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.

You may remember my previous post on the revisions being made to the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Over the past few years the existing DSM (IV) has been revised and the public invited to consult on its content. The DSM covers a range of mental health issues, which other bloggers and activists have been reflecting on. For the purpose of this blog I’ve focused on how the DSM will be approaching psychosexual issues – although it is worth noting concerns have been raised about how gender will also be approached (particularly around transgender issues).

The provisional DSM-V is now available for public comment, you have until June 15 to read, critique, question and add your views. Information about how to do this can be found via the DSM-V website .

To help us reflect on the psychosexual aspects of the provisional DSM-V I’ll draw your attention to the thoughts of the indomitable Leonore Tiefer who has shared these thoughts:

7) When you write to the DSM-V, don’t go on and on (the way I have here!!), but pick one point and make a strong argument. Maybe 200 words. Pick a dysfunction that you feel strongly about E.g., are you glad to see the disappearance of vaginismus and dyspareunia in favor of Genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder? Do you think the changes in the orgasm category encourage hypervigilance? Do you think combining arousal and desire makes sense? Do you like the new modifiers/qualifiers or do you think they are window-dressing? Have they left anything out you wish were there (e.g., Male romance disorder)? etc.”

Tiefer makes some important points here about how psychosexual disorder is being characterised within the proposed DSM-V but you may also have your own thoughts about the way sex/relationships/intimacy is being constructed/pathologised when you read through the DSM-V draft.

Do please add your thoughts, send in your observations and particularly record any concerns that you have. It’s important we all try and do this if we are worried about medicalisation, commercialisation and sex. Many of the discussions on this topic have focused on female sexual functioning/medicalisation, but it’s important to note the DSM-V is also focusing on how male sexual problems are viewed, so focus your critiques here also. This is particularly important given how often male psychosexual issues and the manipulation of male anxieties around premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction are ignored.

If you’re a journalist you may also want to use the pointers above to think critically about the provisional DSM-V, or more widely about how we conceptualise sex, gender and relationships.

Remember you’ve until June 15 to do this so get lobbying, write about this on blogs, share on twitter and where possible within the mainstream media and healthcare settings.

There’s been a substantial amount of media attention today for a survey by BBC Radio One’s Newsbeat and the Portman Clinic. Suggesting porn ‘use’ among men is endemic and in many cases problematic.

It’s led to a slew of scary headlines including:

Men view two hours of porn a week – The Sun
Young men worried about the amount of porn they watch – Mirror
Men ‘worried’ about heavy online porn use

What did this survey cover?
This survey heard from 1057 18-24 year old women and men (no information available about how many males and females made up the final sample). They completed an online survey via TNS Market Research Company between March 18-21 2011. It asked about their porn consumption and attitudes to porn and relationships.

What were the main findings?
8/10 men and 1/3 women had looked at porn online
The most popular place to access porn was free websites
The ‘average’ man in study (no figures given for this) looks at porn for 2 hours a week, the average woman around 15 minutes
4% of male respondents ‘used’ adult sites for more than 10 hours per week – these were reported as having a ‘problematic and potentially compulsive’ condition
¼ men said they were worried about the amount of time spent looking at porn
¼ men said they were worried about the content of porn
61% of respondents (gender unspecified) said porn could make you less interested in sex with a partner

Should we be concerned about these findings? Not until we’ve looked more closely at this survey.

Problems with the survey
It is not clear exactly how participants were recruited/heard about this research. Market Research Company TNS administered the online survey but it’s unclear who responded, the characteristics of those who didn’t respond, and how representative of the wider population respondents were. The survey was only run over a three day period which is not unusual in commercial online surveys, but doesn’t always allow for generating reliable data – particularly about sensitive issues.

The full list of survey questions have not been made publicly available. Without these you can’t work out what people were asked. Whether questions were leading, potentially distressing, counteracted/contradicted each other, were confusing or didn’t match the final data reported.

I’ve spoken to nine journalists from different broadcast outlets about this survey over the past two days. All have called me for comment about the survey. All have taken it at face value. None had seen the original survey questions. None had asked to see them either.

This isn’t something unique to this Radio One survey however. Most commercial and academic surveys don’t make their original survey questions available when press releasing their work. It remains a problem as you cannot make any judgements about how useful a survey is without seeing what people were asked. This survey may have been amazingly well designed, carefully piloted, developed and run. Or it may not have been so stringently managed. The problem is without making both the methodology behind the research and the survey questions public it is impossible to know whether to trust in the data or not.

One question was reported in the Radio One report of the study. It asked ‘How have you ever looked at porn?’ It then gave respondents the choice of magazines, DVDs, TV, Free and Pay websites, mobile phones and file sharing.

The problem with questions phrased like this is they may look sensible at first glance, but actually are highly problematic and potentially meaningless.

If we take ‘ever looked at’ first, what does that mean? Ever looked at as in sat down, watched a lot and masturbated yourself stupid? Or ever looked at as in was shown by some mates for a laugh, or ever looked at as in accidentally found when looking for something else online or on TV?

‘Ever looked at’ seems to be taken here to mean regular porn use, or at least some porn use. Whereas it doesn’t tell us anything about the context people are viewing porn – or the amount. I may have ‘ever looked at’ porn once ten years ago and never again. But this survey would put me in the same category as someone whose ‘ever looked at’ definition included looking at porn several times a week over months or years.

The lack of clarity in the question also doesn’t explain whether people are looking at porn alone, with a partner, when single or a relationship. Nor address whether their porn ‘use’ is consistent over time or varies depending on their relationship status or other life events.

Also what does ‘porn’ mean in this survey question? Is it an erotic scene in a movie shown on mainstream TV? Tuning into Babestation? Reading Nuts, Zoo or Cosmo? Visiting YouPorn? This survey asked respondents to state the format in which they access porn, but they are not asked to explain what they mean by porn. That means we’ve no idea what it is they’re looking at.

This is a classic problem in poor survey design. That terms used aren’t operationalised. Meaning neither the respondents or the researchers actually have any idea what it is they’re asking about, or what the data means when it comes back.

‘Heavy’ porn use was described in this survey report as 10 hours or more. But it is not clear how this was decided upon as a measure of ‘heavy’ use.

¼ male participants stated they were worried about the amount of time they spent looking at porn. But since we don’t know what they were asked we can’t tell if this was based on a leading question, or whether they would have said they were worried if not prompted. It doesn’t tell us what exactly they were worried about (i.e. did they think they were spending too much time in general online, or had a specific concern re porn use).

¼ respondents also said they were worried about what they were looking at, but we can’t tell from this whether this meant they’d already stopped looking at the problematic porn. ‘Worried’ by content doesn’t tell us whether they had issues over the wellbeing of actors in porn; a person’s sexual prowess in comparison to what they were viewing; or whether their gender, sexuality or relationship was being challenged by the things that they found a turn on. In short we may know a fair number of participants expressed concern, but we’ve no real clue about the source or magnitude of that worry.

Usually with media surveys of this kind the standard approach is back of the envelope question design, based around a predetermined angle that’s being picked to generate publicity. Radio One aren’t unique in this approach (although they do have form for running similarly questionable sex surveys in the past). It is likely this current survey is more about generating publicity for Radio One and Newsbeat than really addressing issues about our relationship with sexually explicit materials. It seems the main purpose of the survey was both to inform a report for Newsbeat and draw attention to said programme.

Unusually this research has teamed a media outlet (Radio One) with clinicians from an NHS trust. Specifically practitioners from the Portman and Tavistock NHS Trust who apparently designed the survey.

This raises more complex issues than just the usual shoddy media approach to surveys. If NHS staff are involved in research they ought to be grounding this within a critical appraisal of the published evidence in this area. They also ought to ensure they employ research tools correctly (in this case completing a quality survey, piloting and reviewing it – or better still basing it on an existing measure). And if they’re doing the work on NHS staff or patients or in their role as an NHS clinician then it ought to be subject to ethical approval.

Not all health research is subject to peer review, but usually if a survey is going to be made public – either through publication in a journal or through a report launch or similar – then you would expect a thorough peer review of the work before it hit the headlines. Peer review here could have helped spot potential problems in both survey design and delivery, and ensure the relevant background literature (of which there is a lot in this area) had been carefully consulted. It would also have guarded against making claims that go beyond the data.

This may have happened in the case of this survey but that information has not been made transparent. If that is the case it is a pity since it doesn’t put the research in context nor show it in a good light. If these checks and balances hadn’t been put in place again transparency might help us assess whether this work is reliable or not.

Given the example of the questions asked of participants along with conclusions drawn it does raise serious questions about the quality of the survey. Along with the ethics of using such a tool to draw clinical conclusions – as has happened around the diagnosing of those with ‘heavy’ porn use.

Journalists I spoke with about this survey felt the inclusion of medics in the survey meant it was more trustworthy. One said to me that because a doctor had designed the survey it had to be good. As someone who’s been teaching medics internationally how to evaluated, design and use surveys in health research for the past fifteen years; I can confidently report most are pretty dreadful at this craft. Indeed, as with any other social research skill it takes time to learn how to create a quality questionnaire. Without disrespecting the skills of the medics in this survey, you cannot conclude because a doctor helped put the survey together that it’s automatically accurate.

There are in fact many people actively studying pornography – some of whom can be found here. All of whom Radio One could have teamed up with had they genuinely wanted to explore our relationship with porn. This IS an important area that is worth studying and is currently hampered by a lot of poorly conducted academic studies, mostly based on undergraduate student samples. So we need to have more quality work conducted and there are plenty of people Radio One should have involved. The fact that some of the leading names in this area weren’t even mentioned or consulted points to either a lack of awareness of the subject area. Or deliberately avoiding to engage with those who may not be fitting with a predetermined porn/shock angle. Radio One should have been clearer about why did they pick this particular team from the Portman to collaborate with? Were there any agendas there? Certainly given the worries over medicalising our sexual behaviour one might argue it could be in a clinic’s interest to set up a figure of ¼ men being anxious about porn use. After all if you’ve identified a problem you are in a very good position to offer a cure.

Finally there’s no real context about why Radio One thought this was a major area worth studying. Given it’s a youth channel it could have easily picked up on numerous other social issues – poverty, employment, education, university fees. Or if they wanted to be sex campaigners to perhaps look at the issue around how sex education is haphazardly (and often poorly) delivered in schools. Are all young people really worried about online porn, or are there other things directly affecting their lives that may be more relevant (but perhaps less publicity generating?).

Despite all the percentages shown in this report and warnings about ‘heavy’ porn use there seems to be no take home message for people about what this means. If you suspect, after reading about/hearing Newsbeat’s survey, that you have a ‘problem’ – what should you do? If you have questions about porn, where could you ask them? In this case the audience are given some dire warnings but no referrals to sources of help or advice. Which again makes the overall purpose of this research unclear.

I may be being very disingenuous about the researchers from the Portman. But it worries me that their relationship with this research has not been fully declared. No doubt they acted with good intentions, and obviously drew upon their experiences as psychotherapists (one author has written about internet porn and psychoanalysis). But it is concerning that journalists covering this story didn’t think to ask more about who was doing the research, and what their motivations might have been.

Which brings us on to…

Problems with media coverage
I’ve already mentioned how the journalists I’ve talked to hadn’t seen the survey nor saw this as important. What was more worrying was the unquestioning pickup of this story. Journalists weren’t asking what was asked in the survey, of whom and why. What they were doing was accepting the figures from the survey – particularly the amount of time men were spending looking at porn, and how they were worried about porn use.

They were then using this as a jumping off point for other discussions. For example to talk about porn addiction, how pornography use could change men’s brains, what women felt about men who used porn. As a psychologist they wanted me to come and talk about neurological changes from porn use, and as a female psychologist they wanted an insight ‘as a woman’ to talk about how all women felt about their men’s porn use (more on this later).

What journalists didn’t want, was me talking about this survey from the perspective of someone who teaches survey design. They didn’t want the survey critiqued because their editor/producer had already fixed it as their angle. Indeed they’d already accepted it as ‘true’. Most worryingly those from the BBC seemed least keen to critique the research. One researcher calling from BBC Radio 5Live Drive Time confirmed they didn’t want to question the survey because it was done by Radio One – and as such they couldn’t challenge the output from a sister station.

It really does beg the question what is going on with the BBC College of Journalism that such problematic research can be put together to begin with – and how it can continually be endorsed even when flaws are being pointed out. (Sadly I’ve tried previously to help the BBC College of Journalism to think more critically about sex research but have got nowhere. I have alerted them to the current Radio One survey and uncritical coverage on twitter today. Let’s hope they decide to take this further) .

This case has been a useful example in seeing how journalists lack the understanding to critique research, but also the practical reasons they’re unable to do so. Moreover it gives us an ….

Insight into journalists views of sex/pornography
If you look at the press coverage of this survey (alongside reflecting on the discussions I had with journalists today) some very definite patterns of how journalists/the media see sex/relationships and porn.

The view from medialand is as follows:

Who looks at porn? Well, it’s men. They are all straight and the porn they are seeking out is also heterosexual. Women are constructed as having problems/concerns about pornography – but only in relation to their (male) partner’s use of it. ‘Pornography’ as a term is used to mean one genre from one format (the internet). Looking at mainstream porn in moderation is okay, but if you do it often then it becomes a problem. Quite often described in the medicalised language of addiction.

Men are naturally sexual and so can’t help liking porn, but if they do look at it they’ll become abusers or change their neurological makeup or sexual behaviour. Women don’t like porn, those who do are presented as being in a minority, probably deluded, or liking romantic/couples-based/equality-based/feminist porn. Porn within relationships is only permissible if it’s to spice things up (or encourage reluctant wives to get in the mood). LGBT folk aren’t even thought about.

Alongside this is a widespread acceptance that porn influences sexual behaviour (i.e. shaving pubic hair, trying anal sex, different positions etc). There is no insight from journalists or often the public that these issues all have – and continue to be – widely covered in mainstream media, not just porn.

If you’re starting from this as your standard position it makes thinking critically about pornography difficult. It means journalists will be tasked (or choose) to find evidence to stack up this world view. It also means it’s risky to find other ways to think about/explore porn for fear of being seen to endorse it.

Why is coverage of porn research so poor?
Coverage within the media tends to be poor because journalists are always on tight deadlines, lack skills to evaluate both research and critically reflect on their own assumptions about ‘normal’ sex. Finding experts who can talk clearly on the topic or searching through evidence is often difficult. And not helped when the standard way to approach this issue is in a false debate format where you have to find a pro and anti porn person in the mistaken belief there are clearly defined ‘sides’ in this area.

The pressure from editors to fit particular (and usually sex negative) agendas leaves little autonomy for journalists to tackle problems they may spot with research. Freelancers in particular may struggle as if they don’t write what the editor wants they won’t get a commission. Staffers may struggle with bullying if they don’t deliver an angle to deadline.

Journalists are not impartial. Many lack basic sex education or have particularly sex negative views. It is threatening for them to have this questioned – especially when on deadline. And if something seems intuitive then it won’t be questioned. Indeed if you try you’re more likely to be seen as a crank. Or unhelpful.

Part of our problem is there is a lack of funding to really investigate porn use in sensitive and open ways. Where quality research is undertaken in this area it’s often more nuanced and doesn’t lend itself well to scary headlines and battle of the sexes style debates. This means quick and dirty studies get completed and hit the headlines far more readily, and inform public opinion more often. That can be dangerous and misleading, particularly when behaviours that may not be a problem become medicalised.

What can be done about this issue?
Offer better training for journalists to understand surveys and other social methods. You might find these guidance papers I’ve written on the topic helpful:
Administering, analysing and reporting your questionnaire
Selecting, designing and developing your questionnaire

Reaching beyond the white middle classes

Make editors and broadcasters more accountable – challenging them when they run poor research or give bad science uncritical coverage.

Require media outlets that create surveys need to be completely transparent about the work they’ve done (as we equally should with academic researchers).

Encourage the public to engage in discussing and critiquing sex research from media outlets via social media. Today we saw two things happen. The media lost the news, while the public via social media (particularly on twitter) got to the bottom of a problematic story and had a much more interesting time doing it than if they’d relied on old media coverage alone.

Now we’re into January I wanted to share some plans and developments for this blog. I’ve been blogging for six and a bit years, as a hobby in my spare time. It’s a space where I’ve been able to reflect on issues that bug me (like experiences in dealing with the media), highlight resources in sexual and reproductive health, or address more serious subjects (e.g. the medicalisation of sexual functioning). I’ve very much enjoyed doing this, particularly the freedom to talk about different issues as they’ve arisen, and tackling topics people have asked me to address.

However, I’ve recently felt a sense of disconnectedness between the blog and my working life. At work I lecture postgraduate students in International Primary Health Care – focusing on critically appraising evidence, putting that into practice, and reflecting on working effectively with communities and colleagues. Alongside this I supervise and carry out research on sex and relationships health, and apply this work by teaching continuing medical/professional education students core issues around understanding psychosexual and relationships topics and communicating with confidence with patients on sexual health issues.

That work has always informed what I write on the blog, and how I get to write it, but most of my writing hasn’t really been about my teaching or research.

I think the time has come to change that.

In recent years my research has moved from focusing on assessing psychosexual problems, through to evaluating how sexual and reproductive healthcare services are modernising (e.g. here, here and here). I’ve continued to be interested in how the media talks about sex and relationships (particularly around advice giving and public health messaging) (see here, here and here).

That work has led me to focus more on issues relating to sex and relationships when people are trying to conceive, during pregnancy, and when they have children. This interest has been sparked by feedback from participants and professionals during research; observations on what is available to parents to be and parents regarding advice on intimacy; and assessing how these topics are dealt with via the media and self help market. Completing systematic reviews on the academic literature has also informed my growing understanding of this area. Including topics such as psychosexual functioning following birth; relationship quality during pregnancy and parenthood; the impact on relationships following miscarriage, stillbirth or cot death; or how breast/bottle feeding impacts upon intimacy.

I’ve been amazed how in some areas there is a lot of really useful, critical and applied research on sex/relationships and pregnancy/parenting, but relatively little adoption of said evidence into practice in healthcare, education, therapy or media. For example there’s some fantastic writing unpacking some of the myths and stereotypes about breastfeeding and sex, and yet this seems to be largely ignored by midwives, health visitors and journalists.

There are also cases where there is nowhere near enough research completed, mirrored by relatively little discussion of the topic in healthcare or general advice for women and their partners. For example intimacy after miscarriage; or discussions on sex and relationships issues for people with disabilities, who are LGBT, single parents, or teen parents.

I’ll be focusing on these areas for the foreseeable future. Which brings me back to the blog – and where you can help.

I’ll be writing here about issues arising from my research, reading and teaching. For example covering topics like addressing relationships issues following miscarriage or stillbirth, intimacy and IVF, and breast/bottle feeding and the impact on libido. I’ll be focusing on reviewing evidence around core areas of sex/relationships and parenthood, and tackling problems identified in reproductive/maternal health care on these issues. Since many groups of people are excluded from research and writing around parenthood and intimate relationships, I’ll be seeking advice and input from people about their experiences of relationships and trying to conceive; pregnancy, surrogacy or adoption; or in parenthood.

Alongside this I’ve taken on board feedback I’ve had via email and from people I’ve met at public events discussing sex and science. In particular I’ve been asked to provide more practical guides around finding research papers, tools to aid critical appraisal of research, and information on how to apply sex research to our lives. Other requests include sharing ideas about how we can bring sex research to the public in innovative ways and will be reflecting on some opportunities for doing this over the coming months.

I’ve also been asked to clarify often used terms like ‘evidence based’, ‘sex positive’, or ‘behaviour change’. These phrases are often discussed in unproblematic ways – as if we all know and agree upon what they mean. I’ll be unpacking some of those core topics and thinking more widely about what they can mean (positively and negatively) within research and practice. If there are any poor or misleading media stories on sex and relationships I’ll do my best to debunk them.

I’ll continue to share information about interesting research papers, forthcoming conferences and events, and topical issues relating to sexual and reproductive health via twitter (@drpetra). I’ll also be sharing links to writing and projects by other inspiring and interesting people tackling diverse topics around sex, relationships, gender, sexuality and politics (sometimes all at once).

Your feedback via email (info@drpetra.co.uk) is always welcome. As I embark on this new role for the blog do keep me posted about what you like about it, where it needs to be improved and anything you think I need to be tackling. As much as time and work allows I’ll do my best to accommodate.

Wishing you all the best for the coming year and looking forward to sharing the next stage of my blogging journey with you. I hope you’ll find it useful and interesting.

Yesterday evening (05_01_11) Channel 4 News featured a story about the contraceptive implant (Implanon). They revealed a number of NHS trusts have paid £200,000 in clinical negligence compensation to women who’ve become pregnant or experienced injury when using the contraceptive implant. 584 women have reported unplanned pregnancies, and 1067 complained about scarring or other injuries to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency. At this time it is not clear how Channel 4 heard about this story. It could be through their own research, from a tip off within the MHRA, or direct contact from a law firm.

This story was hotly adopted by the rest of the media, particularly broadcast media and newspapers, with coverage like:

Evening Standard – Ban this contraceptive implant pleads mother scarred for life
Telegraph – Woman whose marriage collapsed after Implanon implant ‘failed’ among those suing NHS
Guardian – Hundreds become pregnant despite contraceptive implant Implanon

The majority of these reports were characterised by a lack of context for the numbers given, and no reproductive health care experts/medics to put this data into context. I’ll focus on why this is a problem shortly, but first, here’s what you need to know about the contraceptive implants.

Contraceptive Implants (Implanon)
Implants are small, flexible tubes around 4cms long that contain the hormone progestogen and are injected under the skin in a woman’s upper arm. They are a form of a hormonal contraception, so they release hormones over a period of time (3 years) and fall into the category of Longer Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC). (Implants used before 2010 go under the brand name Implanon, those fitted after this date are called Nexaplanon. The latter has reportedly been designed to be easier to insert).

This kind of contraceptive is suitable for women who find it difficult to remember to take the pill every day, and who are certain they don’t want to be pregnant for a set amount of time. It’s around 99% effective if fitted correctly and used according to instructions. But, as like any form of contraception it isn’t 100% effective and because it only prevents pregnancy, condoms should also be considered to protect against STIs.

It has a number of side effects including periods stopping (which some women see as an advantage), irregular bleeding, acne, sore breasts, mood changes, and reduced sex drive.

Its use is recommended only after considering other contraceptive options and a thorough discussion and health assessment with your GP/Family Practitioner or Reproductive Health Clinic.

You can find out more about the contraceptive implant here, here, and here. (A statement from the MHRA on implanon can be found here).

Why is the media coverage problematic?
Press coverage on this story has been largely context free. That has meant we’ve been told how many women have experienced problems but not within any timeframe; how many problems were reported as compared to women not experiencing difficulties; how the implant compares with failure rates of other kinds of contraception; how many of the pregnancies were present before the woman went on Implanon and how many occurred due to incorrect fitting of the implant?

Without this information the majority of media coverage suggests that the Contraceptive Implant is not an effective form of contraception, is always painful to fit and remove, will cause disfigurement when removed, and result in an unplanned pregnancy where women will be forced to have a termination.

Because this information is misleading, and doesn’t come with additional reproductive health details to put it into context, it fails to make clear the positive aspects of implants for women who choose this method, nor that the majority of women who select the implant do not experience problems.

The coverage is also irresponsible because of the timing of the story. The post-Christmas and New Year period is always busy within General Practice and Reproductive Health Clinics. Not least because of people who have had unprotected sex over the holiday season will be anxious about pregnancy and seeking advice about their options.

The difficulty in criticising the story as it stands, is that you can find yourself easily cast in an unsympathetic role. In healthcare terms proportionally 584 cases compared with the number of people using contraceptive implants (1.4 million according to the Department of Health) is pretty low. That is of no comfort to those who experienced an unplanned pregnancy when they thought they were protected by a contraceptive. So in critiquing the media coverage here we need to be mindful it is based on difficult and upsetting cases that will have had widespread impact on people’s lives.

It is negligent of the media to not report this within any appropriate context. The result is scaremongering and is not helpful to anyone. Including those who have had bad experiences with the contraceptive implant.

What does the data show?
The contraceptive implant was introduced in the UK in 1999. It has been used by around 1.4 million women over the past 11 years. This figure comes from the Department of Health although is still unclear if that means women in UK or Europe. Some practitioners feel the 1.4 million figure is high, even over an 11 year period. Part of the problem with this story is the uncritical media coverage is throwing numbers around like there’s no tomorrow, but health agencies have also been somewhat unclear on exact figures and where they’ve sourced them from. This leaves us with the less than ideal situation of matching unclear data from media coverage with unclarified data from the Department of Health/NHS. NHS advice is the 584 pregnancies reported seem to be mostly related to incorrect insertion of the device rather than the device itself being faulty. It is not clear how many of these pregnancies had begun before the device was fitted. Currently around 800,000 women in the UK are believed to be using this method of contraception. 14 women have been compensated for either getting pregnant while using the implant or being injured through incorrect insertion or removal (source info here). While the figures from media and health sources remain unclear what does seem to be fair to claim is the number of women who use the contraceptive implant without difficulty far outweighs those who have experienced problems.

Long Acting Reversible Contraception has been recommended for use by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) (details here). This has resulted in reproductive health practitioners recommending the use of the contraceptive implant and other LARC options (e.g. the IUD) to women seeking contraception. The guidance states women being offered LARC should have this as part of ‘women centred care’:
“This guideline offers the best-practice advice on the provision of information and care for women who are considering or using LARC. Treatment and care should take into account women’s individual needs and preferences. Women who are considering using or who use LARC should have the opportunity to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. If a woman does not have the capacity to make decisions, healthcare professionals should follow the Department of Health guidelines, Reference guide to consent for examination or treatment (2001) (available from www.dh.gov.uk).
Good communication between healthcare professionals and women is essential. It should be supported by the provision of evidence-based information offered in a form that is tailored to the needs of the individual woman. The treatment, care and information provided should be culturally appropriate and in a form that is accessible to people who have additional needs, such as people with physical, cognitive or sensory disabilities, and people who do not speak or read English.”(p.5)

Whether this was always completely followed in a drive to encourage women to opt for LARC is not clear. Careful assessment of this should be made within the context of health care practitioners working hard to encourage their clients to have a range of contraception choices. It should not detract from wider discussions about uptake and overall safety, but is relevant if health practitioners or patients felt pressured towards LARC as opposed to other forms of contraception. This is a highly sensitive area to address and given the media’s poor record of talking about the issue so far is a worry that critical discussions around the promotion and uptake of LARC could be further used to devalue health professionals or scaremonger around contraception choices.

What could the result of this coverage be?
Perhaps unsurprisingly the media coverage has led to a lot of anxiety among the public. Women are worried about whether they were right to choose this method of contraception – and whether they might still find themselves pregnant or will face painful removal procedures resulting in permanent scarring.

Anecdotal reports from reproductive health clinics and GPs, as well as reproductive health charities suggest the number of calls from concerned women and their partners have risen dramatically today. We will have to see longer term what could also be the result of this coverage but it is not unreasonable to assume it could lead to women using the implant wanting it removed. Other women may be put off selecting this method, seeing it as ineffective and unsafe. It is reminiscent of the 1990s when media scares over the contraceptive pill led to widescale rejection of this method (and subsequent unplanned pregnancies).

Was the media wrong to cover this story?
No, they weren’t wrong. This is an interesting story. However it’s not exactly ‘news’ (problems with the contraceptive implant and legal actions have been noted for some years). It didn’t need to have been reported right now, particularly during a time when health services are under pressure. It should have been reported within a clear context to allow people to understand there have been problems with the contraceptive implant, but it is a method of contraception that suits many women, is effective and widely used.

What to do if you are worried?
If you are already using the Contraceptive Implant and are not experiencing any problems you probably don’t need to worry. However if this coverage has concerned you then you can speak to your GP, Reproductive Health Clinic or call the FPA on 0845 122 8690.

Remember this form of contraception is more than 99% effective and for the majority of women who opt to use it they experience no problems and are happy with it as their contraceptive choice.

If you’re using the Contraceptive Implant and are experiencing side effects or think you may be pregnant see your GP or Reproductive Health Clinic as soon as you can. Make your situation clear when you call so they can prioritise you for an appointment.

If you can feel your implant below the skin near where it was inserted it will continue to work effectively (but again do ask for a second opinion if you are worried). If you cannot feel your implant or are in any way worried it isn’t working then either avoid sex or use condoms until you have seen your GP or Reproductive Health Clinic.

It goes without saying that you should not try and remove the implant yourself. This has to be done by a professional and only if you are experiencing problems.

If you are thinking about using the implant but are now worried to do so, talk to your GP or Reproductive Health Clinic staff who can discuss your contraception choices and see which suits you best.

If you are not using the implant but still have anxieties about your contraception choices then do talk to a health professional about your concerns.

What health professionals can do
In the first instance you may need to recheck and advise women fitted with the contraceptive implant. It’s worth remembering the reasons why a contraceptive implant may fail and increase a risk of an unplanned pregnancy:
- Unrecognised non-insertion
- Unrecognised pre-existing pregnancy, or pregnancy risk, at the time of fitting
- Concomitant use of interacting medications
- Use beyond its 3 year lifespan.
If you are unsure about your skills in fitting implants or need retraining or support your local PCT or Sexual Health Service Provider should run courses. Book a place now if you feel underconfident or stressed by this story breaking.

You may find this story has increased your workload at a busy time so you may not be feeling inclined to tackle this story. However if you are able to do the following it could be very useful:
- Provide easily accessible information to your patients about the contraceptive implant
- Post resource information (such as the FPA details) around your clinic. A great resource has been created for you by @bishtraining (click here to download)
- Ask patients you know are using the implant or are considering using it if they have any concerns they need you to address
- Challenge poor or misleading media coverage if you are able
- Offer interviews with your local print and broadcast media to explain about the contraceptive implant and provide reassurance
- Request the DH/NHS who are circulating data about the use of contraceptive implants clarify the data (how long has it been collected for, where from, how much of an estimate is it) to help you put any questions your clients have in their proper context

What journalists can do
Much of this media coverage has been poor but there is still time for science/health journalists to challenge what has already been written and put a wider context on the story. Channel 4, after breaking this story, have now included more information on the Implant, but as others have noted this may be too little too late. All media covering this story in a simplistic and scaremongering way must bear responsibility of the repercussions on women’s reproductive health. It would be ironic if those papers gratuitously reporting on the NHS facing lawsuits over failed contraceptives could themselves be looking at similar lawsuits if they scare women enough to avoid contraceptive use and contribute to an unplanned pregnancy.

If you are in a position to rectify the poor coverage or explain more about the contraceptive implant that would be very helpful. This story, as with others on contraception, indicate journalists often have very basic understanding of contraception choices and how reproductive health services operate. If you know you’re not confident to cover stories of this time approach organisations like Brook or the FPA who can give you further information and advice.

Immediate tasks requiring attention from journalists are to:
- check the data that’s been talked about. Both from the MHRA and Department of Health. Source where the figures come from and put into specific context the number of problems women have experienced with the overall use of the contraceptive implant
- clarify the complaints made. How many of these were down to incorrect fitting of the device, faulty implants, pregnancy before the implant was fitted or injury from the implant or its removal (at present this information is not clear)
- try and track the source of this story. How did Channel 4 hear about it. In particular focus on whether this was brought to their attention by any law firms or a source within the MHRA.
- talk to the manufacturer of Implanon and identify from them their reports of problems/malfunctions/complaints recieved. So far most press coverage has focused only on MHRA and DH data (without clarifying those figures much). Additional attention should be paid to the manufacturers of the contraceptive implant who should have data on the number of devices provided along with complaints recieved and any legal actions taken. (They may, of course, not share this information, but it should still be sourced).
- provide information about the implant and what women can do if they want to use it, or are concerned about it, with links to sources of help
- give balanced accounts so while you may talk about women who’ve had awful experiences with implanon talk to those who may have had no problems and found it effective
- be careful not to make claims about the contraptive implant (or any form of contraception) without carefully investigating how it works.
- Talk to health professionals working in reproductive health to find out more about how the implant works, and which women it is suitable for (or not)

What everyone can do
If you spot poor coverage complain to the editor. If you are able to post comments to online coverage or call into broadcast media discussions do share accurate information about contraceptive implants and why this story is currently so problematic. The more we make it clear to the media we won’t put up with irresponsible reporting on our health, the less likely they may be to produce poor reportage in future. Obviously if you see good coverage, ensure this is flagged up and praised (some good examples here, here, here and here). If you have a blog, are on twitter or facebook you can also share accurate information and raise awareness over the poor media coverage.

With grateful thanks to
@DeborahAzizi for alerting me to this story and @dasilva_uk @K4Health @bishtraining @SexEdUKation @EdForChoice @bohaynowell @Abortion_Rights @NoRisks @BrookCharity @michaelgrayer @Matttskimo @dianthusmed for critical reflections on the coverage, data and health implications. And to my many friends working in reproductive healthcare and general practice for providing me with medical information for this post. (Please remember I’m not a medic and this isn’t a replacement for medical advice so speak to your GP or Reproductive Health Clinic or call the FPA on 0845 122 8690 if you are worried).

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).

Today is World AIDS Day with events taking place globally around the theme of Universal Access and Human Rights. You can follow discussions about the day with links to activities and organisations involved on twitter using the hashtags #WAD2010 and #PreventionRevolution

Access is an important but often overlooked issue within this area. Getting education to help people protect themselves from HIV or making care available for people with HIV/AIDS are both still major problems being faced worldwide. Particularly in resource poor communities. Women, children, sex workers, LGBT communities may find it more difficult to reach basic educational and health services, particularly in countries with gender inequalities or where homosexuality is illegal. A lack of critical reflection on the meanings of masculinity within research and care around HIV/AIDS can often mean mens’ health needs or problems can be overlooked or only focused on in negative terms.

Aside from funding and staffing issues, access to HIV services can center around transport and roads, availability of aid, poverty, housing, and education generally (particularly literacy programmes). Not to mention problems of rape and sexual violence, domestic abuse and availability of medication.

Access isn’t just about treatment services for those living with HIV/AIDS but also around prevention and treatment programmes. Which can often be blocked by moral or political opposition or apathy. Which is why access and human rights are interlinked. People deserve the right to have accurate information to help them protect themselves from HIV or gain appropriate care and support if they are positive.

The theme of access for the coming year is an important one and hopefully will be an opportunity for health care staff, educators and researchers to focus on a broader definition of the term. Access also applies to the education, training and support of staff working in health and social care in HIV/AIDS. We still have problems with a lack of open access for many academic journals covering issues staff need to be aware of and that should be something we all press for in the next twelve months.

Easily available and high quality education programmes for staff also need to be based on the specific needs of communities, encourage capacity building and are constructivist in nature – using the lived experiences and local contexts of staff to inform their teaching. Currently much teaching, while well intentioned, is delivered in a context-free, top down and short term fashion. Illustrated here with these wonderfully reflective pieces by Matt Greenall here and here. This can result in programmes that tell people what they ought to do, but not how to achieve this – and how to amend messages if they don’t fit people’s personal or local needs. A lack of sustainability and support within programmes can also often leave communities disempowered and distrustful of research, education or health initiatives.

There can also be a problem around applying what we know. All too often funding for HIV programmes can lead to people deciding to do more research (a survey or focus group) without consulting the existing evidence base on this area which could well inform practice and save time. This is not to say there’s no place for research in HIV/AIDS. Just for practitioners to think carefully about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Critical reflection on both our research and teaching in this area is essential if we wish to improve upon current care and outcomes for the communities we serve.

Health educators and researchers working in this area often struggle themselves with limitations of time, money and demands of funders and local/national politics. Not to mention barriers caused by internalising homophobic, sex negative and gender/class/tribal judgements. With a call to consider access it is important we focus more critically about the teaching we offer and how this work can have meaningful outcomes that include and work with communities.

A couple of examples of this in action can be found in the recent Distance Learning for Health conference which brought together health educators who shared examples of good practice and reflected on ways to improve their work internationally. A review of the event and access to presentations given can be found here. While Contestations provides space for practitioners, activists and educators to debate and think critically around topics related to healthcare that often are oversimplified or overlooked. And, as you can see from Matt Greenall’s posts above are crucial to reflect upon if we’re to improve our understanding of health and human rights.

Finding ways to share knowledge and educational resources can be a powerful approach to tackling HIV/AIDS, but equally importantly allows us to remember that HIV is not the only health problem the world is facing. Thinking about access to education and creative ways of providing this can also allow us to consider additional issues that are impacted upon by HIV but can also be ignored because of a focus on HIV/AIDS. Things like maternity services, mental health, disability, tackling poverty, or managing non communicable diseases, or infections such as TB or malaria.

I will share more on the blog about programmes I hear about in expanding access to education and prevention and would be keen to hear from bloggers, institutions or organisations who are finding creative ways to introduce empowering, critical and reflexive educational programmes with health care staff on HIV (and related issues).

In the meantime if you are thinking these are interesting issues but ones you cannot contribute to directly, here are 10 things you can do in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

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!

The e-journal Contestations is a cross cultural and cross disciplinary publication which tackles diverse issues around women’s health internationally. It seeks to create a platform to explore and discuss core issues around development, politics and health.

The current issue debates the statement ‘Sexual pleasure empowers women!’ and opens with an outline of core issues relating to women, development, health and empowerment in relation to sexual pleasure, written by the awesome Susie Jolly. Jolly provides a very helpful overview of sexual and reproductive health and human rights, highlighting how often well intentioned programmes to tackle women’s problems and gender inequality have either ignored the idea of pleasure, or only focused on sex negative or victim/pity models.

This opening essay is expanded upon with an interview with Hania Sholkamay who talks about her views on the concepts of sexual empowerment within a development context.

The remaining part of the issue includes short responses from key practitioners working within International Health and/or Sexual/Reproductive/Rights based programmes. Drawing on work, experience and practice from different cultural settings (and subject positions) these essays discuss and expand upon the ideas set out in Jolly’s original piece. These include essays from
Sylvia Tamale from Makerere University in Uganda
Li Yinhe from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
Sonia Correa from ABIA AIDS and Sexuality Policy Watch in Brazil
Pinar llkkacaran from Women for Women’s Rights, Turkey
Shivananda Khan director of the Naz Foundation in India
Each contributor has a different interpretation on what pleasure means and how important the concept of sexual pleasure is within the wider arena of women’s health, human rights and international development.

I was proud to be asked to join the discussion, my contribution can be found here. It hinges around my acceptance of the importance of pleasure but my anxiety over how concepts like sexual pleasure and sex positivity may be understood and applied within an international health context, given my awareness of how critical and evidence based practices within this area are often absent or overlooked. I drew upon my experience as a Social Psychologist working within International Sex and Relationships health – both as an academic teaching and supervising healthcare professionals in their postgraduate studies, and as a practitioner educating healthcare and journalism colleagues worldwide to appraise and deliver sexual health programmes. I also wrote the piece during the Clitoraid debacle that took place earlier this year – which was divisive and unpleasant but served as a chilling reminder of how good intentions around sex positivity can often fail if introduced in a top down fashion in developing country settings.

Hopefully you’ll find all the essays provocative, interesting and useful. They will be particularly helpful to you if you work within sex research, education, development and health. While they take a global view the messages within this special issue are relevant to women in many country settings – not just in the Global South.

I’d particularly encourage the sharing of this open access resource to those working internationally within sexual and reproductive health where critical thinking and considering concepts like pleasure often doesn’t get talked about – not least because people aren’t sure where to begin. These essays give a great opportunity to begin dialogue about the importance and meaning of pleasure, as well as encouraging us to review existing research to inform better practice, and to evaluate activities we’re currently involved in.

Enjoy!