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!

The latest UK Durex Sex Survey was launched this weekend, and it’s clearly pinned around topical media favourites of cheating, sexting and promiscuity. Among other things the study claims British people have sex four to five times a week, and paints a picture of UK residents where 1/3 would have sex with anyone for £1 million and 1/5 of us fantasise about our exes during sex.

Examples of the media treatment of this story include:
Third of us would have sex with anyone for £1m (and 5% just for World Cup tickets) – The Sun
Sex survey: third of Britons ‘would sleep with a stranger for £1 million’ – The Telegraph

The trouble is these findings don’t fit with the approaches or outcomes of reliable academic studies. The figure of sexual activity happening four or five times a week is massively higher than reliable studies show (around 6 times a month). While this may be an indicator of bias in the survey (and respondents trying to give impressive answers), it is problematic as it continues to equate ‘good’ sex with quantity and imply that ‘normal’ sexual behaviour is several times per week. This is a staple part of contemporary self help and media coverage on sex and makes people who’re not doing this feel inadequate.

Sex surveys conducted in independent academic research build on existing data and do not present sex in judgemental ways – so a focus on ‘promiscuity’ or ‘cheating’ as appears in the current Durex survey is a big no-no in accurate survey design. Not least because it discourages many people from answering honestly and potentially could distress participants.

The claim that 1/3 of us might sleep with a stranger for £1 million is also misleading as it asks people to say what they might do, not what they have done. The subtext of sex with a stranger in exchange for cash also taps into media prudery, so allows for coverage with a judgemental subtext. The mainstream media don’t tend to look favourably on either sex with strangers or sex for cash – and particularly despise both together.

All of which begs ethical questions about a sex survey that is designed to promote a product to encourage safer sex, but actually is suggesting sex for money or sex with strangers or thinking about someone other than your partner during intercourse is problematic.

There are limitations with the questions asked, design of the survey questions, participants included, and promotion of the survey’s outcomes; which makes it an unreliable indicator of our sexual behaviour and attitudes.

Some of the questions have been made available online (see Sun link above). Here are some of the more problematic ones:

Question 1 asks ‘How many sexual partners have you had?’ but it doesn’t give any parameters so it’s unclear if participants are being asked ever, or during past year or some other timescale. It also doesn’t define what ‘sexual’ means so some people may only include encounters that included penetrative sex, others might include experiences where oral sex was enjoyed but no penetration. From this you can’t really be sure what people are talking about. This question is used in news coverage to identify ‘promiscuous’ sexual behaviour, which does not happen in reliable sex research.

Question 3 asks the double question of ‘Where and when are you most likely to cheat on a partner?’ and gives the following breakdown:
On holiday 9.7%
Night out 12.9%
Office party 1.9%
Business trip 2.5%
If I met a hot stranger 6.2%
Do it all the time 1.7%

It says 65% would never cheat but it does not make clear how this question was phrased (so it may have been very leading and make people feel they had to answer in a socially desirable way). Strangely although this is reported as ‘where and when’ someone would cheat it actually only asks where they’re most likely to cheat, and doesn’t really capture whether this is based on people speculating where temptation might arise, or where they’ve actually cheated on a partner.

Question 4 asks ‘Could you be bought for sex and if so, for how much?’ It then lists the different price options for people to select:
No way 43.5%
A drink 3.4%
Dinner 3.1%
A pair of designer shoes 3.3%
£100 5.5%
£1000 10.8%
£25000 14.1%
£100000 14.9%
£1 million 29.7%
My mortgage paid off 13.1%
A year’s rent on my house/flat 9.1%
World cup tickets 5.4%
I’d do it for free 13.2%

You can see from the phrasing of the question that participants may well not take this seriously, but it is obviously being prepared for the media market as whatever the main choices selected this could tap into the judgemental approach the media takes towards paid for sex. PR companies often write their press releases at the same time they design their surveys, so here you can already see the ‘shocking’ finding taking shape that will slip into the press release once the data comes back.

Question 8 asks ‘Do you own or have you tried any of the following?’
Vibrator 53.2%
Pleasure-enhancing condoms 46.2%
Lubricants 67.2%
Handcuffs 38%
Sex doll 1.4%
Nipple clamps 5.3%
Whips/spanking paddles 11.7%
Visited a strip club 22.2%
Visited a sex club 7.2%
Paid for sex 5.3%
Had a sex buddy 29.6%
None of the above 7.1%
None of the above but would like to try 7.2%

Aside from being a badly worded question that is asking two questions in one, there is no breakdown of gender, age or sexuality here which might illuminate this data further. There’s no clue with the last question which of the above they want to try, and many of the positive answers regarding use of lubricant may be more indicative of respondents replying to a survey by a condom manufacturer than might be found in the general public. There’s no indication whether people responding to this question include these items as part of their sexual practices, or tried them once and won’t be bothering again. ‘Sex’ is defined here as a range of activities which many do enjoy but which do not encompass the range of sexual experiences people might share. Most of these are paid for products or activities which again favour the media’s treatment of sex, basing it around things you can buy to enhance your sex life.

Question 10 asks ‘What do you count as cheating on a partner?’
Bottom pinching 20.4%
Texting 22.6%
Snogging 75.6%
Going out for a drink 23.4%
Oral sex 71%
Penetrative sex 78.1%
We have an open relationship 4.8%

This suggests those responding had very clear views that anything other than kissing someone else is cheating. This contrasts with some of the answers given in question 8, and particularly with the response to question 4. Making the survey is a curious mix of liberal and conservative views on sex, which will influence participant responses.

In a reliable sex survey questions should not lead participants but should form a comprehensive narrative so each answer compliments the next one and the survey does not contradict itself. Each question should be clear and researchers should have an awareness of how different questions will be used individually and together in analysis.

In this current survey it seems like a range of unrelated questions with potentially sensationalist outcomes are put together in no particular order and with no real sense of what is being measured or what portrait of UK sexual behaviour is being captured.

Sadly this is a standard approach to poor survey design and is a further indicator of why such findings should not inform our sexual lives.

You can read my previous criticisms of past Durex surveys here
Concerns about the Durex Global Sex Survey
Durex Global Sex Survey – back once again with the international sex contest
Salami Slicing Sex Survey Data
Buy our sex products. Oops, sorry, I mean check out our International Sex Survey

Since this is a commercial venture and clearly not designed to truly represent our sex lives, is there any reason to get upset about it? Yes, because the Durex surveys are pretty much the main port of call to any journalist writing a sex feature. They use the data to underpin surveys with those obligatory sex statistics required by editors. This in turn influences how the public understand sex and relationships.

Durex is currently asking sex educators/researchers like me to share their ideas about sex/relationships. The company is paying £150 for an hour of a professional’s time as part of their internal product development programme. Given the potential barriers to our sex lives and our profession as educators/researchers posed by misleading promotional surveys I’d advise sexual health professionals to refuse to work with the company. That is until Durex decides to either drop their survey in its current promotional format, or agrees to revising survey so it is ethical, accurate and actually tells us something about our sex lives.

* With thanks to Ed Yong from Not Exactly Rocket Science for this clever caption for today’s blog, (in case you don’t get the joke it’s based on a previous marketing slogan for condoms ‘ribbed for her pleasure’).

The UK has just seen the launch of an anticipated Consultation into Sexualisation of Young People. The work has been widely reported and generally accepted by the media both in the UK and Internationally. Perhaps due to the sensitive topic focusing on the wellbeing of young people, it seems there has been little attention paid to the content and quality of the Consultation or how actionable its recommendations may be.

Given the Consultation may well inform policy and practice and will certainly influence educators, healthcare providers and journalists, it is important the work is carefully assessed.

If you have not already read the report in full (and my hunch is most of the media outlets covering the Consultation have not) I would recommend you do so and form your own conclusions. This is particularly worthwhile if you work within education, health or social care, or if you are a parent or teenager.

To help you do this I’ll use this blog to provide you a backplot to this Consultation, including links to previous similar investigations into Sexualisation carried out in other countries, and resources to help you evaluate the Consultation process from inception to report.

What is Sexualisation?
You might not be familiar with this term which suddenly seems to have become a buzzword. It has, in fact, been used extensively within research and education on sexual behaviour for some time, but has only recently entered into mainstream public language. It’s actually not an easy term to define, but generally refers to either making an individual or group of people seem sexual, or to encourage someone to become sexually aware. This alone isn’t problematic, but the term is usually negative as it draws attention to an individual or group being sexualised without their consent or in an inappropriate manner, or someone being made aware of sex or sexual practices at an inappropriate time.

Most commonly, then, we see this applied to children who we may view as being encouraged to act in a sexual manner or become aware of sex while still very young. Sexualisation here is constructed as potentially abusive, something that objectifies and is forced onto people, who have little or no agency to resist/understand/be aware of it.

While intuitively we may agree such sexualisation is a bad thing, particularly if it involves the potential exploitation or abuse of children, there is a problem with the term and who it applies to. It is easy to state what sexualisation might involve, but more difficult to truly define and measure (particularly in any causal way). This has been something that has caused numerous problems for those trying to research it, not least because it may be difficult to transparently research something that seems so important and emotive. It is very difficult to undertake critical and thoughtful work in this area without appearing to dismiss issues young people are facing, or be criticised for ignoring or perhaps even appearing to advocate the abuse of children.

What work already exists on this topic?
There have been several large scale investigations into Sexualisation carried out in different countries. The majority of the work has focused attention on girls as being most at risk from a sexualised culture (sometimes also referred to as a ‘pornified’ culture), although most work also draws attention to the impact on boys.

The first Consultation, launched in 2007 was conducted by the American Psychological Association by their Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. This report also included a range of materials to support parents and young people. Australia also commissioned a Consultation into the Sexualisation of Children in Contemporary Media which was released in the summer of 2008 (all documentation related to the process here). While in January 2010 the Scottish Parliament reported back on their inquiry into Sexualised Goods Aimed at Children led by researchers from the Institute of Education, London.

Outside of these large scale reports there have also been numerous pieces of research addressing either the concept of Sexualisation directly, or using the concept of Sexualisation to underpin investigations, or looking at related topics of sexual behaviour (and the use of pornography in particular) in young people.

The APA report was welcomed on its launch for picking up on an issue many teachers, parents and healthcare providers felt was important and believed was a problem. However over time the report attracted some criticism (as did its Australian counterpart) for not truly critically appraising the evidence used to support claims of Sexualisation’s existence and impact. There was also some concern that in trying to tackle problems facing young women the reports constructed them as having no understanding of the wider media or no agency to act or make decisions about their own sexual behaviours or beliefs. Critics argued the reports characterised young women as passive beings, objectified by wider culture but having little or no understanding or control over it.

The Scottish investigation, by contrast (and perhaps learning from the pitfalls encountered by its predecessors) took a different approach. It worked to identify what worried young people and parents, to see whether Sexualisation was an issue for them, and if so how that might be manifested. Given the increasing concern about commercialised sexual products for young people (for example Playboy bunny pencil cases or t shirts) they also sought to find said products to see how available/accessible they were and in what context they were sold to young people. Their findings also indicated there were issues about consumerist culture and young people’s developing sexuality.

However they also suggested that ‘Sexualisation’ is not an issue that immediately worries parents or teens, but when prompted it seems parents are far more worried about it than young people, and are often more concerned about the sexualised behaviour of other children rather than their own child. Indeed their work suggested a lot of parental anxiety over Sexualisation manifested itself in parents talking about how girls should behave and act in appropriate and modest fashions. Young people, meanwhile, seemed more aware of the media and potential sexualising influences than expected, although the authors acknowledge there are still issues about sexuality needing addressing. In short they concluded sexualisation is a complex issue that can’t be fixed with simplistic suggestions for policy change.

These reports are important as they help put the UK Consultation into context, and the Scottish investigation in particular serves as an excellent example of good practice because it:
- critically evaluated the existing reports on Sexualisation
- included a thorough search of additional evidence on sexualisation and related issues
- tested the idea of what Sexualisation might be using innovative participatory methods
- investigated what Sexualisation was, how it manifested itself and how it was interpreted and experienced by parents and young people
- did not set out with the assumption Sexualisation was prevalent, nor looked for confirmation of its existence. Instead it questioned the concept and looked to see what issues were problematic and positive for young people and their parents

I would recommend you read through all three reports before considering the UK version.

Background to the UK Consultation
The UK Consultation was launched in March 2009 by then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, psychologist Linda Papadopoulos and model Danielle Lloyd as part of a the ‘Together we can end violence against women and girls strategy’. Respondents were asked to submit evidence and several roadshows/public events were held where people could talk about their experiences of/views about Sexualisation. A survey was also launched to identify people’s views about other issues relating to violence and abuse (including prostitution, rape, domestic violence, forced marriage and Female Genital Mutilation).

Dr Linda Papadopoulos was appointed to lead the Consultation. A counselling and health psychologist with a background in dermatology and author of several self help books she was also well known to the public after appearing on television programmes like Big Brother and other regular media appearances. Being a well known figure at the head of a Consultation clearly attracts media attention and public interest and can be important to reach a wide range of respondents.

However, critics questioned the appropriateness of appointing someone to lead a Consultation evaluating how sexualised/commercialised media impacts on young people who also had their own line of beauty products (the Psy Derma range) and an established career as a consultant/spokesperson for numerous commercial companies but not a track record of actively researching the area of sexual behaviour/sexualisation and young people.

Putting those criticisms to one side, the issue at hand is the quality of the UK Consultation. From the way it was commissioned and conducted to the final report and recommendations. Any Consultation report at this level has the capacity to influence policy, practice and public opinion. So it is important we assess any report of this kind to ensure it is robust enough to have this influence.

The Sexualisation of Young People Review can be found here and tackles a number of topics relating to Sexualisation while making recommendations about what to do to address the issue in the UK.

Resources to help you evaluate these Consultation documents
Consultations are not always accessible and critically appraising them is more than simply reading them through. It is easy to look at a lengthy report that contains numerous references and recommendations and take this as a sign of a thorough and evidenced approach. However, this may not be the case, so below are a number of tools to help you evaluate all the Sexualisation reports listed above. (If you are very busy I’d suggest you simply focus on a detailed appraisal of the UK report for now, but I would still urge you to read all three preceding reports too).

Trish Greenhalgh’s How to read a paper includes this chapter Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta analysis) which can help you assess the appropriateness of the reviewed literature in the UK consultation. Her chapter Assessing the methodological quality of published papers also provides a checklist to assessing individual papers, so you may wish to track down papers listed in the references to the UK Consultation and evaluate those in terms of methodological quality and relevance to the overall report. Although this is time consuming, it is important since it is one of the key areas both the APA and Australian Consultations were criticised for not doing.

You may also find this Checklist for evaluating Consultations I’ve designed helpful. It applies to any Consultation, not just the Sexualisation report, and helps you focus your critical appraisal of the Consultation process and reporting. It also invites you to consider your own baggage in relation to a Consultation, so you don’t accept or dismiss something just because it fits or challenges your world view. Instead you should allow the quality of the work undertaken to decide (easier said than done, I know!).

There is also this guide from the UK government that covers Good practice in consultations which sets out what should happen in a public Consultation activity (scroll down to the middle of this page to find the links to the resources). You may wish to compare this with the published report or use it to inform further questions you may have about the work undertaken.

As you can see this represents a lot of work, so you can appreciate that while the media have been quick to respond to (and largely support) the Sexualisation study, the academic community will probably take a while longer as an appraisal of a Consultation is not a quick process.

You may work within healthcare or education and might like to set this as an activity for yourself or for your colleagues/students. If you are a journalist I would encourage you also to do this, even though it is time consuming, as it may help you with future stories you are writing – particularly if you intend to continue discussing the issue of Sexualisation.

I will post at a later stage my appraisal of the report, but not until I have thoroughly assessed it and followed up key issues and questions.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a classification system created by the American Psychiatric Association to enable those working in healthcare to research, diagnose and treat mental health problems. It is not without controversy with critics arguing over each iteration of the manual more and more behaviours are medicalised and the DSM is tainted by the influence of drug companies with a vested interest in creating disorders in order to provide treatments. Supporters argue having a system of managing our understanding of mental disorders improves our approaches to research and care for those experiencing mental distress.

Today sees the launch of the draft version of the latest incarnation of the manual – the DSM5. It’s been worked on over the last decade and you can now see how mental disorders are being conceptualised (including what disorders have been amended, removed or added to). The whole draft is available here although I am most interested in how sexual functioning, gender identity and paraphilias are being approached.

In particular hypersexuality appears to be moving towards supporting diagnostics around sexually addictive/compulsive behaviours, which requires close attention as we already know this is one area full of very poor science, political and faith based ideology and a whole slew of homespun (but largely unevaluated) therapies.

If this is to be included in the DSM5 there needs to be a strong evidence base underpinning anything we want to label as ‘hypersexuality’ and robust reflections on how we classify problematic behaviour to ensure we don’t pathologise certain forms of sexuality (ie adultery, masturbation or alternative relationships) that particular faith based and neo conservative groups/professionals disapprove of.

The classifications around gender identity have proved controversial with critics questioning whether such guidance should be developed – particularly given a weak evidence base in this area. You can see how it is being approached in children here (approaches for adults also outlined in this part of the DSM5 draft). Mainly the debates around the classification in children have focused less on the issue of identifying problems and more about evidence based evaluations of treatment interventions for young people.

Sexual interest/arousal disorder in women is also an issue requiring close attention as we know this is an area where there’s been an ongoing issue about medicalising female sexual behaviour, suggesting women who don’t want sex for practical, relationship or health based reasons require hormonal or SSRI-type interventions.

You can expect to see discussions of this particular classification on sex blogs in the coming weeks, although it’s worth also looking at the additional classification aimed at men, and compare how these are new classifications as distinct from existing categories of orgasmic disorder aimed in women and men.

The existing DSM classifies difficulties in experiencing orgasm as a dysfunction, while the proposed new version would add to this lacking in desire for sex. Some people will welcome this seeing the lack of desire as the barrier to orgasm, others may conclude that there are many reasons women and men don’t feel desire or experience orgasm and classifying them as a mental disorder may be overmedicalising a range of normal human sexual responses.

If you’re interested in how we understand sexuality and human sexual behaviour I’d recommend reading through the entire list but focus your attention particularly on what’s being proposed as now needing classification, what’s being subsumed into existing categories and what established diagnostics look set to remain.

From this you should consider the evidence (shown by each category) and see whether you feel this is fair, balanced and whether it comes with any conflict of interest (you may need to track down the cited papers to do this). You could also reflect on what categories are being added, who is suggesting them and who might benefit or face discrimination from them should they be classed as a mental disorder. You may also want to think about what happens if any categories are added to or removed from the DSM – in terms of how we’ll be approaching research, therapy, drug treatments or surgery for sexual dysfunctions, and gender identity disorders and how those plus legal sanctions may be applied to the classification of paraphilias.

I’m not arguing here that all the items listed in the ’sexual and gender identity disorders’ aspect of the DSM should be overlooked (for example nobody’s going to dispute paedophilia is a problem, although we need to be sure the way we classify this means those anxious about being potential abusers can get help and treatment). Yet we do need to cast a critical eye over some of the definitions activities that might come under the umbrella of fetish and kink, and also problematise those who apparently have too much or too little sex (or interest in sex).

No doubt colleagues far better versed in understanding mental health classification will be discussing the ramifications of the DSM5 draft in the coming weeks and I’ll add their reports to this blog.

In the meantime you have until 20 April 2010 to respond to this or any other aspect of the DSM5 draft. I would recommend we all do this as individuals or collective groups of practitioners or activists as this process will be used to inform how we define, research and treat mental disorders. If you feel there are particular areas which should be included or excluded from the DSM now is the time to have your say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A brief history of formulas as marketing tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One story you can’t have missed in the past week or so was the sacking of Professor David Nutt in a situation where the government (yet again) disregarded evidence. Sadly it’s something we’ve got used to with this current administration. There’s been an interesting discussion about this over on Bad Science forums, although my favourite story on the issue comes courtesy of the Daily Mail whose attempts to smear scientists is pure comedy gold. I’d strongly recommend using this piece in teaching around journalism/science communication. I particularly like the Mail’s understanding of science as lab-based, unimaginative, not working in the real world, arrogant, and resistant to being questioned/challenged. Unfortunately many people also hold those views about science – although they probably don’t go as far as the Mail and equate scientists to Hitler :-0

While we’re on the topic of science communication and evidence based practice, here are two very useful dates for your diary. On November 16 2009 Westminster Skeptics in the Pub are hosting an event ‘Evidence based policy making’ with Dr Evan Harris MP and Professor David Nutt. On November 24 (again hosted by Westminster Skeptics) there’s an event ‘What next for Science Activism and New Media’ where a group of science bloggers and activists will be discussing issues around science communication and the impact of science blogging. If you’re a science journalist it would be particularly great to see you there to get some additional input from you about your views on science blogging/activism.

Stonewall hosted their annual awards ceremony this week (which seemed a lot less controversial than last year). They named journalist Jan Moir as their ‘bigot of the year’ following her attack on the late Stephen Gately. It’s always good to see those supporting LGBT issues rewarded, although while the folk at Stonewall are celebrating it might be worth looking to other countries where thinks are not so good for lesbians and gays. Like Uganda, who are seeking the death penalty for LGBT people (and requiring friends/family to turn in their loved ones suspected of being LGBT). It’s truly terrifying stuff, but worth reminding ourselves about the situation many LGBT people are faced with across the world.

I’ll leave you with a spoof documentary from The Onion about sexual arson (which actually does exist, although not perhaps in the way described in this clip

Crime Reporter Finds Way Of Linking Warehouse Fire To Depraved Sex Act