern about The Joy of Teen Sex, I would first like to reassure you that the programme was commissioned with the intention of providing accessible, relevant, entertaining and empowering information about sex and relationships to young people. Its purpose was to inform and educate by offering a platform to discuss any problems, questions or anxieties they might have. The programme was aimed at teenagers over the age of 16 (and their parents) and deliberately sought to be up-front and honest and to reflect the issues that young people wanted to discuss. Throughout the course of the series we sought to represent a wide variety of young people from different cultural backgrounds; heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual contributors featured alongside single people and those in steady relationships; sexually active young people as well as those considering their first sexual experience.

The series deliberately did not shy away from the fact that many 16-and-overs are sexually active and want to lead fulfilling as well as healthy sex lives. In tone and content it was also not an attempt to replicate The Sex Education Show – which is more focused on adolescents and the care to be taken before sex becomes part of a young person’s life – but was aimed at at the issues confronted by youngsters already having sex or being pressured by their peers to do so.

In putting together the programme we worked with a number of experts in the sex education field, both on and off screen. This included Peter Greenhouse, Consultant in Sexual Health at Bristol Sexual Health Centre, who also worked on The Sex Education Show and the highly regarded Dr Rachael Jones of the West London Centre for Sexual Health, who featured in the series providing medical and contraceptive medical advice. The background of other contributors – including Ruth Corden, Billie JD Porter and Joanne Wierzbickia – was made clear as was their role in the series to add to the mix of viewpoints and expertise, rather than to provide medical advice. We believe that it is critical to the success of these programmes that they are supported by credible medical experts who are available to advise us on medical matters and vouchsafe the reliability and authenticity of any advice proffered either during the programmes themselves or through the supporting website. While we will not always agree with our medical experts on presentational matters or issues relating to the narrative conventions used in television, we will heed any advice we have sought from them on any specific medical matters.

Given Channel 4′s ongoing committment to provide content that deals with young people sex and relationships, we have been planning to hold a roundtable discussion about television and sex education in the next few months to bring together people involved in providing sex education in the health and education spheres and people involved in making TV content. We very much hope you will be able to attend the event, and that it will provide a forum for your concerns to be addressed more fully by a range of experts.

We will be in touch in due course about the event. In the meantime I hope this reply provides some reassurance about the intentions behind this programme and across our sex education output, and the positive impact that the series has had during and since broadcast.

Yours Sincerely

Sue Murphy
Head of Features”

Our reply
26 June 2011

Dear Sue Murphy
Cc: David Abraham, Andrew Jackson, Katy Boyd, Liam Humphreys, Kate Teckman, Dominique Walker

Thank you for your letter of 25 February 2011. We are glad to hear of Channel 4’s ongoing commitment to improving the quality of broadcasting and that you share our ‘overarching belief of the importance of young people having open and honest information about sex and relationships’.

Our previous letter outlined a lack of underpinning of Channel 4’s programming with strong evidence and critical thinking and we are concerned that your response does not fully engage with the issues we outlined. It appears to be justifying problematic programming rather than reflecting on areas where content needs to be improved.

As stated in our initial letter we agree television is a powerful medium to share sex/relationships information, something supported by the wider literature on media and education. You are right to state you have the trust of young people, placing you in a strong position to share sex information with them. However, our concerns over how you have been going about this – and will do so in the future – remain. It is because you have a position of authority and trust among viewers it is vital to ensure messages shared are accurate, informative and entertaining. We would invite you to revisit our first letter and consider many of the areas we identified as currently not being adequately addressed. As ever, our offer to help you improve upon the quality of your programmes remains.

You cite within your reply a ‘public value case study’ but you do not include full details of who this was run by, how it was conducted, on whom, or how representative of the public/viewing audience these participants were. While the figures from this ‘case study’ seem striking the outcomes are not completely clear. Respondents stated they learned things they did not know, but this is only positive if the things they learned were accurate – learning something you did not know that is also misleading is not the same as learning something that is accurate and explained in such a manner as to give you the life skills to ensure confident behaviour in sex and relationships. Claims that teens prefer learning about sex/relationships from TV rather than school are not particularly helpful given most teens will prefer learning anything on TV rather than school and is disingenuous to the many creative and thoughtful sex/relationships programmes already offered within UK schools.

Your claim from anecdotal evidence that Joy of Teen Sex had a ‘positive impact on young people’ is not particularly helpful. Those of us working in clinical settings can equally supply our own anecdotes that following Joy of Teen Sex screening we did not notice an increase in clinic attendance. Those of us working in pastoral/advice-giving settings have had to counter fears and anxieties raised by the programme, with young people requiring reassurance over misinformation shared. In particular the coverage of anal sex, STIs, lack of sexual desire and contraception shown on Joy of Teen Sex made young people we have contact with feel afraid of sexual and reproductive health services, or that they were abnormal for not identifying with the sex tips featured on the programme.

You state ‘we sought to represent a wide diversity of people from different cultural backgrounds; heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual contributors featured’. Again we would draw you back to our previous letter that highlights how many of your messages within the Sex Education Show and Joy of Teen Sex were heteronormative and misleading over LGBT issues. Simply having some guests who may be LGBT or mentioning homosexuality is not helpful if your wider programming focus is through a heteronormative lens. By that we mean presenting diverse sexualities as ‘different’, problematic or unusual; or seeing heterosexual, monogamous and sexually active relationships as ‘normal’. Given the Channel’s stated focus on diversity we would also expect to see programming that made explicit how many young people are not sexually active until over 16 and that many enjoy relationships based on delaying/actively consenting to a committed intimate relationship when they are older. We disagree that you have included a wide diversity of cultural backgrounds and would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you what an inclusive and sensitive programming schedule that is culturally diverse could look like.

We note you spoke with experts to inform the series but we would again refer you back to our first letter. This clearly indicates many of us were also approached to inform the Joy of Teen Sex, shared our expertise – and our concerns – but were ignored. We are hoping a learning outcome for you from the feedback we have given in this letter and our previous one makes it clear that you need to listen to a wide range of practitioners – not just those who are agreeing with your programme remit. Indeed if experienced professionals are all telling you there are problems with your programmes and consistently offering to ensure you are both accurate and entertaining, you should listen to them. We would also remind you many of the counter signatories on our first letter and this one have extensive media experience delivering sex/relationships advice in print and broadcast media. Some of us have even been consultants and contributors on programmes such as The Sex Education Show or other sex programmes for your Channel. Or have spoken at Channel 4 events on education/health.

We remain concerned over the way the contributors finally selected in the series of the Joy of Teen Sex were portrayed, including some of the messages they were providing. We do not feel their qualifications were completely transparent – for example one appeared to be a qualified Social Worker but her status was later amended, while another had experience in sex toy sales but not necessarily the more complex and nuanced area of sex education/care. Equally concerning is the lack of young people’s voices and experience which could have been a feature of the series but was not included. In empowering sex/relationships education and healthcare the voices of young people as peer to peer advisors and consultants are central. We hope future programming acknowledges this.

We welcome your comments and are looking forward to your proposed round table discussion about your programming. We hope you will use our first letter and this response to inform some of the conversations at that meeting. We note Channel 4 have recently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Trans Media Watch which will ensure ‘accuracy, dignity and respect’ in its portrayal of transgender people. We hope a similar commitment to sex and relationships broadcasting could also be developed.

As ever we remain committed to supporting young people, sex and relationships information and media opportunities to deliver this.

Yours Sincerely
Petra Boynton PhD, Social Psychologist and Sex Researcher, University College London
Dr Stuart Flanagan, Genito Urinary Physician
Justin Hancock, Bish Training, trainer and consultant
Lisa Hallgarten, Director, Education For Choice
Wendy Savage MBBCh FRCOG MSc (Public Health) Hon DSc
Marge Berer, Editor, Reproductive Health Matters
Romance Academy – a nation-wide, holistic, relationships and sex education initiative
Dr. Meg Barker, Sex therapist and social psychologist, The Open University
Alice Hoyle, Sex and Relationship Education Advisory Teacher
Alison Terry, Second year student, Applied Community and Youth Work Studies, University of Manchester
K. Barratt, Second year student, Applied Community and Youth Work Studies, University of Manchester
Becca Thompson, BSc MA COT
Steven Norris, Student Teacher
Clare Bale, RGN, BA (Hons),MPH, PhD Candidate, University of Sheffield
Dr. Lesley Hoggart, Principal Research Fellow, School of Health and Social Care University of Greenwich
Matthew Greenall, advisor on international HIV & sexual health programmes
David McQueen, International Speaker and Youth Advocate
Janet Horrocks, Healthy Schools Project Officer
Joelle Brady, MSc, Researcher
Kendelle Bond, MD of Zest Consultancy, Public Health Consultant
Dr Jayne Kavanagh, Medical Ethics and Law Unit Lead, UCL Medical School and Associate Specialist in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Camden Provider Services
David Evans, Researcher and Chief Executive SRE Project
Peter Bone, Chair of the Advisory Council, PSHE Association

Further Issues
Comparing our first letter with Channel 4′s reply and our response makes it transparent how there are problems with the Channel’s approach to sex/relationships programming and despite their claims about delivering quality broadcast materials this has not been achieved. Indeed where core problems have been pointed out, I would argue the Channel has sidestepped discussing or dealing with them. I feel the Channel has not adequately considered the problems with their past and current broadcasting on sex and relationships. As we speak The Sex Researchers – a series that promised to promote accurate and empowering information on past and current sexology is being aired. Only it is misrepresenting sex research (and researchers), again rehearsing narrow views of sex, gender and sexuality. Making out quirky lab based studies on desire and attraction (heterosexual obviously) are representative of mainstream sexology. The sex research community, including the Kinsey Institute, who helped put the programme together are very upset about how our time has been wasted in putting together something that seems to ridicule our work – and mislead the public on sex/relationships information.

Since JOTS aired we’ve also seen another series of The Sex Education Show broadcast. This series focused on sexualisation. When researching this issue the programme makers asked how they might ‘test’ sexualisation. They were referred to the Buckingham (et al) report on commercialised goods which is an excellent critical discussion of the area and provides a template of how to investigate the concepts of sexualisation and commercialisation. Rather than using this template, and while going against information from experts solicited for the series, the Sex Education Show went looking for examples of sexualised goods then made a fuss in stores about their sales. This is despite other evidence from reviews like the Buckingham one which indicates such products are not that usual and are interpreted very differently by parents and young people, but the concern over them from parents is often tied up in anxieties about girl blaming. Indeed the discussion of boys are largely absent, while the subtext of class and racial prejudice (about the ‘type of girls’ who wear such clothing) is problematic.

When acting as a consultant on Series 2 of The Sex Education Show I suggested Sexualisation could have been a topic to cover (from a critical perspective) since it tied in with the APA report on this issue that had just been launched. This was ignored with a focus given instead to limiting access to internet porn. When it comes to sex Channel 4 and related production companies seem to want to focus instead on topical issues that are both televisual and capture a public anxiety over a popular concern – rather than looking at and using evidence in a critical way.

Indeed if you look at how discussions pan out on the Channel’s Facebook page for Stop Pimping Our Kids (the campaign part of the last series of The Sex Education Show) it seems any in depth critical reflection is avoided or only included under duress (for example, witness how they position critical blogs discussing sexualisation research by myself and Dr Brooke Magnanti). Channel 4 now has a campaign for one current series (The Sex Education Show) which calls for restrictions on sexualised media. But other series the Channel has recently created – such as JOTS or The Sex Researchers seem to be promoting sexualised media (particularly for a youth market). In fact you could argue these plus Series 1 of The Sex Education Show with its focus on pubic hair removal, burlesque classes and new lingerie to boost sexual desire (in a show aimed at teens) comes under the Stop Pimping Our Kids campaign to crack down on sexualisation.

We are currently left with a situation where Channel 4 as a broadcaster focuses on a lot of sex/relationships content in various guises (entertainment, advice and education). These seemingly fall within part (or all) of it’s Public Service Broadcasting remit. Consistent, public and vocal calls for programmes to be improved – by the public and professionals – have been ignored. Programmes have been made during the past year which fail to have learned from the input from experts and feedback from professionals about content, accuracy and tone. We have an ongoing situation where programmes are being made by the Channel that contradict each other (and even contradict themselves), while offers of help to sort this muddle out are generally overlooked.

I hope the meeting the Channel are hosting in the coming weeks will be productive and the Channel will listen and really apply the core messages being shared. Otherwise we will continue to have a situation where both Channel 4 and production companies it commissions to make sex/relationships programmes will be viewed with mistrust and suspicion. We cannot currently trust Channel 4 to make quality sex and relationships programmes. And that is a situation entirely maintained by the Channel in the face of ongoing offers of support.

How sad.

It’s been a while since I’ve written about medicalisation. Which seems as good an excuse as any to revisit this issue and reflect on some of the developments in this area in healthcare, therapy and media.

A few months ago I took part in the 41st Maudsley Debate entitled ‘Love is a Drug’. Ben Goldacre and I spoke for the motion, Sandy Goldbeck-Wood and John Dean against it.

In fairness the title of the debate ‘This house believes that female sexual arousal disorder is a fabrication’ was somewhat misleading since it could be construed as saying there was no such thing as women having problems with desire and arousal. Obviously that’s a ridiculous idea for anyone to support, so Ben and I kept our focus more on the way female sexual problems have been medicalised, and what implications this can have (particularly in healthcare).

You can hear the debate and subsequent discussion here. Ben and I won the debate, although the discussion certainly indicated this is a complex area and one that is not always fully understood in terms of gender, politics and ‘bad science’. I think Ben’s points about teaching medical students (and healthcare staff more widely) to read and think critically about pharmaceutical research is important – particularly in relation to the area of sexual functioning which is heavily medicalised but often not taken seriously. Because it’s about sex.

Additional reviews of this debate can be found here, here and here.

This event follows a debate last year hosted by the British Medical Association which was also attended by John and Sandy, who discussed issues around female sexual dysfunction with Ray Moynihan (author of Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals) and Iona Heath.

Both of these discussions were focused towards a medical audience (with the Maudsley debate particularly aimed at medical students and trainee psychiatrists, and the BMA event at practising clinicians and therapists). While the Maudsley debate was open to the public the BMA event was invitation only, so there is a remaining problem of making discussions around medicalisation open to a wider audience.

One way this is being achieved is through screenings of Liz Canner’s amazing documentary ‘Orgasm Inc’ which have been taking place across the US, Canada and UK. Media coverage of this movie has also helped raise the profile of female sexual problems (examples here, here, here and here). Although unfortunately not all journalists covering this area ‘get’ all the issues surrounding this topic, particularly around medicalisation, evidence based practice, and endorsing largely untrialled/untested interventions).

This leaves us with some stubborn problems which still need tackling. These include:

Critiquing FSD = women don’t have problems
One of the most frustrating aspects of challenging the medicalisation of female sexual problems is the inevitable response from some journalists, medics, researchers and members of the public who interpret what you are actually saying as – ‘women don’t have sexual problems’. Clearly women who are experiencing sexual difficulties don’t want to be told they’re inventing their problems, and do want a solution. Those who are challenging medicalisation of sexual function are not saying women don’t have problems. They’re not saying sex isn’t important. What they are saying is that there are many reasons women experience problems, and an equal number of possible solutions to them (see here for more on this). And that it are the many causes and solutions that require exploring rather than assuming a woman who isn’t desiring sex is ill and requires a clinical solution (we unpack this to some degree in the Maudsley debate podcast linked above).

Discussing women’s problems = denying men have problems
Another real problem around talking about this topic is the focus on women. The media ignored the medicalisation of sex for a long while. Then did a lot to write and broadcast in ways that promoted pharmaceutical company agendas. Some media outlets have more recently decided to focus on the medicalisation problem, but generally in terms of focusing on women. This can partly be attributed to activism in this area, and partly due to rehearsing comfortable stereotypes – that women are not particularly sexual or are more likely to have problems with sex. This has led to criticisms that men’s sexual functioning has been ignored, or is not an issue. In terms of research that’s not really true. The challenging of medicalisation of male sexuality came before campaigns against the medicalisation of female sexual functioning. You can read some examples of that work here, here and here (It’s an area I’ve also researched and published on, as well as given advice to men about e.g. here and here).

What may be a more accurate statement is there is concern over men’s sexual functioning and the medicalisation of men’s sexual lives, but a lack of interest in the mainstream media in really taking this up. Other activist and sceptic groups you’d expect to challenge this problem seem reluctant. Witness the general apathy to helping men affected by the actions of the Advanced Medical Institute as a prime example. It is difficult to get journalists to focus on this in terms of medicalisation of sexual functioning per se, rather than simply seeing it as a ‘woman’s issue’.

Media lack of awareness of/complicity in this area
One of the main issues in this area is the media often doesn’t ‘get’ medicalisation. Indeed promises of wonder drugs that will boost our sex lives attract editors like moths to flames. The result has been uncritical pickup of pharmaceutical research on psychosexual problems, either promoting products that aren’t all that effective, or showcasing drugs that aren’t even available for public use. Even where drugs for desire problems have been identified as ineffective media coverage continues to write about them as if they are – for example with media’s ongoing obsession with testosterone therapy as a sex drive booster for women. This parallels problems within medicine where practitioners simply don’t understand the influence of Big Pharma in this area, can’t access (or understand) the diverse literature about medicalisation and critical sexology, and remain unable to identify and appraise literature on this topic.

Where to next?
The problem of medicalisation and poor media coverage of sexual problems is not going away. So encouraging and recognising good quality reporting in this area is vital. Supporting screenings and discussions of documentaries like Orgasm Inc can help, as can more public events tackling this topic. Moving away from a debate style format (i.e. do problems exist or not) would also allow for perhaps a more nuanced discussion on medicalisation, how it happens, and how to recognise and respond to it. Focusing on this as an issue affecting cis and trans women and men, as well as different sexualities is important. As is reflecting on how we view psychosexual issues for different age groups (and what age groups, genders, sexualities do we seem most keen to pathologize). Helping medics, therapists, journalists and the public to understand core issues around medicalisation as well as critiquing research on treatments in this area would also be useful. As would challenging any suggestion that critiquing medicalisation equals denying people have psychosexual problems.

You may also be interested in responding to the classifications of psychosexual issues in the revised DSM (deadline 15 June), or learning more about the Medicalisation of Sex from this recent conference in Vancouver.

Today sees the launch of the Bailey Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood. A copy of the report and appendices available here. Background to this review here, with terms of reference here. More information can be found via their Facebook page and these videos.

[If you are interested in evaluating the review – particularly if you’re a journalist on a deadline - you may want to skip to the end of this post and focus on the section ‘Questions you should be asking about the Bailey Review’].

What is ‘sexualisation’?
Over the past few years ‘sexualisation’ has gone from a phrase that nobody had heard of (and nobody was particularly bothered by) to a buzzword beloved by the media and politicians. It has led to several separate reviews being commissioned in a number of Western countries, including those undertaken since 2008 in the UK alone (here’s a review of these preceding reports and tools to evaluate them).

As the term has become part of popular discourse a related problem has emerged where it is used a lot in media, politics, healthcare etc as though it’s an agreed upon and simple concept, and yet it is anything but . Something that becomes more obvious if you read through these critical essays reflecting on the term and the issues it raises courtesy of the Onscenity Network.

Background to this review
The Bailey Review follows in the steps of numerous other investigations and reports on youth/wellbeing. These have been framed within various contexts including: education/development (Byron), violence against women and girls (Papadopoulos), or commercialisation (Buckingham et al). All of these share the common focus of looking at potential areas of ‘harm’ and offering solutions to protect young people. They have differed in their focus with some looking at the impact of the internet, others addressing wider media formats (such as music videos), or commercially available sexual products (e.g. padded bras) aimed at children.

The assumption underpinning these reports, as well as the Bailey Review, is that sexualisation/commercialisation is a major issue affecting children and teens. However, with the exception of the review by Buckingham et al for the Scottish Government these evaluations have not interrogated the concept of sexualisation, nor focused on wider issues that might be facing young people. These may include: poverty, housing, nutrition, road safety, ‘failing’ schools, problems within health/social care that impact on young people, lack of parental support, limited provision of afterschool clubs, or inadequate availability of affordable childcare (to name a few).

Which leaves us with a consistently unanswered question: ‘is ‘sexualisation’ the main problem facing young people/parents?’ And does it warrant all these investigations?

What was Bailey Review tasked with?
The review was designed to address areas of parental concern with a focus on four key issues:
• whether and to what extent sexualised imagery now forms a universal background or ‘wallpaper’ to children’s lives;
• whether some products are inappropriate for children, and others in dubious taste: parents are anxious about what is appropriate;
• whether businesses sometimes treat children too much as consumers and forget that they are children too, with particular concerns about the kinds of marketing techniques associated with digital media;
• how parents can tell advertisers, broadcasters and retailers about the things they are unhappy about and how they can make an effective complaint.

The review was open to consultation and you can read a number of submissions to this process here. Some of these are more reflective and nuanced than others.

Concerns and Criticisms about the Bailey Review
Criticising sexualisation does not mean dismissing young people’s rights or ignoring abuse, exploitation or our changing mediated culture. It does mean thinking critically about the simplistic (and often moralistic) views of sexualisation used by politicians and the media – and how these can actually detract from the rights and needs of children and teens, while frightening and disempowering parents.

From the outset there have been numerous concerns expressed over this particular review and previous ones. These include:
- The number of recent preceding reports on the issue of sexualisation from various Western countries that (presuming sexualisation is a major issue) could have informed current policy and practice – but didn‘t.

- The varied quality of previous reviews. The Buckingham/Scottish Parliament report was innovative and thorough. While the Papadopoulos/Home Office report was problematic see here and here) based on limited and cherry picked data that failed to differentiate between academic research and PR campaigns and lacked rigour in reporting on findings (for example on focus groups used).

- Reg Bailey is the Chief Executive of the Christian organisation the Mother’s Union (MU) (although the MU have distanced themselves from directly being involved with the review). Some have questioned whether a transparent and independent review could be hosted by an individual with links to a faith based, conservative organisation. Not least because at the same time Bailey took on the review for the government the MU launched their Bye Buy Childhood campaign.

- Differing political approaches have led to a haphazard interpretation of ‘evaluation’ so the Scottish Report permitted academics to interrogate and investigate the idea of ‘sexualisation’ while the Australian and UK Home Office reports seemed to follow a remit of identifying a politician-identified problem then looking for evidence to support it (while ignoring any evidence to the contrary).

- With the Bailey Review, as with other recent sexualisation reviews academic concerns over simplistic, moralistic approaches/ignoring evidence/critical thinking have been largely ignored. Indeed many practitioners working in this area who want to inform debates on sexualisation/commercialisation and have concerns about the rights and needs of young people have struggled to have their voices heard.

- While purportedly about young people most of the investigations have not particularly included young people. Where they have been invited to contribute it has been within a very limited and top down framework where adults have set agendas and asked young people to respond to them.

- The reviews have mostly reinforced the theme of girl’s as victims/boys as oppressors (and a built in assumption all teens grow up to be heterosexual). Along with judgements around class (it’s usually working class girls who are seen as ‘the problem’ in this area); and race (black music/artists are frequently used to illustrate declining moral standards in music lyrics/videos).

- Critics have argued the preoccupation with sexualisation favours white, middle class parents (usually mothers) whose children are not generally facing particular hardships. It is easy for these parents to be worried about sexualisation because other concerns over family finances, nutrition, housing, safety within their community or their child’s educational needs are not so pressing. Indeed it can be argued that parents who are worried about sexualisation often engage in this debate in ways that judge or look down on other people and their children.

Has the media sexed up ‘sexualisation’?
When the American Psychological Association launched their review on this area in 2008 it was virtually impossible to get media coverage of it and generally it was seen as a sideline issue. However with the launch of the Home Office review in the UK the media has begun to see this as far more of a topical area. It’s become an ironic that the media, while taking a stand *against* sexualised/commercialised culture also use this topic to sell copy/generates viewing figures.

For example Mumsnet has been running their ‘Let girls be girls’ campaign, Psychologies magazine ‘Put porn in its place’ (ironically based on a survey of under 16s where parents weren’t told their kids were being asked about porn), and The Sex Education Show’s ‘Stop pimping our kids’. All may be well intentioned, but ignore much of the current evidence about young people’s lives. Worryingly when journalists want to cover the topic of ‘sexualisation’ they don’t go to academics or practitioners, they turn to these media outlets who often are not sharing a particularly nuanced or accurate perspective, but are getting a plug for their website/magazine/TV show every time they are asked to share their views. Put simply you may genuinely care about children, but you can currently also boost your audience if you talk about sexualisation.

We’re in a current situation where successive governments commission different reviews into sexualisation while various media outlets and charities host their own campaigns on the issue. Which again brings us back to the question: ‘is ‘sexualisation’ the main problem facing young people/parents?’ And given all these overlapping reviews and campaigns why aren’t we seeing any major outcomes from them?

Questions you should be asking about the Bailey Review
Before you ask these questions you may want to read up on previous reviews and utilise the free tools provided to evaluate them
- why the need for yet another review given the glut of them in recent years?
- how much all these reviews have cost so far?
- how much impact have the preceding reviews had? All had lengthy recommendations yet have any been implemented and if so have they ‘worked’?
- how have the various reviews differed from/added to/learned from each other?
- do the outcomes of the Bailey Review adequately match the four key issues (see above) it was initially tasked to evaluate?
- what methods has the Bailey Review used to gain an insight into what’s going on and how transparent is that information? (for example they’ve done a survey but is it any good? Who were the participants, how were they selected, what were they asked, why run this rather than using existing evidence?)
- how have young people been involved in the Bailey Review?
- how realistic are the recommendations from the Bailey Review, and what impact do they foresee them having on the wellbeing of children, teens and parents?
- how easy might the recommendations be to operationalise? (For example if there are to be restrictions on music videos will this be based on the lyrics, visual images or both – and who will decide what constitutes appropriate/inappropriate content?)
- how much will the recommendations from the Bailey Review cost to implement?
- are there any particular groups of children/parents who’ll be enabled or disadvantaged by the findings in the Bailey Review (i.e. is it skewed towards reassuring the middle classes?)
- is there a potential conflict of interest in Reg Bailey leading this review given his links to the Mothers Union and their own anti sexualisation campaign
- how has the Bailey Review approached questioning parents? Have people been presented from the outset with the view that sexualisation exists and is a problem or have parents and other organisations been allowed to talk about other worries they may have around their child’s wellbeing?
- how representative are the individuals and organisations responding to the Bailey Review? Do there seem to be any groups whose voices are heard or silenced?

And finally, let’s return to that most important question ‘is ‘sexualisation’ the main problem facing young people/parents?’

Join in the debate
The Bailey Review’s already being discussed on twitter on the hashtag #baileyreview. Once you’ve read the report you may want to share your thoughts on it there, or via your own blog. If you’ve any specific questions or comments about the review you can also put them to @educationgovuk (start with your question then include @educationgovuk so all your followers can see your question, RT their replies, and use #baileyreview on anything about this topic).

Update 07/06/11

Since the Bailey Review was released yesterday there’s been a lot of interesting discussion about the report, mostly on blogs rather than in the mainstream media. Here’s a lineup of some of the most interesting writing I’ve found on this topic (I’ll try to keep this updated with a range of issues represented):

Heresy_Corner (Nelson Jones) has a thorough and thoughtful reaction to the review with Children Being Children

Dr Brooke Magnanti (who did a grand job live tweeting responses to the data in the Bailey Review yesterday) gives her First Look at the review.

The fantastic Meg Barker tackles the issue of gender and sexualisation in Sexualisation and Gender stereotyping? One response to the Bailey review Similar issues are raised by Steve Greer who picks up on the ‘not said’ aspects of the review, particularly in relation to gender over at Queer Theory Reader. Quiet Riot Girl also discusses the masculinity issues, male objectification and the men’s media market which the Bailey Review overlooked in Nice Tits, Love! while Dan Avenell illustrates how the Bailey Review problematises lad’s mags while ignoring the mainstream older women’s magazine market over at The Bockingford Kid.

Over at the Ministry of Truth a somewhat different view is taken, looking at the ‘evidence’ making behind the Bailey review (probably also winning the best title of a post on this topic prize at the same time) Won’t You Fuck Off, Reg Bailey Additional concerns on the quality of the report (and how accessible it is) are raised by Think Base, while Jennie Kermode invites us to think about the core terms and assumptions underpinning the Bailey Review.

The Guardian’s CiF had a (predictable) ‘debate’ feature with different takes on the review. The first part from Holly Dustin might be somewhat more plausible if it didn’t rehearse the dreadful (and completely false) ‘statistic’ ’63% of girls want to be glamour models’. (From a PR survey that allegedly was never really completed: more criticisms of this statistic/survey here and here). Jane Fae Ozimek (whose writing style I covet) really gets to the heart of the problems with the review. Read both takes in Sexualisation and the Bailey Review.

Also at the Guardian their head of Media and Technology Dan Sabbagh writes probably one of the best accounts of this review from a mediated perspective (which makes you wonder why more media/tech expertise wasn’t included within the Bailey Review and preceding ones). His reflections can be found at ‘Sexualised Children’ -Is it always the media’s fault?. Mark Lawson also tackles media issues, this time picking up on how the Bailey Review appears out of touch with new media and youth access and how realistic a fixed watershed is within this context.

Richard Godwin in the Standard focuses around anxieties about childhood adults have in The problem is we’re scared of our children that ends with a quote which ought to focus all our reading and research on this issue ‘Childhood is generally what adults make it’. Meanwhile Libby Brooks returns to the wider concern about whether the Bailey Review addresses the most important issue facing young people, focusing on child poverty as a more pressing problem to tackle.

As you can see most of these posts have focused on the content, evidence and messaging around the Bailey Review. A different but equally interesting perspective from Caroline Farrow, who takes apart the review from a faith based perspective. Reflecting on issues of history, censorship and parenting. Here’s her post on The Bailey Review.

A lot of the discussions of the Bailey Review were rightly serious in tone, so it was good to have some light relief in the form of Andy Toots hilarious post Yippee-ki-yay,Mrs Dorries (which simultaneously also highlights the right wing media’s hypocrisy over the whole ‘sexualisation’ debate).

Update 10/06/2011
There are a number of academic conferences and events coming up between now and the end of the year
that will tackle issues of sexualisation and commercialisation. These include:

Girls, Sexuality and Sexualisation: Beyond Spectacle and Sensationalism. 30 June 2011. Cardiff

BSA Regional Seminar. Sexualisation: A cause for concern? 5 July 2011. Sheffield

BSSN 5th Annual Conference: Hard Science? Sex, Science and Technology. 15 September 2011. Brighton.

Sexualisation of Culture Conference. University of London. 1-2 December 2011. London.

Equally interestingly Westminster Media Forum have scheduled a Keynote Seminar on 18 October 2011 entitled Protecting children from commercial and other adult pressures: next steps for policy and business practice. A draft timetable is available here and a booking form here. The event’s not cheap (I don’t know why WMF always have such inaccessible pricing), but if you can afford to attend I would strongly recommend going and raising the many issues that have now been outlined relating to both the Bailey Review, preceding reports, and wider issues about evidence making, policy and practice.

Meanwhile MP Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families is asking for feedback on the Bailey Review. If you have any particular comments or questions please submit them here.

Update 13/06/11
The background literature review commissioned to inform the Bailey Review by Professor Ann Phoenix is now available. I’ve a lot of time for Ann and most people who’ve read her review have been impressed with how thorough it is. There is also this DfE Review by Ann and colleagues looking at how different countries attempt to regulate commercialisation/sexualisation. It is certainly worth reading this document and comparing it with the claims made by the Bailey Review. Critics have noted these reports were not made as accessible as the Bailey Review, and the literature review was not made public by the Department for Education until several days after the Bailey Review was released.

Brooke Magnanti returns to the Bailey Review, this time focusing on terminology and definition.

Suzanne Moore focuses on the issues about capitalism and poverty that the Bailey Review fails to address.

Charlie Brooker is typically cynical but right on the money with his take on gender, media and sexualisation.

Polling company YouGov have run their own research on sexualisation to tie in with the Bailey Review. Check the survey questions asked, there are some major problems with them – can you spot them?

Meanwhile the prize for the most offensive cashing in on the Bailey Review comes courtesy of The People who went undercover to film girls attending a ‘Pole Dancing Class for 3 Year Olds’, only to share images and film of said girls in their class as an example of ‘sexualisation’. This was later picked up by the Mail who also gloated over the photographs of said girls. Both stories ooze class judgement and girl blaming, suggesting an epidemic of pole dance classes for children across the UK (when in fact a possible 8 girls may have been involved in the classes reported on by the People). The comments on the People story are, fortunately, for the most part sensible. Our take home message? ‘Sexualisation’ is very bad. But filming little girls without their knowledge or consent and presenting them in sexually provocative photos in a national newspaper is seemingly fine.

Last summer myself and several other sex educators, therapists and reproductive healthcare staff were approached by researchers from Betty TV working on a new programme commissioned by Channel 4 called ‘The Joy of Teen Sex’. The show was described as a cross between the established (and popular) Embarrassing Teenage Bodies and The Sex Education Show. The Joy of Teen Sex would be set in a mock clinic where young people who had sex and relationships questions could get advice. The TV company was looking for people to appear as experts on the series (who’d play the role of ‘clinic staff’), and/or to refer them young people for possible inclusion.

After friends and family the media is often one of our main sources of sex information (acting as a ‘super peer’ – who doesn’t always have the right answers). Young people particularly appreciate sex and relationships advice from broadcast and online media. Providing sex information via the mainstream media is not new and has been well received by young people, parents, educators and healthcare staff (a classic example can be found here, see also here).

I am very much in favour of using the media to share information on sex and relationships (and other health topics). But I had reservations from the outset about this particular series. All of which I shared with the researchers at the time, and I’ll repeat now.

The series was billed as being a ‘youth’ programme. Although that doesn’t necessarily mean young people were actively involved in its creation. The title ‘The Joy of Teen Sex’ sounded like something by an adult trying to impress the kids rather than generated by a youth audience.

As I heard more about the planned content of the series it seemed profoundly out of touch with the title. The title implied an attempt at celebrating sex, while the calls for participants suggested it was mostly negative and problematising sex (more on this later). The proposed content did not match the kind of things I’ve noted young people are worried about (through my research and work over the past decade as an agony aunt; and from listening to parents, sex educators and healthcare staff).

Given both Embarrassing Teenage Bodies and The Sex Education Show had received some criticism for their approach to sex-related topics , I was concerned that merging them for a new format without learning from the feedback for existing programmes was not good practice. When I shared these worries with the researcher from Betty TV they did not appear interested.

Setting up a ‘pretend clinic’ was also perhaps unhelpful as it may give an inaccurate impression to young people of what sexual health services are like. If the mock clinic appears off-putting to an audience it may also discourage them from attending a sexual or reproductive health clinic in real life (for more ideas on what a ‘real’ GU clinic is like click here).

The ‘clinic’ setting also framed sex and relationships issues within a health or medical format. Which may be appropriate for tackling the treatment of STIs or contraception, but given this programme was also being presented as providing advice about relationships was a medical tone the best to use? After all, do you head to your GP when you want tips to spice things up sexually? Given the wider concerns about medicalisation and sex, presenting young people with the idea sex and relationships are a primarily medical issue (as opposed to social or cultural) is unhelpful.

Those worries, however, were insignificant compared to my anxiety when I received the advert the company wanted me to pass on to young people, which read:

SO YOU THINK YOU KNOW IT ALL WHEN IT COMES TO SEX?

(The above advert was also posted here with other casting calls can be found here and here)

Let’s unpack this advert.

First of all the programme starts with a challenge – asking if young people know it all. None of us ‘know it all’ when it comes to sex. Such an approach runs counter to working with young people on sensitive issues, where the aim is usually to create a safe space where people can ask questions or debate issues with confidence, rather than feeling judged, silenced or challenged.

‘Sex’ is not transparently defined. Discussions with the TV researchers making the programme indicated they understood ‘sex’ as penis in vagina intercourse (or anal sex in the case of young gay men). This is an extremely limited view of ‘sex’, the meaning of which has been explored in depth here.

Yet ‘sex’ and relationships are constructed in a particular way by this advert. For young people the advert focuses on ‘sex’ as whether or not they know much about infections, problematising porn, ‘losing’ virginity, and young women’s orgasmic difficulties. That leaves out a whole range of other issues young people may wish to talk about while reinforcing many gender and sexual behaviour stereotypes.

When it gets to the parent section of the advert it becomes even more judgemental. Here we see ‘sex’ categorised with more mentions of porn, a brief nod to sexuality, value judgements about ‘sleeping around’, and the setting up of girls as victims, boys as predators. There is nothing positive for parents. Only a list of potentially scary issues a parent might get in touch with. Indeed sex is stated as ‘the biggest worry for parents’.

Is that true? Are parents not also worried about their child’s future? Their academic progress? Their friendship groups? Risk of violent crime? Their health and wellbeing? Financial worries? Some parents may well be anxious about their child’s sexual development, but I’m confident most parents will have additional, and equally pressing, concerns. Realistically if sex really is your prime concern as a parent is television the best place to get support? Particularly if your worries are linked to the motional or physical safety of your child. This is not to say parents should not want advice, just that framing conversations with young people about relationships in purely negative ways is unhelpful.

The advert does indicate what the aim of the series might be. Rather than an opportunity to empower parents or listen to young people, it seems to be designed for the viewer to judge the wayward teen or hapless parent. Previous programmes and wider media coverage about young people’s sexual behaviour have been criticised for creating a format which slut shames young women, makes young men appear to be perverts, presents a heteronormative tone (while pretending to be right on about sexuality), and generally suggests sex is a scary issue – for both young people and their parents. It harks back to an old fashioned view (explored in depth here) that if we had to deliver sex education we might as well make it as offputting as possible to dissuade young people from considering trying it. Aside from this being limited, it is also disempowering. And it shifts topics that young people may not necessarily be seeing as a negative, into a problem. Although in this case dressing it up as a ‘sex positive’ series.

The phrase that put me off supporting the programme most was ‘Sex is the most important thing in a teenager’s life’. It may surprise you, but I profoundly disagree. ‘Sex’ may be important to some teens some of the time, but not to all teens all the time. For many young people the most important thing in their lives may be their friends, their schooling, hobbies or sports, their pets, their faith, music or a whole slew of other stuff I’m probably to old and boring to know about.

Indeed when you talk to young people, often what they are interested in is being in a relationship, being close to someone (either in the short or long term). They may certainly have questions about ‘sex’, and have a range of feelings attached to it – curiosity, anxiety, and excitement. But they will also have other questions that go beyond the mechanics of intercourse.

The majority of young people (2/3 of the UK population) do not have ‘sex’ (at least defined as penis in vagina intercourse) until they are 16 or over (the UK’s age of consent). Many young people aged under 18 have not have sex or a relationship. Those having sex at a very young age tend to be more vulnerable due to numerous reasons (covered here) and are of particular concern to educators, healthcare staff and youth workers.

When you talk to people who deliver sex and relationships education via schools or youth groups, those who are working ethically and appropriately are not trying to convince young people sex is the most important thing in their lives. Indeed, they are usually stressing to young people the importance of having many interests, and encouraging them to delay sex. Alongside tackling wider problems or opportunities facing young people (like schooling, home issues etc). Critics of sex education often argue that talking about sex encourages early experimentation, which is not accurate. However, you can see why critics get worried when young people are being encouraged to view sex as the cornerstone of their entire lives, when for many it isn’t (at least not all the time).

From the calls for respondents the programme ‘teen’ has been defined as young people aged 16+ (or in some cases 18-20). Meaning the focus of the series is better described as being aimed at ‘young adults’.

Setting up a post watershed series (screened at 10pm) aimed at ‘teens’ but really meaning over 16s raises issues over what topics will be covered. Working with young people on sex and relationships issues reveals lots of diversity. You may find a nine year old asks a question that seems very ‘adult’ while a fourteen year old wants to know something that you’d expect a much younger child to be aware of. Part of the skill in working with young people (as it is with adults) is pitching what is discussed at their level, within their comfort zone. Not talking about issues they are not yet confident to understand, or that may be beyond their comprehension or are age inappropriate.

There is always a dilemma in education and advice giving about to provide information that does not patronise young people nor decide for them what they ‘ought’ to know. Young people have a right to sex and relationships education, but when television programmes muddled entertainment and advice (ignoring the latter for the sake of the former) this can mean young people either get information that is not useful, or are presented with concepts that may not be appropriate to their needs.

My worry with this programme is the topics selected for the series were chosen to attract an older audience, rather than truly deliver sex information to teens based on issues young people really want answers to.

It is important to stress I only had involvement at the early stages of development, when practitioners were being approached to be part of the series or find potential participants. I don’t know whether the focus of the programme has altered since, but reading pre-reviews of the series suggests concerns myself and others had with the series have not been resolved.

According to press coverage, in the first show we will meet a woman called Michelle whose 17-year-old daughter Rachel got pregnant last year, is sexually active, but ‘refuses’ to go on the pill. Already we can see the cards being stacked against the mother and the daughter. The danger of such programming is it becomes an opportunity for audiences to judge others who are not fitting particular expected roles. Worryingly there is often a class and race based subtext to this kind of media coverage where audiences are invited to judge chavvy youth or those from ethnic minorities or different faiths.

Other press discussions of what we can expect from the programme, from sex tips to ideas about techniques suggests the focus is a primarily adult one – but one that is also problematic. Adult sex advice (from the media and self help market) is preoccupied with positions and performance. Where ‘perfect’ sex is something to continually aspire to, is measured by how much you do it (not what you do), and where orgasms are something you ‘achieve’ not ‘experience’. It is a space where relationships are usually defined as monogamous (usually heterosexual but sometimes lesbian or gay sexuality is acknowledged). It is not a place where diverse sexualities are talked about in depth – or if any kink or alternative sexualities are focused on it is usually in a fairly sanitised or problematised way.

Sex for grownups (in the mainstream media and popular culture) excludes those who can’t fit into size 10 sexy lingerie, afford the latest sex toy, or whose bodies can’t mould themselves into 101 different positions. It is not a place for people with disabilities to have a voice, nor for those who are Trans, queer or asexual to speak out. If you are single you are allowed to be sexual so long as you can talk (albeit not very explicitly) about friends with benefits, or better still indicate you are trying your hardest to get into a relationship.

Many researchers, therapists and sex educators feel the stifling mainstream depictions of sex and lack of adventure and exploration – and absence of focus on communication – is a problem for adults who want to experience enjoyable sexual encounters or relationships. As a result, the aim of teaching young people to view sex and relationships in more diverse ways is to overcome many of the bad advice aimed at adults, or at least develop the critical thinking and life skills to see through the commercialised, pressurised and frequently unrealistic versions of sex currently on offer in mainstream popular culture.

It is therefore worrying the ‘The Joy of Teen Sex’, rather than tackling what ‘sex’ might be and how young people may look forward to experiencing it, may just serve up a predictable platter of Cosmo-esque sex tips. This is not what youth-focused sex and relationships education should be.

The media frequently distorts the teaching of sex and relationships. This can frighten parents and disempower teachers. Yet with programmes that provide unrealistic ideas about advice giving for young people this could easily give parents the wrong impression, suggesting as the norm activities that are not considered appropriate within school based or healthcare settings. It would be damaging if a programme that misrepresented both sex education and sexual health care contributed to a backlash against supporting parents, schools and healthcare providers from giving relationships information to young people.

Parents already worry about tackling sex and relationships issues with young people although they play a fundamental role in educating children. Media coverage that exaggerates the concerns of young people, presents an overly sexualised focus, or does not tackle the more mundane (and less ‘sexy’) questions young people may have can do two things. Firstly it can suggest to parents they need to be fearful for their child (and their potential sexual interests), and secondly imply the issues their child wants to know about are completely outside a parent’s ability to tackle. Neither are empowering for parents or young people. It is perhaps for this reason parents have already started speaking out about the programme.

What is not clear is why young people and parents wanted to participate in The Joy of Teen Sex. Were they seeking attention or fame? Or did they need advice? If it’s the latter it would be useful to know what led them to get this through a television programme rather than existing services – particularly if people had encountered barriers with existing education or healthcare on sex and relationships issues. Were people unaware of, or unable to access existing sources of free help and information? What about the participants in the programme? How representative are they of young people generally – and how many would-be participants for the show were not included? Why was that? It would be interesting to see journalists follow up on these questions, rather than just inviting us to gawp at and judge the participants in this series.

I have not seen the programme, so I my concerns could be completely misplaced. I will watch it and see if it manages to provide accurate and empowering information. I sincerely hope it does, but I am not confident this will happen. As a supporter of mediated sex advice it infuriates me programmes continue to be made where experts are ignored, where unethical practice is permitted, where young people are not involved, and where the end result does not educate but may well disempower parents, teachers and young people. It represents an endless stream of programming that wastes time, money and opportunities to share accurate advice people so desperately want.

I am always happy to support programmes that cover sex and relationships in an affirmative and diverse way, that move beyond ‘sex’ as intercourse, positions, techniques or infections to answer the questions young people really have in a sensitive way.

I did not feel The Joy of Teen Sex was offering this (although as already mentioned I am happy to be proved wrong). When I was asked to participate as a presenter and to refer young people to the researchers I refused. I felt the TV researchers were not listening to the feedback I shared on how they might make this programme more accurate and empowering, or my concerns about the wellbeing of young people and parents.

Equally worryingly the researchers warned me and other educators not to criticise or question them in public (i.e. on Twitter) or share our concerns about the series.

When a TV company commissioned to make a youth focused programme tells practitioners concerned about young people to keep silent, you really have to wonder who they are trying to benefit.

The Joy of Teen Sex is on Channel 4 tonight at 10pm (GMT)

This year seems to have just flown by, and what a busy one it was for research and stories about sex. From philandering footballers to STI statistics we certainly got to hear a lot about relationships.

Here are some of the main stories I think made up the year in media, sex and science.

The year began with the launch of the Home Office’s report on Sexualisation of Young People a problematic review which received lots of media coverage but very little critical attention from the press. It sadly overshadowed a far more detailed and useful similar report that came out just beforehand on Sexualised Goods, Commissioned by the Scottish Parliament. (You can find discussions critiquing the Home Office review here and here with a history of sexualisation reviews from other countries and open access tools to evaluate them here)

January was also noteworthy for being the month all our G spots went missing. Who knew?

Did you know Facebook caused syphilis? No, well nor did I until in March the press went crazy for the ‘Facebook linked to a rise in syphilis’ story. This was based on some opinions from a public health practitioner who should have known better, but who press released speculations about sexual health and social media. Cue plenty of irresponsible media coverage.

It provided an opportunity for sex educators to challenge these claims and also to promote health advice about syphilis, STIs and safer sex. Worryingly many sexual health charities and public health organisations failed to engage with the story in a timely fashion, completely missing the opportunity to share information with the public. An account of how this story unfolded, the heroes and villains of the piece can be found here.

The BBC produced a groundbreaking and sensitive drama ‘Five Daughters’ in April, based on the tragic story of five women from Ipswich who were victims of a serial killer in 2006. It retold the stories of Anneli Alderton, Paula Clennell, Gemma Adams, Tania Nicol and Annette Nicholls, plus the role of the police and support agencies. It was praised for its accuracy, respectful approach and depicting the female characters in a humane way, particularly focusing on their friendships and families. A discussion of why and how the series was made can be found here.

April also saw the bizarre case of Clitoraid unfold. What began as a request via twitter and facebook to ‘adopt a clitoris’ soon was a more complex case involving a cult, unclear activities in Burkina Faso, and the support of sex educators and a sex store. A summary of the story can be found here, hereand here. Many questions about Clitoraid still remain unanswered, and have caused rifts between sex educators, activists and health/development practitioners. This bad feeling was distressing, particularly since many involved were highly respected within the field of sex education and activism – and because basic respectful approaches to international practice were ignored.

What do you do if your girlfriend ditches you and goes out with someone else? Mope? Call up your mates and hit the town? Go visit your mum? Listen to sad music? Or cut your girlfriend’s face so nobody else would ever want to date her? If it’s the latter then you’ve clearly been taking your relationship advice from actor Danny Dyer and Zoo magazine. In May Dyer’s advice column contained this shocking suggestion, which was noticed by @sarahditum and quickly spread across twitter. Dyer blamed Zoo, Zoo blamed Dyer. Nobody took any responsibility for anything. But action did get taken, primarily when people stopped complaining to the magazine and editor and started targeting advertisers with the magazine. Dyer was sacked. Zoo was forced to write an apology and feature about domestic violence. The whole sorry saga is summarised here and here.

The same month saw Project Prevention gain notoriety in the UK with largely uncritical media reports like this. Through countless chat shows, broadcast and print news the organisation suggested drug/alcohol and reproductive health services (plus other support services) were failing to manage drug/alcohol users getting pregnant. And suggested cash incentivised sterilisation programmes were the answer. (Project Prevention are only focused on sterilisation or adoption of long acting hormonal contraception. They are not interested in supporting drug/alcohol users after this – in terms of sorting out any addiction, housing/family issues, or safer sex concerns. Moreover they fail to address repeat pregnancies can be a sign of domestic abuse. Their focus is solely on preventing drug/alcohol users getting pregnant).

The media provided no real discussion of what services already exist, what they offer, how they work, where they could be improved. Without this, discussions on Project Prevention were meaningless but this didn’t stop media approaching the issue of drug/alcohol abuse and incentivised sterilisation as though this were a necessary and beneficial option, required because of gaps in existing services. Since no services were seemingly assessed it would be difficult to draw these conclusions but it didn’t stop the media. Who also ignored the concerns of drug/alcohol charities, human rights groups, and healthcare practitioners.

Nor was much investigation carried out into Project Prevention, or their previous incarnation CRACK (Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity) despite numerous publications on them in health/legal journals (see here, here, here, here, here and here)

Blogger Stuart Sorensen emerged in this debate as a voice of sanity and tireless campaigner against Project Prevention. Inviting the UK representative of Project Prevention to explain their plans for the programme in the UK then creating resources for practitioners and the public around how to tackle the organisation (all his writing about Project Prevention can be found here and on twitter)

Despite some journalists and bloggers writing about Project Prevention as though it were an established and worthwhile UK organisation, in fact it is not. Ethically in the UK practitioners cannot sterilise people who’ve been financially incentivised or who are drug/alcohol dependent. They can, with the person’s consent, suggest long acting reversible contraception (LARC), although Project Prevention do not appear linked with any existing drug/alcohol or reproductive health services. Currently they are requesting monetary donations to fund getting people onto LARC which can already be freely offered via the NHS. But the media and uncritical bloggers haven’t really considered the ramifications of this at all. The project and messages behind it are popular with media and some quarters so it continues to require vocal opposition. Not least because its focus on the poor, vulnerable and socially excluded feels like eugenics to many people. Rather than giving Project Prevention a platform we would do better to explore complex cases around reproductive health and drug/alcohol abuse, and ways to ensure services can better support addicts and their families.

In the midst of this we had a general election. Labour lost. The conservatives and liberal democrats formed a coalition. Many long term labour supporters, myself included, had become disenchanted with many of the actions of the labour party. Particularly around its use and neglect of scientific evidence to inform policy and law. (I wrote about my direct experiences of this here). The Liberal Democrats were eager during electioneering to persuade scientists to focus on ‘geeking the vote’ and made many promises around healthcare, education, academic funding, university fees and supporting science. Perhaps unsurprisingly many working in academia and science were persuaded to vote for them on this basis (I certainly was, something I am still regretting – and you’ll understand exactly why when you read this – the most personal post I’ve ever shared on this blog). For some the subsequent backtracking and u-turns of the Liberal Democrats have come as no surprise, to others of us it has come as a dreadful shock. And a sad let down not only to see the behaviour of the Liberal Democrats since they became part of the coalition, but also to note many of those who so actively courted the academic and science vote have dropped contact with us. Leaving us feeling cheated on many levels. A truly depressing turn of events.

June saw the FDA reject the drug Flibanserin – the female ‘desire drug’ despite months of media hype about this being the next ‘female viagra’ (as the media consistently and incorrectly described it). Shortly after drug development was discontinued, while later in the year Ray Moynihan’s fantastic book Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals highlighted further the problem of medicalisation of female sexual functioning by the pharmaceutical industry.

Also over the summer we saw a scandal break around off label use of the drug dexamethasone given to pregnant women to prevent congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) in girls. CAH is a disorder that affects the adrenal glands, so a person will not make enough of the hormones aldosterone and cortisol, but will make too much androgen. One of the results of this can be girls with CAH having ‘ambiguous genitals’. Using dexamethasone to prevent CAH (and particularly to prevent girls developing male genitals) is a standard practice for some clinicians, as is offering genetic testing to parents with a history of CAH. Many endocrinologists and medics have argued prescribing dexamethasone should only happen within a controlled, supervised, trial programme (which is currently not the case). The real scandal around CAH came from a clinican who was prescribing ‘dex’ to not only prevent CAH but also to prevent lesbianism.

This case was broken by Alice Dreger and colleagues and quickly spread to the media who focused on the need for using dex to treat CAH and the circumstances under which it might be used (see here and here for examples). The media, while expressing dismay, were not as critical about the use of dex to ‘treat’ both gender and sexuality as bloggers were. The blogosphere (particularly writings from trans and intersex people) took a more politicised, critical and wide ranging approach to this story (see for example this post from Mark Simpson assisted by @quietriot_girl, which links to other discussions about dex, sexuality and CAH).

Around the same time, a separate story was broken by Dan Savage which also involved Alice Dreger and colleagues. This time alerting practitioners and the public to research being undertaken at Cornell University by Dr Dix Poppas. Poppas’ research focused on ‘treating’ young girls judged to have oversized clitorises by performing clitoral reduction surgery on them. And testing for post operative sensitivity with manual stimulation and the use of a vibrator. Unsuprisingly this led to an outcry, primarily from bloggers (rather than the mainstream media who didn’t give it as much attention). Bloggers and activists saw the research as child abuse and female genital mutilation/cutting (examples here, here and here). It also led to wider discussions around surgical interventions and intersexuality within forums and on twitter – some of which became pretty heated but were definitely of interest. Sadly even within these discussions some intersex people felt they were (as so often happens) being spoken for or spoken over. The CAH and particularly Cornell case showed us we still have a long way to go around open and respectful dialogues in this area.

While it was right to focus on both the CAH/dex/lesbianism and the Cornell /cutting stories, what proved interesting about both was they recieved far more attention and debate across the blogosphere than within the mainstream media. But both these cases still received masses more attention in both blogs and the mainstream media than the clitoraid case. Despite the Clitoraid case being equally troubling on many levels. Those of us involved in challenging Clitoraid were left wondering whether it was simply the case that when it came to the rights of African women the press and bloggers just weren’t as interested. Not a comfortable feeling.

The media tend to view the summer months as ‘silly season’ and they certainly didn’t disappoint in August, with a spectacular misunderstanding of public health data and wild claims that not only were dramatic numbers of 11 year olds on the pill, but the belief they were all using hormonal contraception because they were sexually active. In reflecting on the story health practitioners began to realise just how little journalists covering stories like this understand about young people, puberty and hormonal contraception. Or that very few young women are prescribed the pill – and if they are it’s usually for things like acne or heavy periods. A rundown of the story in its full ridiculous glory can be found here

Not to be outdone by the press, MP for Peterborough Stewart Jackson decided the best use of twitter was to insult his followers who questioned his anti sex education statements. By calling them ‘sex obsessed leftie weirdos’ and other choice insults. Accounts of which can be found here and here .

In the US a spate of suicides of teens bullied over their sexuality led to Dan Savage establishing the It Gets Better project aimed at providing messages to young LGBTI people that things can improve. Numerous celebrities, politicians, activists and members of the public have posted their stories to the project in an attempt to highlight for many young people suffering homo/transphobic bullying that life can change and is worth living. There are too many to share here but the notable and moving contributions (in my view) to discussing how ‘it gets better’ came from Councilman Joel Burns

and the staff at Pixar

This programme was unusual as it took a slightly different approach to the usual anti bullying approaches, by taking a positive and hopeful view. Perhaps unsurprisingly some critics felt it oversimplified problems, suggested that things always worked out okay, and that adulthood is an automatic escape from homo/transphobia. In particular the message that it was worth enduring hardship/distress now because a brighter future awaited proved problematic for many. (This is explored in more depth here). Debates began about whether the project was a good idea. Blogger Furrygirl robustly responded to feminist critics of the scheme. While thoughtful writer Tania Glyde took a different view, thinking around why sometimes things don’t get better – and why that happens. And how often this may not be under your control. Her amazing and moving post on this is here.

It Gets Better still requires discussion and evaluation – it would be interesting to see what a difference this grassroots project may make. But it also reminds us of the lessons many working in sexuality, sex and relationships health/education already know. Which is that we can’t give blanket messages. It is important to have positive goals, but telling people what to do rather than how to get there may not be enough. And that anti bullying messages based on oversimplistic ‘it’ll be okay’ or ‘it’s dreadful’ are unhelpful. Instead we need more tailored approaches to tackling homo/transphobia for young people, adults and families. Across schools, the legal system, media and beyond. It Gets Better may have its fans and critics, but it has reminded us many young people are at risk of bullying within the school or other spaces and we all need to take action to empower and safeguard them. Now and in the future.

During the year it became apparent that science funding and other provision for education were under threat and in October UCL scientist (and all round fabulous woman) Jenny Rohn decided to take a stand. She gathered together a merry band of scientists and practitioners and got them to back the Science is Vital campaign which resulted in a petition, plenty of blog posts on the topic, extensive media coverage, and defended science against the cuts. Oh and some really questionable singing

Oh, and this woman turned up too

November saw the 40th anniversary of Page Three – but was this a cause for celebration? Nobody seemed sure. It also marked the closure of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group (TPIAG) who had overseen the (then) government’s Teenage Pregnancy Strategy over the past decade. Their final report can be found here, with TPIAG warning that not taking action on teen pregnancy (and supporting teen parents) will cause problems in the future. While the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy was not without its critics (from various sources) it did commit to supporting teen mothers and identifying causes of teen pregnancy. What will happen under the Coalition in relation to support for young people, and particularly teenage parents, remains to be seen.

This month also saw the Geek Calendar project go into overdrive, with plenty of coverage, advanced orders and the opportunity to raise funds and awareness for libel reform. I was delighted to participate and hope many of you are now a proud owner of a Geek Calendar of your own!

At the close of the year the government have revisited the issue of prostitution, calling for a review into best practice in managing the issue, echoed by ACPO who have also called for a review of legal and health approaches to sex work. Media coverage on this so far has been positive, but focused more on women, not addressed male and trans workers.

The year has also ended on a similar note to how it began, with a return to reviewing sexualisation and commercialisation, this time led by Reg Bailey (chair of the Mothers’ Union) who will be looking at existing reviews in this area and deciding what else needs addressing for children and young people. Critics have already questioned why a ‘review of reviews’ need completing, and whether Bailey is the appropriate person to oversee this process.

Linked to this was the government suggestion that Internet Service Providers block access to porn which has had a mixed reception. However, debates about sexualisation continue to be a media favourite and are for the most part not based on sound research. Indeed much of it seems to just be speculation – like this claim that cheating footballers are normalising adultery. This sadly seems to be the way Bailey and others are trying to bring boys into this debate. Not exactly helpful.

During the year we’ve had to say goodbye to several people who’ve been trailblaizers in the areas of sex, education and health. Including
Claire Rayner
Professor Otto Wolff (a hero of mine who was the first and pretty much only senior health practitioner to recognise the work of agony aunts as having a relevant health role)
Actress and model Pamela Green
Cory Silverberg also pays respect to others who have passed during the year over at his blog.

Join me on New Year’s Eve when I’ll be looking back over my Sex and Relationships Predictions for 2010 and seeing how many of them came true, or where I was completely off track. And in the new year I’ll be giving you a new list of predictions for 2011.

Thanks to @bishtraining @mngreenall @SexEdUKation for their help with this blog – and checking I’d managed to remember all that’s happened this year! And for @quietriot_girl and many others who emailed me to remind me about things I’d forgotten and needed to add.

*

Amidst stories about snow and the final of The Apprentice you may have noticed yesterday’s news claiming the government wants to persuade Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to online pornography.
The Sun – Porn Block on PCs
The Daily Mail – Porn, keep out! Parents to be allowed to block computers from receiving sexual material (not only do the Mail confuse the opt out/opt in system, but also seem unaware parents can already restrict access to adult content online)
The Guardian – Broadband firms urged to block sex websites to protect children (as with much other media coverage the Guardian stacks its story up with a problematic survey from Psychologies magazine, more on this later)
The Telegraph – Internet Pornography Curb By The Government

Where did this story come from?
It originated from a question asked by MP for Devizes (Cornwall) Claire Perry in a House of Commons debate on Internet Pornography on 23 November (summary here). From this Ed Vaizey (Minister for Communication, Culture and the Creative Industries) suggested a meeting with the major UK ISPs to talk about a potential blocking of access to porn and a sign up system (so those wanting to access sexual materials online would have to opt in to gain access).

You can see from the debate linked above and media coverage the focus is presenting this proposal in terms of child protection, and as a mental health issue.

As yet no meeting has been set up and no ISPs agreed formally to any proposed blocks at source. Indeed from today’s news ISPs appear to be saying the proposal is ‘unworkable’.

This proposal is, however, likely to be politically popular – at least in some quarters. It taps into fears parents may have around sexualisation and risks to young people. It appeals to sex negative/conservative voters. It also removes responsibility from parents who may lack confidence or familiarity with the internet and be uncertain what young people might be seeing online or know how to address this. Like many discussions within the sexualisation debate (which this is falling under) it may seem intuitively a good move, yet there are numerous problems associated with this proposal.

Here are some of them

What is this proposal aiming to do?
Although the proposal is suggesting a block at source, it seems this is going to be difficult to provide in practice. It is also only focusing on online pornography, not addressing other areas of sexual content young people might be accessing, nor social networking sites where young people may also be having contact with others people (sometimes in a sexual way). This doesn’t mean these other sources should also be blocked – but it does raise the question why the government is only focusing on ‘online pornography’? What evidence is there that this poses the most significant risk to young people (compared with other media), and what evidence do we have that the best solution to tackling the problem is a block at source with an opt in approach?

Despite media coverage and political debate it is not clear what is proposed (aside from wanting to meet some ISPs), and certainly no clear explanation of why the focus should be on online pornography only or the extent to which this is a major child protection issue (greater than say, addressing poverty; housing; poorly performing schools; addressing the physical and sexual abuse of children; and improving the training funding and support for social services, schools and other youth services).

Defining ‘porn’
One of my plans during my PhD (which focused on evaluating research on pornography effects) was to create absolute definitions of ‘pornography’ and ‘erotica’ as distinct and measurable categories which could be used in research, legal and health settings. In practice I found it pretty difficult to achieve (and gave up trying).

When asked, participants would define porn as ‘dehumanising’, ‘degrading’, ‘exciting’, ‘base’ while ‘erotica’ was described as ‘arousing’, ‘mutual’, ‘equal’ or ‘tender’. In fact what people were really doing was suggesting the values they attributed to said terms. Erotica was viewed far more positively than porn.

However, when I presented the same participants with actual sexual images to talk about they couldn’t agree upon which were porn or erotica. Indeed some saw certain images as ‘erotica’ which others viewed as ‘pornographic’. Unpacking why they felt this was a fascinating part of my research, but indicated for me something that has plagued researchers and lawyers for years. Because sexual materials are usually linked to moral and/or political judgements you can end up in a situation described by Ellen Willis (1979) as “[i]n practice, attempts to sort out good erotica from bad porn inevitably come down to What turns me on is erotica; what turns you on is pornographic”

Before any blocks at source can be made there has to be some level of agreement of what ‘online porn’ is. Currently it isn’t clear what this is defined as and given the range of sexual material online it will be difficult to agree what should or should not be restricted. And who will make these decisions?

Moreover it is unclear where sex advice, art, and conversations about porn online will fall within this proposed restriction. Critics of the proposal are concerned over wider censorship issues that it raises.

What about parental control?
While in opposition the Conservative Party made much complaint about the so-called ‘nanny state’ they saw being endorsed by Labour. Frequently Conservative MPs used the mantra of ‘parent power’ to advocate not having to tackle sex education and sexual health care for young people. Ironically we now see the same party suggesting rather than parents deciding what their offspring can have access to or supervising access to the internet, this decision will be made for families by the state in collaboration with ISPs.

Parents are currently already able to limit access online. They are also able to limit what access young people have to sexual imagery from other media sources, and decide whether or not to allow a young person to play computer games or use social networking sites. Parents can also talk to young people about safety online, confidence and communication generally, and tackle wider topics around sex and relationships.

Sadly, however, many parents don’t do this. This may be down to embarrassment, time pressures, a lack of awareness of risk to young people, a lack of knowledge of about the internet, or a lack of involvement in parenting generally.

For many parents a block at source could seem appealing as it means they don’t have to set controls over what their children are accessing. They may also believe this absolves them of the task of controlling media access more generally, or having to talk about sex and relationships, or around issues of respect, assertiveness and communication.

Simply putting a block on porn access online would not prevent young people seeing imagery elsewhere. Nor would it mean they would no longer require parental support, supervision and advice.

Blocking more than ‘porn’?
One of the major concerns over this proposal is it would block more than porn. Anyone who has had the fun experience of working within organisations like the NHS (as I’ve had for many years) will recognise how intranet blocks can stop you accessing advice sites and even research papers tackling topics containing ‘naughty’ words like breasts or testicles, psychosexual problems or sex education.

A feature of blocking at source means it’s not just sexual imagery created for entertainment/arousal that is blocked, you may also find you cannot find self help, advice or educational materials.

This government proposal could mean the many young people who have questions about their gender or sexuality, are being abused or bullied, want to know about puberty, STIs, contraception or pregnancy, or have general ‘am I normal?’ worries will not be able to gain access to such information online. For many young people these questions are not always ones they can ask of teachers or parents. Parents or teachers don’t always give them the answers they need. It may be on more sensitive topics they can’t ask friends or even use internet cafes or libraries. The privacy of online advice may be the only place they can find answers. As not knowing about these issues can put young people at risk and cause mental distress it seems ironic a proposal based around safeguarding young people’s mental health could directly harm it.

Advice websites, online information forums, resources like Scarleteen that talk frankly about sex for young people could easily find themselves blocked within this proposal.

Under such a proposed scheme parents (and other adults) may also find they cannot find out information about ovarian cancer, psychosexual problems, smear tests, fertility, miscarriage, pregnancy advice, partner abuse or rape.

Young people (and adults) have a basic human right to information about their sexual lives, gender and sexuality (see here and here for two examples discussing this issue). These proposals bring up wider discussions not only around censorship, but also about open access to health information.

Do blocks and bans work?
Many adults may remember our recent history where pornography was largely illegal within the UK, or was heavily restricted in accessibility. Jokes abound about the only place to find porn – aside from under your parent’s bed – would be what you stumbled across during walks in the woods (or perhaps shared by a bigger boy at school). However this did not stop young people wanting to see, or seeking out, sexual materials.

It would be wrong to suggest availability, access and commercialisation around sexual imagery hasn’t altered. It does seem sexual imagery is more prevalent and easier to access than in the past – but not just in terms of ‘online pornography. Shifts within commercial markets have also meant more discussions about sex in the mainstream media, advertising, music and other entertainment industries – aimed at adults as well as young people.

This does not mean such materials should also be met with a blanket ban. Focusing on ways to talk about the messages shared within popular culture, from parents and peers are important. It seems peculiar this government seeks to block access to one form of sexual imagery but are less interested in addressing realistic and rights based sex and relationships education.

Generally blocking or banning one area doesn’t seem to work (research and wider issues discussed here) – people still find ways to access material, and given sexual media appears in more places than online porn it is unlikely just blocking one area will make much difference. Indeed we’re left uncertain what difference politicians expect as a result of such a block.

Moreover in discussions in this area we are not hearing about research that talks about the more complex and nuanced relationships young people have with the media (see here and here for examples). This proposal also seems to be assuming the majority of young people have some kind of private internet access at home, and this is their main source of viewing explicit material. However this may not be the case and does not guarantee young people won’t find sexual imagery in other sources. The proposal seems to be suggesting that online access to porn is causing specific harms and yet no clear evidence is being shared about what those harms may be.

It is not clear what this proposed block is for. Is it to protect young people? If so, from what? Finding out about sex? Seeing sexually violent images? Being exposed to adult content while they are still young? To prevent young people becoming sexually active? It seems to be working under an assumption that young people who see sexual images may be mentally harmed, or perhaps will become sexually active at a young age, or be coerced (or coerce others) into a sexual act they may not have previously considered. Yet within this no clear evidence is presented around whether this is being observed now and what impact this is having on young people long term.

The media’s lack of critical attention
Press coverage of this story has been largely uncritical. In that it has presented the proposals set out by the government without any real discussion of how workable they may be or the issues related to potential blocks that might put young people at risk. Moreover the media have not been particularly careful to focus on the wide range of evidence addressing media effects in this area (and particularly about young people’s use of online porn). Instead most media coverage have backed up their stories with the quote from a survey from Psychologies magazine that 1/3 of young people have seen online porn (when aged under 10).

This represents part of the problem with the media on this issue. Journalists appear to believe that online porn does cause harm to young people and therefore rather than thinking more critically about sexualised culture and youth, they accept studies that support their position.

The Psychologies survey is particularly flawed as it is presented as being representative of children across the UK, whereas it was actually only conducted in one London school.

I was concerned over the way this research was conducted on young people and when raising questions about it was sent various emails and was called by the editor about it. This included a copy of the survey questions and response rates.

From this correspondence it was difficult to identify whether parents did or didn’t know their children were completing an online survey about pornography. Questions asked were in placed muddled or confusing, and while some answers suggested young people had seen online porn, the majority of respondents had not (and nor were they in a sexual relationship). Indeed most respondents who had seen porn weren’t particularly troubled by it – seeing it as arousing or a joke. The limited sample, problematic questions, ambiguity over parental consent and young people’s ability to opt out of the research means this survey is not reliable. And yet it remains popular among both journalists and politicians as ‘proof’ of our ‘problem’ with online porn and young people in the UK.

It would be unfair to single out Psychologies magazine as they are not the only media outlet who has completed research in this area that could have been a lot more robust. Channel 4’s Sex Education Show also conducted a survey on porn as part of its second series (The Sex Education Show vs Pornography) which, despite being told that pornography was not the major issue affecting young people still made a show with this focus because the series was commissioned to have a campaigning focus similar to ‘Jamie’s School Dinners’ (as one producer informed me). Because many of the cases presented in the programme suggested accessing extreme porn was both easy and commonplace it persuaded many people this was a major campaign issue. Even people who might usually question evidence or ask to see research accepted the depiction of online porn within the programme as ‘the norm’.

Completing research on young people and sexual imagery is something that is important but has to be managed ethically, responsibly and carefully. At present while claims are made about the number of young people accessing sexual imagery and the impact this is having on them, in truth there is a lack of robust research in this area. This is mainly linked to a lack of funding to study the topic, and limits to what can be asked of young people by ethics committees.

We do have evidence around the impact of porn but not all of this is based on online porn and even when it is, is flawed by a lack of definitions about what ‘online porn’ is. Many studies are overly simplistic, lab based and feature undergraduate students. The experiences of sexualised media (not just online porn) on young people remains an under researched area and at this time it is difficult to make any firm conclusions about its impact.

Claims about how it is changing young people’s brains, behaviour and bodies sound frightening but often do not have much reliable data to back them up.

Unfortunately at present politicians continue to avoid engaging with evidence on a critical level and various lobby groups of different pro and anti porn (but largely anti porn) positions are making their views count more than independent research. As a result many claims are being made about online porn and its impact on young people but, if you try and source any evidence for said claims, it is difficult to find anything particularly reliable.

The media and politicians, rather than accepting a few flimsy studies that back up their beliefs, need to look more closely at what is happening to young people and hear from those conducting careful, respectful and ethical research in this area.

What happens now?
This is only a proposal. So at present no meeting has been set up and it may be no meeting may happen. Critics of the proposal are arguing it’s a play on the part of the conservative to faith based voters, in a similar move to actions taken in Australia (see here and here). And that it won’t go any further than a chat with ISPs (if that far). Others argue the proposal is based on well meaning, but ill informed, intentions that will continue to be focused upon as part of wider debates on sexualisation.

We have seen little critical discussion of the issue within the media outside of talking over whether the proposal is workable. Debates about the evidence in this area, the acceptance of limited studies to make policy, parallels with Australia, and the needs and rights of young people are largely absent in media coverage and in debates on blogs or twitter (which have tended to focus more on the censorship or tech angles).

Because this is a proposal there are things you can do about this issue. You can lobby your MP and ask them what their views are, and provide them with more balanced information about young people, their rights and ways in which we can empower them to negotiate a commercialised/sexualised culture. (Here’s a nice set of free resources to help them!)

We can all ask to see what evidence the government has that this specific proposal would make a demonstrable difference to the lives of young people, what that difference might be, and how it might be measured.

Critics who fear this is another form of censorship and regulation need their concerns addressing.

We need to be careful to continue discussions about young people’s rights and responsibilities without questioning of this current proposal (or ones like it) degenerating into accusations of promoting abuse or denying young people need support. (As previously experienced in debates on extreme porn).

Parents can lobby for greater responsibility and control and reject the idea of an opt in system. They can argue the existing system where parents can already block access and talk to their children about sex/relationships issues is adequate. This requires parents to step up to the plate and be more engaged in the parenting process and certainly educators, practitioners, healthcare providers, therapists and youth organisations can do more to support parents in this role.

Despite this debate being largely about them the opinions of young people are largely absent. It would be good to hear more from young people about what they think about online porn and related issues. We do not do enough to include young people’s voices, nor offer support or empowerment to them on this or other child protection issues and that is something we should rectify as these debates look set to continue.

We can focus on increasing access to relationships education both at home and school, support online services already offering independent and ethical advice to young people on sex/relationships, and ensure any education offered covers topics around delay, respect, communication, confidence and pleasure. Not just about biology, STIs, just saying no, and contraception.

We should question the government on this issue. Why are they considering this proposal? Why is it important to them? What do they think it will achieve? Who are they aiming to protect? And if they are interested in child protection what other areas such as child poverty (in particular) might they also be focusing on?

This proposal raises wider issues around health, education, access, and rights to information. So it is worth looking beyond what may be fairly empty government proposals or broader discussions on censorship and think about what this government’s understanding of young people’s rights may be – along with their awareness of ‘sexualisation’ and how to deal with it.

Certainly young people are living within a different culture where there is easier access to sexualised (and often commercialised) messages. These are not just within the domains of ‘internet porn’ but often in the pages of our daily papers, celebrity sex scandal stories, music, advertising and so on. It is important to talk about the information both young people and parents need, but deciding to begin this debate recommending a top down, censoring approach does not allow us to really explore what would help young people and where actual risks may be from.

Want to know more?
If you are interested in this issue a discussion is ongoing about it on twitter using the hashtag #ukpornban Meanwhile people like @quietriot_girl @auntysarah and @bishtraining have been actively engaged in debating this proposal on twitter. Bish has also written an excellent summary about the issues raised by the proposal here. If you see any other blogs or articles discussing this issue you think are helpful please email me (info@drpetra.co.uk) and I’ll add them to this post.

Other interesting writing on this topic from:

Pandora Blake who talks about some of the flaws in both the proposed scheme and the ‘research’ behind it. This is picked up by both @violetblue in ZDNet and @TomRoyal in ComputerActive who focus on the groups behind the proposal. Particularly the pressure group Media March. Tom’s post was written a year ago, but it seems Media March are still keen to persuade politicians to their cause. More on this organisation can be found at Liberal Conspiracy

Both Mashable and
Guardian Technology discuss whether the proposals even make any sense. (The piece by @tomscott says pretty much what I say above, just a lot more succinctly!)

@foxsoup writes at ThoughtSoup on the major limitations of The Psychologies survey (which journalists are continuing to treat as though it is a robust and leading piece of research in this area). While The Register takes a more pragmatic approach and discusses whether this proposal is really an issue and if it will ever lead to any action (they also talk about the reasons why this issue is being raised now).

In a more personal account Unaverage Girl focuses on how blocking porn could have killed her, reminding us of the wider issues about access to information for young people.

While on a lighter note @zoeimogen suggests we remember Cleanternet (a similar suggestion to this current proposal)

Meanwhile Claire Perry announced on twitter 100% of negative or abusive commentary about opt in system for internet porn is from the chaps. Women 100% positive (so far) Since then many women have taken the opportunity to tell her they disagree.

* Image used here comes from the amazing TV series ‘Father Ted’ where Fathers Ted and Dougal are required to protest against a ‘blasphemous film’ (the clip for which is here, wonderful).

Last Wednesday as part of the British Science Festival we put theory into action with a Science of Pulling evening where we heard about the evidence base around dating and relationships and applied this knowledge at the festival’s first speed dating event.

The event was sold out and fortunately all those who attended were willing to have fun, ask questions, share stories and most importantly speed date at the newly refurbished MAC.

For those of you who weren’t able to make it (and in the tradition of good science) here’s a report on what we did, what we discovered, and what we’ve still left to learn.

How do we study dating?
If you ask people how they think scientists study dating they usually respond with a joke answer – ‘they go on lots of dates!’. This isn’t true but would make research a lot more fun. Other ideas are observational research (scientists prowl around public spaces watching dates in progress), or vaguely ‘the internet’.

In fact most of our dating research is based around surveys, asking people to keep diaries, or analysing self help advice for singles. There is data from internet dating companies but this is often not easily accessible for external researchers (more on this later). We also often ask people to talk about their dating experiences through qualitative interviews – which can lead to wonderful narratives like this one:

What do we know about the ‘science’ of dating?
Social science does have a lot to teach us about relationships and dating, although it’s often not in quite the way the media or self help industry suggests. Indeed there’s only a limited amount of research specifically assessing dating behaviours. However, there is more useful information to be gleaned from anthropology, history, cultural studies and sociology around attraction, dating and mating rituals, the role of matchmakers and the concept of desire. Rather than there being a ‘science’ of dating it’s more a case of synthesising research and using particular methods to understand our relationship behaviours.

It is from these areas we learn that dating advice shifts across time and culture, that matchmakers have played different roles around connecting couples, that attraction differs cross culturally. So that in some parts of the world love at first sight and individual decisions in picking a partner are seen as ‘natural’, while in others the idea of an arranged marriage that fits within a wider family structure and where love or companionship may build over time is viewed as the norm. (Interestingly you can see both models tested out here).

What we have learned from social research on dating is helpful – not least because it often contradicts what single people are anxious about. Westerners can expect to spend 1/3 to 1/2 of their life single or looking for a relationship (see data from here and discussed more here). The average age for heterosexual marriage (in UK) is 34 for men and 29 for women (this report also highlights how many people are single for larger parts of their life than in the past). If you try internet dating you’ve a 1:10 chance of getting a date and going out with them more than once a month if use internet dating. You’re also equally likely to end up in a happy long term relationship regardless of whether it started as a one night stand or emerged through a period of dating.

This kind of data is very helpful when talking to people who are single as very often they feel stigmatised for ‘being alone’, worry they won’t ever meet someone, or are under pressure from friends or family members to ‘find someone’. Knowing it’s actually pretty normal to be single or dating, that marriage is happening at a later age than in the past and that it’s possible to ‘settle down’ at any age can be useful ammunition when faced with pressure to couple up. Moreover learning that many relationship rules we absorb are culturally constructed (for example that you shouldn’t sleep with someone on a first date) can liberate people, enabling them to realise they can shape a dating pathway to suit their needs. Unlike much self help advice on dating this research doesn’t tell people there’s a way they ought to behave, instead it sets out there’s a range of behaviours when it comes to dating, relationships and for singles.

Does ‘the one’ exist?
Telling people about dating behaviour is only part of tackling this topic however. Most people have their own questions about dating and science. And the one I’m most commonly asked is ‘does ‘the one’ exist?’. The answer is statistically, no. Given how many people there will be in your town, region, country or the world there will be hundreds or thousands of people who potentially could be a potentially suitable ‘match’ for you. The concept of ‘one’ person is very much tied within romantic ideals. While we know we’re attracted to someone very quickly, knowing if they’re ‘right’ within a long term relationship is often only discovered once a relationship is firmly established. At which point it’s pretty easy to look back retrospectively and describe someone as ‘the one’ or say you always knew they were right for you.

Indeed searching for ‘the one’ or a ‘perfect partner’ may not be a useful approach in dating. It can result in you being so anxious about whether someone fits a particular set of predetermined criteria you’ve created you fail to spot if you’re enjoying being with them in the present.

What about dating websites – they’ve got loads of data surely?
It’s true dating websites do have lots of information about how couples meet, connect and possibly stay together. The data websites collect varies depending on their business model. Some go for psychometric methods of dating, others for more qualitative approaches, others a mix of these (and each site will claim their approach is ‘better’ and more likely to get you the perfect partner). Some charge for ‘enhanced services’ and it seems that paying for dating sites does increase your chance of meeting someone and going on a date – most likely because you expect a return after a financial outlay.

Sites like OK Cupid have particularly made a promotional feature over the data they collect on clients with OK Trends Dating Research. While Chemistry.com employs scientist Helen Fisher to produce their profiling procedures and dating analytics. The use of psychologists, social scientists and mathematicians within dating sites is standard for both the practical aspects of matching and the promotional angle of seeming more ‘scientific’ (and therefore more likely to get you a date).

Dating sites undoubtedly contain a rich source of data on our modern relationship lives but unfortunately for social research they are usually closed to external researchers. Because they operate on a business model their analytics are used to promote their products and compete with other similar sites. Making it very difficult to access data, compare different websites, or analyse independently.

This has raised some ethical concerns among relationships researchers who feel it data should be made more accessible, and do not wish to have to be tied into a brand within a commercial contract in order to access dating information. Indeed some psychologists associated with such sites have begun speaking out against them for this reason (and the fact they may not be as effective as they claim). For example psychologist Mark Thompson (formerly of Match.com) recently claimed the sites ought to come with a ‘results are not typical’ disclaimer to indicate the chance of meeting, dating and forming a relationship with someone you meet via a website is unusual. [It’s worth noting Thompson has his own dating advice manual to promote so there could be a slight conflict of interest in his criticism of dating sites, although I happen to agree with many of the conclusions he draws].

Despite the limits to online dating there is no reason to dismiss it so long as one approaches it realistically. Indeed it can be used alongside other means of dating, and has certainly undergone a major cultural reappraisal in the past decade. Shifting from a furtive activity most were ashamed of to a standard approach to meeting a partner for many.

As a note of caution those who go for Internet dating seem to have an increased risk of getting an STI (particularly in the case of gay men). This has been explained as partly due to the ease of picking someone up, or equally that developing a relationship online can lead to people feeling already connected and that they know someone well so they do not make the connection condoms are needed. The take home message is however we are dating it’s always a good idea to have condoms with you and keep them at home so you are prepared if you do get lucky.

‘Scientific’ dating advice – do any of these work?
We often see dating advice given in self help books and relationships features in magazines, but do any of the following tips have any basis in science?

“Be yourself”
This message is often presented as a ‘dating fact’ yet is hard to track down with any origins in research. Indeed it only works if you feel confident and like yourself – or like the person you are when you are attempting to meet and date other people. A more accurate message may be ‘be comfortable with yourself before you begin dating’. It’s worth being very sceptical of dating advice that simply tells you to ‘be yourself’ as it often is not based on any sound science and is overly simplistic, telling you what to do but not how to do it. (For fun you could run an n of 1 trial and go on dates as you and on dates as an alter ego and see who has the most success)

Self affirmations
Repeating messages about how wonderful you are is often recommended to boost self confidence and assumed to work to get you onto the dating scene as a confident person. However scientists disagree over whether (and how) this approach works. Critics of self affirmation, see them as frequently used by people with low self esteem who are trapped by their lack of confidence and cannot believe the affirmations they are repeating. Others argue they can work if used realistically and as a means of boosting confidence – or if requested as genuine feedback from friends or family.

Internet dating – can work but not if you expect to find ‘the one’ (see above). It can help you build confidence, practice talking to people and get used to meeting, chatting and being rejected.

Getting used to being let down – based on behavioural method of ‘exposure therapy’ or ‘flooding’ approach the idea you expose yourself to rejection is often suggested by self help gurus (although whether they actually know what their advice is based on remains questionable). In theory it can work if done appropriately. If you put a lot of emphasis on being accepted and are fearful if one person rejects you that it’s a sign you’re unlovable then facing rejection over and over can prove to you it’s something you can cope with. The theory is you can then get out and meet more people because the fear of rejection diminishes. Unfortunately if you are struggling with low self esteem and don’t tackle that aspect of your life it’s likely this dramatic approach could do more harm. So it may be worth doing your dating homework and even seeking professional support before going out and dating if being rejected is something you cannot currently cope with.

Widen your friendship group – this one does seem to make sense. The more people you mix and socialise with the more chances you have to meet and get to know different people which in turn can build your confidence and allow you to enjoy socialising. It won’t work if your entire motivation is based on finding ‘the one’ and if you only widen your circle each time you feel rejected or a date doesn’t work. [Although not specifically about this topic Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler’s book ‘Connected: the surprising power of social networks' has some fascinating insights into how we interact in real life and online]

Confidence/assertiveness courses – these can work, particularly if you are struggling with self esteem issues. However what we don’t know is whether it’s the action of attending a course, setting aside time to do it and paying for a course that makes a difference – or the contents of the course itself. We also don’t know whether simply reading a self help book could be enough. More research is needed to identify how confidence courses compare with other forms of dating advice.

Dating agencies/singles nights/speed dating – do seem to work but (as mentioned above) is unclear exactly how since independent evaluation and long term follow up pretty much impossible with commercial enterprises.

Check/change your appearance – the idea that you get more people interested in you if you have a ‘makeover’ or revamp your wardrobe is pretty core to a lot of advice for would be daters. Intuitively it makes sense that checking your appearance, personal hygiene and looking like you’ve made an effort when meeting other people is important. However, this can often be misinterpreted by daters (particularly those on a low income) that you have to have a budget to buy a new wardrobe before you can even enter the dating scene. Certainly my experience of doing dating classes with mental health service users indicates the fear of not ‘looking right’ or not having enough money to buy a new wardrobe (or pay for dates) is a major barrier in considering dating others.

The take home message here is a lot of advice is given about how to date, presented as ‘fact’ but often with little or no basis in science. It’s particularly telling how much dating information is presented as being for everyone and yet tends to really be speaking for younger, affluent, heterosexual and able bodied audiences. This is evidently a major barrier for many people seeking dating advice who don’t fit into this narrow category. [It’s also a clue that much advice presented as ‘factual’ is nothing but since it excludes more people than it talks about]

A way around all this comes in the form of the self help industry, which is an area that relies heavily on the language of science, but research indicates is often not scientific at all.

Debunking the Self Help Industry
The self help industry has a lot to say about dating and relationships. Indeed there are numerous books, franchises, workshops and even television series that all proclaim to have the key to our dating problems. They utilise concepts like Neuro Linguistic Programming (which doesn’t have a proven evidence base), evolutionary theory, Social Psychology, behaviourism, and body language, all of which are described as ‘factual’ or ‘scientific’. Tellingly self help books rarely reference the science they’re supposedly based on and in most cases ‘evidence’ appears to be drawn from women’s magazine features, google searches, people’s opinions and possible the abstracts of research articles. If research is consulted it appears not to be synthesised or critically appraised, but picked to stack up a particular angle.

The format for much self help in dating is for an ‘expert’ to tell you their strategy to find love. Written from a first person perspective it’s usually a tale of adversity, discussing how they struggled with singledom until they hit upon their particular dating strategy. Their audience is informed they too can find love/get sex if they follow their guidance – and pay for their instruction (this is a commercial enterprise after all).

The majority of said guides are heteronormative and highly gendered. So women are instructed to play hard to get, to avoid contact and to make a man chase them. Men are encouraged to take on the role of alpha male, to be predatory and to pursue women. They focus more on reading signals, body language and guesswork rather than straightforward communication advice. So they don’t work for people who can’t perform or read ‘body language’ (see p.10 of Inside magazine for review of standard dating tips had to be rethought when working with men who are neuro diverse and/or wheelchair users).

Guides for women and (straight) couples have been found to be highly problematic with guides shown to maintain gender inequality and reduce communication while blaming people for being in abusive relationships if they don’t follow dating advice. Leading some academics (myself included) to call them ‘self harm’ books. Meanwhile the ‘pick up artist’ movement (aimed at heterosexual men) is growing and yet has not been evaluated nor shown to work effectively. The same applies for the growing number of ‘dating coaches’ who advise on relationships. Some charging thousands of pounds for therapies or approaches that have not been proven effective and are often based on unsound science (such as the identification of ‘dating toxins’).

So is all dating advice wrong then? Putting theory to practice
Analysis of self help advice on dating allows us to see problems within the approach, but with the absence of independent analysis of how dating coaches and pick up artists work – and a long term follow up of their clients – it’s impossible to conclude all approaches are ineffective. Indeed it’s in the interests of individuals and organisations offering dating advice/matchmaking services to be reviewed to indicate if they are providing a useful service. (Although of course with this comes the risk they may be found ineffective which is why probably most commercial operators avoid this).

In the absence of such research you can utilise research skills by asking critical questions of people offering dating advice about their qualifications, the methods they use, the science they cite. You can chase up the arguments they make through the literature (using www.scholar.google.com) and compare this with other research. You can critically appraise books or other products.

There are practitioners who are trying to carry out critical and evidence based dating and relationships advice programmes. For example Jean Smith is a cultural anthropologist who applies research on dating to her approach on encouraging communication and boosting confidence, while Dr Gary Wood combines Social Psychology and Coaching with evidence based self help. What’s interesting about these practitioners is they’re open to questioning, share the science behind their advice, and are critical thinkers around theories relating to relationships advice.

How you can use science methods to sort your own dating situation
Part of the problem with this area is the suggestion there are ‘dating experts’ or coaches who are the only ones with an answer to your relationship situation. This is disempowering and disingenuous. Learning about one person’s experience is not necessarily going to be useful to you – even if they promise you following their method is guaranteed. One great advantage of using research evidence is you hear from lots of people and can apply their experiences. So ask friends and family what their dating experiences have been. Experiment with dating websites, different methods of dating, your profile picture or how you consider presenting yourself. Get feedback from others about the impression you’d like to give.

Seek professional help if you feel you need it but remember there are many confidence courses run via health services and local community groups which are low cost or even free. Read up on body language, attraction, dating patterns, chat up lines or self help books but do so with a critical lens. Ask yourself do the ideas presented apply to everyone universally? Who might they exclude? Could there be other ways of looking at dating issues? What might happen if you did the opposite of the advice suggested? Is the advice presented dependent on you paying money or seeking additional products or services? If you were offering advice to a friend in your situation what might you counsel?

What has science left to learn about dating?
A whole lot really. There’s the minefield of dubious dating advice and coaching still requiring appraisal. While using social networks (particularly Facebook) to arrange hook ups is established research on this topic is still in its infancy. We lack longitudinal studies to track relationships over their particular lifespans and have very little information on dating for diverse communities (particularly for bi and trans people, those interested in polyamory or other alternative relationships and those seeking relationships who are neuro diverse or have other disabilities or learning difficulties). In particular we don’t have information on core dating issues like how to attract a partner, how to get from dating to a relationship, and what happens if you get stuck in the dreaded ‘friendship zone’ or keep ending up with fuck buddies when you want long term romance.

Why this area is under studied?
There’s no doubt people are interested in relationships and research on dating. My experience of running workshops, science events, dating classes or discussion groups for healthcare staff, educators or journalists indicates there’s no shortage of questions people want answering. Unfortunately we can tell them more about what we don’t know and the problems with dating than what is actually going on in relationships and how to enjoy positive dating experiences.

The reason for this is pretty simple. Sex research is traditionally the ‘Cinderella Subject’ of the social and health sciences. Sneered at by other scientists it’s often put down as not proper research or unworthy of further enquiry. Academics often dismiss it as ‘journalism’ (and they don’t mean that kindly). Unsurprisingly sex researchers have steered away from areas such as dating or attraction, fearful of rebuke from colleagues or often the media (for an example of this in practice witness the sneering response to the recent research on booty calls).

Given the problems we have with relationships – from violence, to STIs, to unplanned pregnancy and relationship breakdown there is understandable pressure to focus on the more worrying issues that need investigation. The influence of pharmaceutical funding towards psychosexual research has also influenced a shift towards more lucrative but largely sex negative approaches. Large scale surveys of human relationships have been carried out in different countries although most with a focus on sexual attitudes and behaviour and far less attention paid to getting a date and forming a relationship – or how to end relationships.

Independent funding for research on dating and relationships is more difficult to obtain, which explains why studies in this area tend to be commercially funded but largely restricted to dating organisations, or are based on small scale samples of unrepresentative college students.

While we remain in a position of academia, the media and to an extent the public seeing dating research as unscientific, unworthy or frivolous it is unlikely quality investigations will be funded to answer our questions about our dating habits. And unfortunately the space where evidence needs to be will continue to be filled by bad science and general bunkum. This in turn reinforces the idea this is not a reputable area to be associated with.

None of which is good news for science or the public generally. Indeed a focus on what works within dating and positive relationships advice could in turn reduce some of the problems we see in coercion, abuse, communication problems, relationship inequalities, STIs and unhappy relationships.

So where next?
Our Science of Pulling event was an experiment. We wanted to see if people would be interested in learning about the science of dating along with trying a speed dating event. It seemed both were popular although we will be following up the delegates of our activity to find out what they enjoyed, and where they felt we could have done better. We hope to expand on this event with more science, evaluations and tests in the future. I’ll keep you posted about what happens next and following requests from people at the Science of Pulling event I’ll be writing future posts on pick up artistry, debunking relationships advice for women, dating advice for mental health service users, and avoiding the friendship zone.

I’ll leave you with my summary of the event. Looking forward to the next one!

Last Friday drug company Boehringer Ingelheim presented evidence to the FDA’s advisory panel on their drug Flibanserin. This product, designed to tackle Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) in women had already been given plenty of media coverage focusing on ‘Pink Viagra’, and raised concern from scientists, healthcare staff, therapists and activists. You can see a summary of the case up until the hearing here. Meanwhile Neuroskeptic has an excellent discussion on the problems with the drug while the New View Campaign (who gave evidence at the hearing) have produced a number of really helpful fact sheets to help you understand the research behind Flibanserin.

Why did the FDA Advisory Panel say ‘no’?
The FDA rejected the application to approve Flibanserin for several reasons. They were concerned about the materials used in trials to measure sexual response, the trial outcomes (which suggested Flibanserin did not perform much better than placebo) analysis of the data, and overall management of the trial. The FDA did not, however, dismiss HSDD generally and indicated it was a problematic condition they recognised.

Those who have raised concerns about Boehringer Ingelheim’s marketing of Flibanserin, it’s attempts to increase focus on HDSS within medical education and the quality of the research on the drug were relieved to hear the FDA’s decision. However, critics of the concept of medicalising women’s sexuality were concerned the FDA accepted the diagnosis of HSDD which is seen by many as problematic.

Boehringer Ingelheim have since issued a press release detailing how they will continue to research HSDD and continue their trials on Flibanserin. The result from the FDA, although fair, comes as very bad news to the company who have already invested heavily in the drug in the hope of making millions from sales if they can get it approved.

The FDA Advisory Panel’s decision will be formalised in the coming months. What seems very obvious is concerns raised about the drug have been heard but only in part and certainly there is no sign Boehringer Ingelheim will discontinue trials of Flibanserin at this stage.

How about the press coverage of this case?
The media have handled this case better than previous drugs aimed at treating HSDD. Although in the run up to the hearing there has been a lot of coverage for ‘Pink Viagra’ there has been some more accurate and critical reporting. Certainly since the FDA decision has been released there has been some particularly excellent coverage such as this report for CNN by Jennifer Terry.

There are, however, lessons to be learned from the media’s approach to this case. Journalists in the main did not investigate the claims made by scientists such as myself about the marketing of Flibanserin, the approaches by Boeringher Ingelheim took to medical education, or the quality of the research. Indeed many journalists said they couldn’t find the research – and that’s because Boeringher Ingelheim did not publish it in any peer reviewed journal. This alone should have rung major warning bells for journalists but generally didn’t. So we need to be aware that while there is now some critical coverage about the medicalisation of sexuality there is also a long way to go to get journalists to ask basic questions about drug company funded research in this area. It’s important the media gets better at this because, aside from getting better stories to cover, the focus on finding a pill to fix female sex problems won’t go away.

What should we be aware of now?
Boeringher Ingelheim have indicated they will continue with their trials of Flibanserin, they may well reapply to the FDA with new trial data or may apply to the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) for approval.

Debates about the diagnosis of HSDD (and sexual problems) will also continue as the DSM V is developed.

Journalists, healthcare providers, therapists and the public need to be aware of the problems with the research that led to the FDA’s decision and further scrutiny needs to be applied to the company and the drug in the coming months. It would certainly be helpful if healthcare staff challenged the medical education for HSDD awareness funded by the company and the media applied a critical lens. We will also need to be alert to other drug companies also working on similar products.

We also need to be careful to avoid getting into debates about whether a pill is needed or whether women have sexual problems, as has been the case in the current coverage of Flibanserin. This has missed the wider aspects of marketing, poor trial design and other research questions that really needed to be talked about. Instead we’re often left with an argument that in questioning medicalisation of female sexual functioning we’re somehow denying women have problems.

So as this latest chapter in the medicalisation story closes, let’s be very clear. Women do experience sexual problems that cause them distress, discomfort and dissatisfaction. These are often linked to other factors and do need attention, but they are not a clinical condition or a dysfunction, and they do not require a new and separate diagnosis. A summary of common reasons women experience problems with sex can be found here.

Helping women involves highlighting the wide range of reasons they may experience problems with sex, the different solutions to those problems and to focus on educating women and their partners about the wide range of sexual experiences they may enjoy. It also means continually challenging anything that may restrict and pathologise female sexual desire.

The FDA decision is good news for science, healthcare, activism and for women’s sexual lives. However the push to find a medical solution to female sex problems is not going away and I will continue to question, challenge and update you on what’s happening. Although I hope you’ll also be doing this too!

What made me start blogging?
Five years ago I sat down on a dark November evening and wrote my very first blog entry. It was a bit ranty. I’d been misquoted by a journalist and was anxious it would get me into hot water (again).

I didn’t have a game plan when I started blogging. My partner (who’s way more tech savvy than I am) thought it might be a good way of sharing ideas I was struggling to convey via the mainstream media (I was writing several advice columns in magazines at the time, as well as hosting a regular radio phone in for BBC Five Live).

I approached the blog as a form of therapy. I wanted to work with the media but was getting a lot of stick for it professionally (I’m an academic as well as a sex educator). Having a place to blog would allow me to correct any errors in reporting and disclose bad journalism. I even hoped it it might even let me bring evidence into sex/relationships reporting – and show it was possible to do so without things becoming worthy or dull.

One thing I felt sure of early on was this blog was something I enjoyed writing, but I wanted to be useful, and most importantly to deliver things about sex, relationships, science and journalism that readers wanted to know about. Which is why the blog has always been shaped by things you’ve asked for.

Readers make this blog (or “why don’t you have comments?”)
Last summer I asked regular readers to give me feedback on this blog and got some very helpful responses. It’s taken me a while to implement some of these, but I have now upgraded the blog to include the things you asked for – photos and images to liven things up, a better blogroll, summaries at the start of most entries so you can decide if you wish to read on. And categories. Something I didn’ think about five years ago and really wish I had. I’m now in the process of going back through all the 800+ posts and adding categories to them, which I hope will make this blog a lot more useful to you.

The one thing this blog doesn’t have is comments. I did start off having them, but encountered several problems. As I was offering advice within columns and websites elsewhere I hadn’t planned to also answer problems on this blog. However, not all readers understood this so I frequently found requests for advice on anything from infidelity to penis size included in discussions about blogs relating to research design or journalism ethics. This sometimes led to some readers mocking those asking for advice, which of course is completely unacceptable for me as an educator.

Moreover, I’ve always blogged openly – never behind a pseudonym. I work within the community on sex/relationships projects and educational activities (in the UK and internationally). This meant I was very accessible, and felt vulnerable when those whose comments were deleted or not posted, made very personal threats.

I found moderating the comments was time consuming and took me away from other educational activities which I felt were more worthwhile. So I decided to remove the comments option. When I’ve asked readers if they want them back the general response is ‘no’. That’s mostly from people who feel the blog’s a safe space to get information which they can use as they wish elsewhere.

Of course I strongly welcome respectful email feedback and am always happy to add information or correct errors within the blog. You’re always welcome to start discussions on other forums or your own blog about issues raised here. For now I’ve no plans to reinstate comments, but since I’m occasionally asked why I don’t have them I thought this was a good a time as any to clarify the issue.

Achievements so far
Having read back to 2004 I’m pretty pleased with this little blog. It’s nice to see it’s grown into a resource that people trust and enjoy reading.

The things I’m most proud to have written are activist blogs that highlight medicalisation, exploitation and abuse. These include the debates around female sexual dysfunction, questioning high street stores stocking ‘herbal’ erectile dysfunction drugs (not approved by the FDA), exposing the Advanced Medical Institute’s aggressive sales technique for men affected by premature ejaculation, or highlighting misleading media coverage of the availability of Viagra on the high street.

I initially planned to use the blog to set right bad sex coverage in the media (or occasions where I’d been misquoted). This has been a theme within the blog although I think it’s become more focused over time (although not necessarily less ranty than my very first post). I can’t say whether it’s made much difference to journalists, and I hope it’s not put people off working with the media. I’ve found it helpful to describe poor practice – not least because the general trend for ‘experts’ working with the media is to act grateful for any exposure, not publicly discuss poor experiences or document bad practice. Gems for me include an expose of GMTV sending a cab to my home at 6am on the off chance I might wake up and come to their studio. Or how a TV show wanted to discuss female sexual confidence without mentioning genitals or masturbation. Or some rather nasty experiences with snotty TV producers just after I’d had a baby. Not to mention the hilarious case of the science journalist who really took a dislike to me (and colleagues). Oh, and let’s not forget the journalist who wanted me to recommend them an ‘unethical psychologist’ .

Of course, the past five years have not been spent simply slagging off journalists. No. Sometimes I’ve also turned my gaze to bad science too. Where it’s been depressing to report on a carnival of studies which seem to set us back sexually. Studies complaining women orgasm too easily, or there’s a ‘clitorocentric conspiracy’ against the vagina, how sex with a partner is 400% better than any other kind of sex you might have, and you can tell whether a woman has vaginal orgasms by her walk.

Let’s not forget my other bugbears. The fake formula and shonky surveys and my goodness this blog’s a treasure chest for those. And if I’m not being irritated by that, then there’s always the problem of psychologists talking about celebrities, or the general ethical issues raised by Big Brother for me to moan about.

Of course, it’s not all been bad news. Anyone would think this blog is only about gripes and grumbles. I’ve always wanted to showcase a variety of sexual experiences within this blog and not just think about sex just for a Western audience. I’ll continue to discuss issues relating to sex and seniors; teenagers; disability; transsexuality; lesbian, gay and bi issues; open relationships; BDSM; sexual health; contraception; prostitution; pornography; reproductive health; pleasure; desire; asexuality; dating; psychosexual problems; showcasing great sex pioneers; talking about safer sex; and as many other topics as I can find for you to read about.

Where to next?
Unlike five years ago, I’m now thinking strategically about this blog – who it’s for, what it does, and seeking to find ways to assess any impact it may have. I’ve noticed over the years it sometimes deviates into areas that interest me, but may not appeal to all readers. So my aim is to ensure the focus of the blog remains around the core things you’re most interested in when you visit – sex, science, and media.

I’m currently involved in overhauling the site so in the new year I hope to have far more open access materials available for you – relationships and sex guides, information about sexual and reproductive health, more advice and links to sources of help, along with practical information for journalists, healthcare professionals, parents, teens and teachers.

I’ve been asked by many readers for more information about how to become an agony aunt/media sex educator, so I’ll be blogging about this – as well as how to write a sex blog – in the not too distant future.

I’ll also be making use of twitter soon, as sometimes I blog about issues people need to hear about fast (particularly developments in science/health), so hopefully that will make messages more accessible. I’ll let you know once I’ve sorted it.

Obviously I’d like to hear what you’d like to see. How would you like this blog to develop over the next year (or five!). Are there any particular things you’d like to see more/less of? Topics you want covered? People you’d like me to interview for the ‘quickies’ section of the blog? Campaigns you want covered? Let me know what your vision is for this blog.

So, happy fifth birthday blog. Big birthday kisses to those of you who’ve been with me from the beginning. For those of you who’ve only recently found this blog I hope you like it enough to stick around for the next half decade. I notice one of my favourite other blogs Mind Hacks has also celebrated it’s fifth birthday too, so congratulations to them.

Time to blow out the candles and make a wish. Of course, I can’t tell you what it is. You’ll have to come back in five years to find out if it’s come true.

A brief history of formulas as marketing tools

Over the past few years we’ve got used to seeing formula used as a promotional tool by PR companies. Sometimes these are simply presented as just a formula, other times they are fronted by an academic or other ‘expert’. This has presented problems for universities where staff members (or people claiming an affiliation with a particular institution) use the institution’s name as part of the formula promotion.

Critics of the ‘fake formula’ approach have argued they are often not based on sound science, make little or no mathematical sense, and usually seem to be created by the PR company for an ‘expert’ to front (although this is often disputed by those promoting formulas). There’s also the concern that such formula appearing in the media may devalue robust academic research and reduce public trust in science.

Those academics who do front such activity (and there’s a core group who specialise in this practice) argue they’re merely promoting science and engaging with the public. A view that might be easier to believe if the formula stood up to scientific scrutiny.

Until now, debates on this issue have focused on academics fronting formula, but recently PR companies have taken a new tack and have used undergraduate students to promote their products.

This raises a lot of issues for universities and students and we need to think carefully about how it ought to be addressed.

The new PR approach – the case of the ‘Perfect Night Out’
The case in question began with a competition for ‘Britain’s Best Job’. Drinks Company Global Brands wanted to promote VK Vodka Kick (primarily, it seems, at Fresher’s events). The job advert stated “Wanted! Talented maths or science student or graduate to spend the summer literally discovering the formula of fun. Must be over 18 years of age like bars, clubs and pubs and be prepared to have a fantastic time in the quest for knowledge, science and the pursuit of the perfect night out.” The press release also stated “But there is a serious side to this and the applicant will be expected to deliver a full thesis at the end of the trip that must stack up to academic scrutiny by Britain’s best brains”.

PR Company Brahm worked with Global Brands for this activity. 50 students applied, and one Biology undergraduate student from Leeds University was picked for the task – to identify the formula for a ‘Perfect Night Out’ (PNO) based on undertaking a survey, then creating the formula.

The report created by the student can be found here (as text document) and here (as pdf). (This was described by the PR company as the ‘full thesis ‘ that ‘Britain’s best brains’ would be scrutinising).

I will leave you to critically evaluate the student’s report. Further discussions of the formula comes courtesy of Steve at Irregular Shed. Meanwhile Tristan O’Dwyer at Cargo Cult Science tackles the wider issues about this formula in relation to science communication.

I’m going to focus on key methodological and ethical issues that the research invites, and the wider implications of such research for students and universities.

Perfect Night Out – Survey and Semi Structured Interviews
The survey can be found here. It mostly seems to be asking general questions about a night out. PR company Brahm confirmed the survey was designed by the student. While the questions may seem fairly standard (although not particularly robust) there is the wider issue of how this survey was conducted. The student’s report (linked above) states “an online questionnaire was completed by 2000 people (male and female) and had a 100% response rate”.

It is not made clear how this survey was delivered online. Who hosted the survey? How long was it available for? How were participants recruited? I’m also curious about the 100% response rate which is pretty much unheard of in genuine social research. I can only assume there’s been a misunderstanding in understanding completion and response rates.

Contradiction exists between the report and the promotional activity. The student’s report stresses data were collected by an online survey. But the Global Brand’s website show the survey being conducted inside clubs as part of promotional activity – for example at Chester University and Manchester Metropolitan University.

The student’s report does state they conducted additional semi structured interviews, but it’s not clear how many were undertaken and whether they based activity shown in the clips above (which indicate a survey being used, not semi structured interviews). It is therefore unclear whether the student knows the difference between the two methods, or whether reporting on two approaches is confused in their write up.

The report does not make it clear how the semi structured interviews and survey worked together. While it is perfectly fine to use a variety of methods within research (sometimes called ‘triangulation’) it is standard practice to demonstrate how those methods link together. In this report we’re told the semi structured interviews were carried out post survey, but not shown whether the survey answers informed the semi structured interviews or how both of these informed the subsequent formula.

Ethical questions about the research
What is more worrying is the study was conducted in part within clubs and social events. This raises key issues of researcher safety and wellbeing, ethics and consent. Those who may be drunk are not in a strong position to consent to research (and may pose potential risks to researchers or other participants). Indeed if you wish to study people who are drinking alcohol or may be drunk it requires particular sensitivity and ethical approval. [Leeds University confirmed this study was conducted independently of their institution and therefore had no ethical approval].

A press release for the activity states “The official VKendology tour will start on Saturday 19th September, where the Research Team will hit UK Student’s Union’s during Fresher’s Week and students will be in with a chance to win their Perfect Night Out.”

This indicates participants were directly incentivised to complete the survey, something that is frowned upon in reputable social research (and also requires careful management in market research). The mention of the ‘research team’ also suggests aspects of this work were not simply down to one student, a survey and subsequent formula. I’m not sure whether the ‘research team’ are actual researchers or glamorous guys and gals dressed up to deliver a survey (or both). I would question the former, as presumably anyone who did know anything about social (or market) research would know this activity wasn’t the most robust or ethical.

I would like to think this report and the research described represents something casual and fun, not the best quality work the student could offer – nor representative of research writing skills she may have been taught on her degree programme. There are key details missing and as a result the write up does not appear particularly professional or scientific (see critique and links above).

I can understand that this activity would appear very exciting. (In the past I have undertaken PR-based research and know how beguiling such an activity may appear – at first). In this case the student was promised loads of fun nights out, the promised opportunity to do a bit of science, the chance to get some media coverage – and most importantly for a student it also is a paid post.

My concern is that in undertaking such activity, what may look like a fun opportunity may result in numerous problems for students and Universities.

What issues does involving students in PR activity raise?
Firstly, we have the question of student wellbeing. Usually students who are conducting research will require ethics approval and tutor support for studies they’re undertaking. There are three main reasons for this:
- to protect the participants researchers are interacting with and ensuring they are not harmed by the research process
- to ensure the research undertaken is appropriate and of a high quality
- and to protect the wellbeing and safety of the researcher.

It’s easy to say in this case it was basically a promotional activity and nobody was likely to be harmed. The questions seemed innocuous and unlikely to upset anyone. However, if a participant had disliked the research, or someone had threatened or harassed the researcher, who would be responsible? The point of having ethical controls over research is to ensure people can’t be harmed, and that researchers don’t play god and decide just because they don’t think their research is problematic then it won’t be bothersome to the public.

University staff are often aware of students who don’t let them know about research they are undertaking, often trying ambitious projects without notifying tutors or gaining ethics approval for their work. This can make students very vulnerable.

If PR companies intend to continue to use this method of getting students to front their campaigns, who is going to look after student or participant welfare? (Particularly if the ‘research’ is of a more personal or invasive nature). PR companies are keen to use Universities to add clout to campaigns, but where do Universities’ responsibilities lie if the student technically undertakes work without informing them and any negligent or non negligent harms arise?

No doubt PR companies and the commercial organisations who hire students may care little about the actual quality of research and be in no position to check on key questions about consent, ethics and personal safety. That is why both researchers and participants could be at risk if such activity becomes standard practice.

We know researchers can and do make mistakes. In fact it’s part of the steep learning curve of being a researcher in the natural, health or social sciences. Usually such problems around misunderstanding methods or poor report writing can be overcome with tutor feedback and practice. And remain relatively private.

However, if you undertake PR activity like this you run the risk of any errors you make being picked up on in public. Already bloggers have begun critiquing this particular study for example here and here.

This raises further issues about student wellbeing. After all, if you undertake a piece of work that’s promoted as fun and exciting, but the backlash is to label you a poor scientist, then that’s got to hurt (it’s partly why I’ve not named the student in this blog and am focusing more on the wider issues this case raises as opposed to a personal attack).

But if you undertake research outside of your institution who will be there to support you when things might go wrong? And what issues might this raise for your future career if, when you apply for a job, you’re known not as someone who advanced public understanding of science, but someone who undertook a piece of substandard PR research?

There’s also the wider issue of student responsibility to their fellow students and academic institution. As well as thinking about your own possible career pathway, you also need to consider the impact of your work on the reputation of others who might be associated with you. You may not appreciate that presenting ‘science’ or ‘research’ in a particular way may actually make other genuine researchers lives a lot less safe, and recruitment a lot more difficult. Not to mention reducing public trust in science.

Sadly, not many universities teach this within methods training (and it’s fair to say many academics don’t always reflect in this way). You can see why an enthusiastic student being wooed by a PR company is probably not going to think twice about what the end result of their work might be for either their own reputation, or for those associated with their subject area.

I emailed Leeds University’s PR office to ask them if the student in question was studying with them (she is), whether she had applied for ethics approval for the study (no, since the research was not conducted as part of the institution), and whether she undertook the research in her capacity as a Leeds student (the PR office said no it was unrelated to Leeds, although they had put journalists in touch with the student so they could write their own stories/take photographs of her).

This is a key issue for me. We can’t really expect students to be aware of wider ethical and methodological issues that underpin research. That’s our job to teach them. We can’t blame students for wanting to earn cash and seeing PR activity as a fun way to do this. We can’t also blame students for being unaware of the background to the whole ‘fake formula’ issue (after all many academics don’t take it that seriously).

Universities and PR companies need to be responsible here. PR companies cannot use institutional names as part of promotional activity without ensuring that institution is aware of what they are doing and approves it. [Not that I expect PR companies to take any notice of this]. Universities also can’t play the ‘research wasn’t conducted as part of our university so it’s nothing to do with us’ line. If students are getting involved in so-called research activity and are allowed to be linked to it with mentions of the university in the press or passing on the student’s contact details to journalists, then the work is partly linked to the institution.

Universities need to be aware that the problem of PR activity in misusing scientific approaches has now been extended to students. They need to consider what this means for their students wellbeing and institutional reputation. Some institutions may not care, perhaps they’ll just be glad of some publicity. However there is the wider duty of care issue, and if any student is undertaking research-related work during their time studying with you then you have a responsibility to ensure you are aware of what they are doing and can ensure they work safely.

If PR companies are going to use students for promotional events then the media will report this and draw attention to your institution. Do universities want to be associated with studies that imply their teaching of research and ethics plus their pastoral care is substandard?

The problem is we have no clear guidelines on this issue. It is something that is new and many institutions won’t have had to think about it.

However, we’ve seen the uptake of using academics for fake surveys and formula has grown and it is likely using students (particularly to promote products to other students) could follow the same path.

The issue we must now face is what our approach should be on this issue. Let students do as they wish, so long as we can argue it’s not done in our name/on our time? Or take a stand and make it clear we do not endorse student activity in this way?

After all, if students really are keen to learn more about research methods, want to undertake studies, write reports, or bring science to the public there are numerous ways that can be done. As academics maybe we should make these opportunities more obvious (and focus on making our teaching of these topics more engaging).

Sure, they may not pay as much as a PR activity like this one. But in the long term they might be a whole lot better for a student’s reputation and personal development.