You may have seen or heard the news coverage yesterday suggesting a link between rising rates of Syphilis and hooking up via Facebook.

It came from a statement made by the Director of Public Health in Teeside who in a press release suggested an association between social networking and STIs. This was snapped up by the Sun, then the Telegraph. Both of whom ran with lurid headlines that Facebook was linked to a rise in Syphilis. Many other news outlets quickly, and unquestioningly, picked up on the story which soon went global.

But of course it is much more complicated than the media might suggest and you can read my deconstruction of the story and questions journalists should have asked about the statements from Teeside’s Director of Public Health here.

As the story has spread over the past 36 hours it has been a mixture of astoundingly poor media coverage, misleading health information, and superb examples of public challenge and sex education.

Here’s how it’s unfolded…

#Syphilis became big news
During the course of yesterday #syphilis became a trending topic on twitter. It began with inevitable questions of why people were talking about Syphilis and led to a thorough debunking of the study by bloggers (linked to above) and questions about what Syphilis actually is. Folk went looking on Wikipedia and elsewhere to find out more.

As discussions unfolded it became obvious that people are still very ignorant about this STI. Some seemed to think it no longer existed or saw it as something from history. Others reacted with revulsion talking about their neighbourhood being adversely affected by being linked with Syphilis, or expressing concern they might be exposed to infection. Judgemental attitudes about those who might have or get Syphilis abounded, many of which had a misogynistic subtext with promiscuous women seen as the source of the problem. General statements about Syphilis also indicated a lack of awareness of symptoms, prevention or treatment.

The sex educators step in
Seeing an opportunity to answer questions about Syphilis myself and sex educator colleagues from Bishtraining and Scarleteen joined in discussions, shared links to accurate resources on Syphilis and other STIs We encouraged people to share this through their blogs, social networking sites, on twitter and by word of mouth to friends and colleagues. We invited them to debunk myths about STIs, and highlight symptoms, prevention and treatment for Syphilis.

Poor media coverage continues
This morning it seemed like the Sun had developed some awareness of the damage they had caused, as they ran a feature focusing on how to spot Syphilis. However, this was actually an activity in further reinforcing judgemental stereotypes about the STI with a list of dictators and criminals from Hitler to Al Capone used as case studies with the infection. A few symptoms were described, but not accurately, and no information was given about where to get help if one was worried about STIs.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph pulled off an astounding feat of journalism where they followed up the Syphilis story they were partly responsible in starting, but reported it as though this was nothing to do with them, while citing a list of other cases where Facebook had been linked to various social problems.

Birmingham set a good example
Continuing with Teeside PCT’s message, health practitioners from Birmingham seemed to endorse the ‘social networking increases syphilis story’, with reports in Birmingham Mail describing risk taking among youths hooking up via social networking sites and a massive recent rise in Syphilis.

Again, this was challenged by bloggers and sex educators. And it turned out to be another case of inaccurate press reporting. The Outreach Worker Julia Hyland quoted in the story has given me this statement “I did not claim to be an expert in this field and the figures quoted did not come from me, I have called the Evening Mail they told me their figures came from Heartlands [another health trust in Birmingham]”

Julia’s prompt (and brave) response, along with a challenge from the University of Birmingham alerted the paper to their inaccurate reporting and the problematic story from Teeside. Birmingham Mail removed the story from their website.

In the mainstream media no such clarifications or removals have been made. Teeside PCT and their Director of Public Health have seemingly made no such efforts to challenge or clarify. Practitioners are still chasing them for further information (see links in my blog post from yesterday).

Health media seems out of touch with the story
While we might expect the mainstream media to provide poor sexual health coverage, we should expect better from the health press. Sadly this didn’t seem to be the case with Nursing Times leading on the story in a completely uncritical way.

NHSChoices were questioned on twitter why they had not challenged or followed up this story. They responded with “No plans to cover it. No evidence to assess & just a wildly OTT headline”, although they noted “We’ve got a wealth of evidence-based info on sexual health & STIs” (while fairly explaining they don’t offer training to healthcare professionals as they’re a public resource).

Worryingly, although NHSChoices do have excellent resources on Syphilis which practitioners have been using as public information throughout this situation, there seemed to be no consideration from the organisation they should be publicising these resources as the Syphilis story continued to trend. This is despite their remit being public outreach with a specific twitter, blog and website facilities for this purpose. Only when prompted by several sex educatorss/consultants (particularly Matthew Greenall and Bishtraining) did they start sharing links on Syphilis. These were eagerly picked up and retweeted by NHS Trusts and other parties, but were done only after pressure was applied and 1.5 days after story went global.

Bloggers and sex educators did the job the media ought to have done
There have been some real heroes in this story – aside from Bishtraining and Scarleteen who gave up several hours of their day yesterday and today to challenge and educate, HIV consultant Matthew Greenall has tirelessly chased up information on social networking and STIs and challenged the inadequate handling of this issue from the NHS and Nursing times. Ben Goldacre has been chasing Teeside for more information and sharing his frustrating experiences with them on twitter. Jo MacIver supported Outreach Worker Julia Hyland and encouraged other bloggers (including myself and Ben Goldacre) to hold fire on attacking the story until she had properly investigated the Birmingham angle. Countless people on twitter took up the challenge of being sex educators and shared links to STI awareness and debunked the media coverage. In particular @regordane @silv24 @Heresy_Corner @DrMarkBurnley @The_MediaBlog and @viviane212 were active in challenging, questioning and keeping this story trending.

The past 24 hours continue to show us how many media and healthcare staff don’t seem to understand social media. Mainstream media with only a few exceptions (here, here and here) have failed to ask basic questions over accuracy of story. Some healthcare organisations have also failed to critique the statements coming from Teeside, or have not responded promptly to issue. To date nothing has been said by either the Department of Health or the Health Protection Agency.

It has been left to bloggers and sex educators volunteering their time to actively engage through social media to challenge this story and share accurate information.

Ironically in a story about the evils of social networking, it has been social networks that have challenged the story and turned it from a piece of scaremongering into an internationally shared opportunity to spread sexual health awareness.

There are still many questions to be answered – not least from the papers who spread the story, and from Teeside’s Director of Public Health. Facebook has not really become involved as yet and there is speculation on whether they might take action (and in what form).

In the meantime, let’s not lose momentum on this story. We can all continue to be sex educators and media critics. We can find poor coverage and alert readers to why it is bad. And we can keep telling or friends, neighbours, colleagues and folk we’re connected to via social networks about STIs, how to prevent them, and where to get treatment if we think we’re at risk.

Over this weekend the story broke that pharmacies were going to give teenagers the pill – as a means of tackling teenager pregnancy.

News coverage included:
Teenage girls offered contraceptive pill over the counter in a drive to cut pregnancies – Daily Telegraph

Teenagers to get pill without prescription – Independent

Girls get the pill on demand: now teenagers can get the contraceptive without prescription

Teenage girls to get contraceptive pill in pilot scheme

You’ve got to love these ‘girls get the pill on demand’ style headlines – which kind of ignore the fact that contraception is free and available within the UK – and yes you can ‘demand’ it if you like!

From the press it sounds like girls across the UK are going to get the pill from the pharmacy – is that really the case? Well, before we get to that, let’s look at what we do know about providing contraception via pharmacies.

What’s the evidence?
The papers have not clearly indicated this is a pilot scheme, perhaps in their hurry to promote a shock/horror response they overlooked this. They also seemed to overlook the wider evidence base about oral contraceptive provision, and managing teenager pregnancy.

So what do we know about this issue? Well, we do know our teenage pregnancy rates in the UK are high. Most of those pregnancies are terminated, but the prevalence of termination (particularly repeat terminations) are of concern to healthcare providers. As a result there’s been a push within reproductive/sexual healthcare over the past decade to rethink how contraceptive services are delivered – and how teenage pregnancy rates can be reduced.

There is already an established evidence base that pharmacies can provide some forms of contraception and sexual health support – for example condom sales, testing for Chlamydia and providing emergency contraception (morning after pill).

Here the pharmacy becomes an additional service for providing contraception/sexual health support, alongside existing reproductive health/family planning clinics or GPs.

Young people are frequently blocked from accessing services due to unclear signposting of services (so young people don’t know where they are); restricted opening times which often don’t fit with young people’s timetables; problems with location; uncertainty over what happens in a clinic; worries about confidentiality; or just basic information (many young people still wrongly think you have to pay to get contraceptives).

Add to this problems with sex education and general problems around poverty and social exclusion, there are understandable reasons why young people get pregnant. Culturally we’re often quick to blame them without appreciating the lack of access to information and contraception that affect some teenagers. You can read more about how poverty, lack of education and healthcare barriers contribute to sexual and reproductive health problems here (with an ongoing investigation into the issue reported here)

Part of a response to our current sexual health crisis been a shift to making sexual health less clinical and more about self management. This has been suggested to reduce strain on services and make aspects of care that can be managed in other settings more effective. So pharmacies can be one additional place to deliver care, as might school nurses, or even cafes and nightclubs. More choices and more places to get advice and services are a step to reduce teenage pregnancy and termination rates.

There is no evidence that making sexual health services more accessible increases teenage pregnancy (as some media reports have claimed). Although it’s worth noting that many of the schemes trying to reduce teen pregnancy are being rolled out in areas where teen conception is already very high.

What’s actually happening?
This is a pilot scheme being run in a deprived area of London with a high prevalence
of teen pregnancy. You can read about the area’s history on this issue here. This borough has received charitable trust funding to modernise a variety of services, including sexual health. You can read an independent evaluation of that work here.

Within this modernisation work, practitioners have already investigated delivering sexual health services within community settings, including assessing whether community pharmacies were suitable locations for Chlamydia testing.

This latest pilot is part of an ongoing project looking to modernise, improve and make more accessible sexual and reproductive health services for a resource poor community. All activities have been based upon evidence and completed in consultation with the community.

So rather than the pill being given to all teenagers across the UK, this is simply a pilot scheme to see whether providing the pill to younger people within community pharmacy settings is feasible – and works to reduce teen conceptions. If it does, then the scheme will be rolled out to other pharmacies. If it doesn’t work then alternative approaches will be considered.

Why do we need to be cautious?
My first question about this story is ‘is this really news?’. It created a widespread splash in the papers, but it was actually launched to the press last year, and there was some coverage of the proposed scheme in August 2009 too.

We need to discuss why this story got back into the papers. It isn’t clear. But what is clear is the majority of coverage was judgemental or negative, and has discussed a pilot scheme within the press before it has even really got started. That’s a problem as it can scupper a pilot and mean we never get to see if it can work or not. It can lead to people interfering with the delivery of a service – particularly those who’ve been led by the media to see such a pilot in negative ways.

We don’t know if this will work – that’s the point of a pilot. To investigate and explore. So media coverage should really only happen when a study has been completed – not speculation before it starts, or during any study.

We’ve seen similar problems with the media outing interventions to reduce teen pregnancy in the past. You could be forgiven for believing some media outlets simply don’t want us to tackle the problems we’re experiencing with teenage pregnancy and sexual health.

Generally health evaluations work better if left undisturbed and can be reported faithfully whether they work or not. We really do need to challenge this practice of reporting on pilots until they are finished. Particularly in the restrictive way the media approaches this which is to find a practitioner (usually from a faith based group) to say how such a scheme will inevitably make things worse. What may help more would be to put such schemes within the context of wider evidence, and if you want a debate to talk about whether other approaches – like better sex education, tackling poverty or increasing aspirations for young people – might be equally or more effective.

For the record this pilot scheme does not mean all teenagers are going to be offered the pill. It’s a pilot taking place in a specific part of South London. Even within the pharmacies in the pilot it doesn’t mean that pharmacists will be pouncing on all young women entering their stores and giving them oral contraceptives. Any young woman requesting oral contraception will have consultation and be assessed for competence and the pharmacist can refer to other services if needs be.

Parents don’t need to worry that pharmacists will be slipping the pill to their daughters behind their backs. Even if some journalists have misled them that this will be the case.

For now, all we can do is wait and see if this pilot works. And in the meantime additional focus will continue to address ways for reducing teen pregnancy in
poor/deprived boroughs.

Yesterday afternoon I dodged the ongoing downpours by popping into our local cafe for a quick latte and a catch up with the Sunday papers. Which were quite dull until I came across this snippet in the News of the World:

A sexual position
£31K-a-year University job to investigate lap-dancing

A TOP university is adverting for a new researcher – to investigate lap-dancing.

And there should be no shortage of qualified candidates. The researcher has to have “prior experience of conducting research in the female sex industry”.

Predictably the NOTW approached this in a kind of “phwoar fellas, look at that sexy research you can do at a TOP university” format. (They weren’t the only ones, a fair few other papers also ran the same story). Yet the tone of the piece suggests that despite being at a prestigious institution it isn’t proper research because the candidate’s going to visit strip clubs and talk to dancers. The salary and mention of government funding are used to detract from, rather than enhance the seriousness of the job.

Because of course to NOTW (and probably many members of the public) this cannot really be serious. After all, sex isn’t a topic taken seriously by the media and people tend to have a mixed response to erotic dancing – a combination of excitement and disapproval.

I can completely see why many people reading this would either dismiss it as a joke or go for the ‘ooh is that what they’re wasting tax payers money on now’ reaction. It may not be particularly clear why this research is necessary (I’ll explain why in a bit). Some people may mistakenly think that funding studies like this means research on other issues around health/wellbeing may be neglected (it’s not true, but it’s very difficult to convince people otherwise).

The salary may also seem very high to many people. Particularly when NOTW suggest the only work involved is chatting to a few hundred dancers. Whereas the successful candidate is going to have to search the literature for other research on this topic; create a questionnaire (after reviewing existing measures); design the interview schedule they’ll be using to shape their conversations with dancers. They’ll need to obtain ethics approval (which can take several months to prepare) if it’s not already been granted; and they’ll need to conduct, oversee the transcription of, and analyse the interviews. [If you work on the basis that one hour of interview can take up to ten hours to accurately transcribe, and that many of these interviews will be longer than that, it'll give you some idea about how much work will be involved]. Transcripts will need checking with dancers and reports for the funding body will need writing. Outcomes from the survey will need analysing. And there’ll be the obligatory writing up academic papers based on the study.

The pay represents the grade of the researcher needed to do this work – someone who is experienced in social research. Who’ll not only need a PhD, but also extensive postdoctoral experience.

Even here I can imagine the sniggers of what ‘postdoctoral experience’ may mean in relation to lap dancing. Yet to research this area you need to be able to work sensitively with people, to understand the female sex industry, to be transparent in your interviewing and reflexive in how you approach your data. It’s not just about asking questions in a careful and balanced way. It’s also about being able to represent what’s said by dancers fairly, and analyse resulting data faithfully.

While this might explain what this job involves (here’s the project details and specifics about the job), it doesn’t sound quite so sexy (or dismissive) as NOTW’s interpretation.

Unfortunately many journalists are unaware there’s any such thing as ethical and professional research on the sex industry. The media’s forays into lapdancing is either smutty or prurient. This is partly why such research is needed – because the understanding of lap dancing is limited and what exists are either stereotypical or hysterical media reports, or highly biased and flawed studies commissioned to prove lap dancing is bad by researchers with fixed agendas against erotic entertainment (click here for an example). Of the balanced and ethical studies that do exist, these tend to focus more on the client, with the voices of dancers still largely absent.

The skill required for this current post will be to listen carefully to dancers, to record their experiences, but not to use the research to push any predetermined agendas. No doubt the women interviewed will reveal good, bad and mundane experiences with lap dancing and all those will need clearly explaining.

The NOTW’s approach suggests that anyone can study this area by dint of having an interest in erotic dance. While there’s no reason an erotic dancer couldn’t apply for the job, they’d only get the post if they additionally had the relevant academic experience. Strangely the NOTW’s take on sex research represents the way journalists often talk about sex studies – in a way that’s unique to sex research. You never hear them suggest that if you’ve had a suspected heart attack you’re suddenly a cardiologist, or you can only study cancer if you’ve got it yourself, or the only people who might apply for a project on diabetes must be diabetic. Yet when it comes to sex research the assumption is anyone who feels a bit frisky might suit the job, or the research is entirely based on personal experience – not science, evidence or years academic training.

Sadly it’s coverage like this that means academics who research sex and relationships are suspicious of the media. Countless research jobs are advertised weekly, yet the press only seem to get in a fluster when there’s a sex-related job available. How sad that journalists fail to grasp that making such a fuss they draw attention to a forthcoming study which can very well compromise results and make participants unwilling to speak to researchers. It could also affect the safety of the researchers on the project or subject it to ongoing scruitiny which would make carrying out a balanced study. And it completely devalues the achievement of getting independent funding to look at erotic entertainment – no mean feat for any academic.

Of course, you can’t just blame journalists here. After all, some researchers have, in the past, gone to the media with their planned research on lap dancing before it even started. So you can appreciate the average journalist may assume this is common practice and feel it’s fine to out a study before it’s even got started.

Unfortunately each time something like this happens academics, therapists and healthcare providers working in the area of sex and relationships are reminded that the media (and often the public) don’t take what they do seriously. And that it’s very difficult to challenge this kind of reporting without seeming humourless.

Here’s hoping this study drops out of the public gaze and continues as it should. Without any further attention, and with the possibility of letting erotic dancers speak openly about their lives. The next time we hear about this study should be when results are presented. And until then I wish the research team and whoever gets the job all the best with a much-needed and timely piece of research.

* Illustration at the start of this blog is by illustrator Dan Avenell and was the front cover on the MyPole charity calendar 2005.

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.

Brief background – female sexual dysfunction

Over the past 10 years the race has been on with pharmaceutical companies to find the ‘female Viagra’ – a drug to treat female sexual dysfunction (FSD).

At the same time, concern has been growing within healthcare, therapy and education about the medicalisation of sexual functioning. FSD in particular is a diagnosis with a controversial heritage, with concerns expressed that common (but often upsetting) female problems around lack of desire and difficulty experiencing orgasm have been repackaged within a illness-based model.

[You might also find this discussion held a couple of years ago on Woman's Hour that addressed FSD useful (includes links to support organisations relating to sexual difficulties). Plus this special issue of the journal Sexualities tackles the problem of medicalising sex for women and men, and Liz Canner's amazing documentary Orgasm Inc provides a thorough backdrop to the topic]

Over the years several drugs have been developed, although many did not get past early trial stages. Of those that did, testosterone patch Intrinsa was heralded as being the answer to lack of sexual desire in women, although was later found not to be clinically effective (and was never approved for use in the US). Another drug – PT141 – aimed at boosting desire (and aimed at men and women) also failed to meet safety standards and wasn’t developed further (although that wasn’t before the media promoted it as the sex wonder-drug of the future). Alongside these promised medications there’s been a whole slew of herbal products and ’super foods’ (usually fruits, seeds and berries) promoted in the media and all guaranteed to boost desire or enhance orgasms.

Latest trials – Flibanserin
Flibanserin is a centrally acting anti-depressant type drug made by Boehringer-Ingelheim who have been developing it over the past few years. It is aimed at a condition referred to as Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) – or a lack of/no desire for sex in lay terms. Reports suggest the latest trials of the drug are about to be announced, and it’s likely the product will be promoted for public use within the six to eighteen months (pending FDA and EMEA approval). Early trials claim the drug boosts sexual desire, but (as with other SSRIs) this drug must be taken every day for 3-6 weeks before any effects will be noticed and continuously thereafter.

What’s interesting about this drug is it indicates a shift around how we conceptualise and ‘cure’ female sexual problems. Previously the message from drug companies was FSD was a hormonal problem and could be managed with additional testosterone. Flibanserin reframes FSD as a ‘desire is in your head’ model, working on neurotransmitters to increase libido. Moreover, previous drugs tended to focus on women who were approaching or had gone through the menopause (naturally or surgically). Flibanserin is being targeted at all women (so a far larger market share than products just for post menopausal women).

Aside from the wider worries about medicalising female sexual problems (which are caused by numerous factors), critics of Flibanserin question how an antidepressant can boost desire given a common side effect of such drugs are to reduce desire. There are also worries from healthcare workers and therapists around the long term safety of using such drugs and potential problems with withdrawal.

Those defending Flibanserin (and drugs like it) argue that therapists are only criticising the products as they want to promote talking cures over medical ones (and thus have a conflict of interest). They also have reappropriated feminist discourse to talk about women being left out or needing the same access to sex drugs as men (although the products available for men are actually limited and mostly only for erectile dysfunction).

The difficulty with discussing this area is that women do experience sexual problems for a variety of reasons. Many of these can be helped with education, better contraception, improving (or leaving) a difficult relationship, therapy, addressing psychological or physical health problems, or better sexual communication between a woman and her partner. These issues should be tackled as a first port of call, rather than recommending a pill or patch. However, given the embarrassment women experience over sex problems, plus additional pressures from the media and partners to be good in bed (and a desire for pleasure and intimacy), it’s easy to see why someone would prefer a magic bullet than having to work through what’s causing their problems.

Sadly drug companies (and practitioners allied to them) exploit this by making out anyone who questions the FSD diagnosis is anti-women or out to stop women enjoying sex.

What you can expect from media coverage
At each stage of development Flibanserin has already been promoted via the media as a forthcoming drug that will transform women’s sex lives. No doubt coverage over latest research on the drug will follow this format. It’s a dream for health writers and particularly glossy men and women’s magazines as you can discuss sex (and the stereotypical ‘women don’t like it’ angle) with a mix of science and the promise women who’re not sexy enough can be fixed.

You can expect plenty of headlines promoting a wonder drug to boost sex – and reinforcing the idea that women’s sex problems are ‘all in her head’.

What you won’t see is questioning about the drug, safety and long term effects. Nor will you see any critical reflection on the construction of FSD as a medical condition, nor any practical advice on the many reasons women may not experience the sex life they expect – and what they might do about this.

What journalists probably don’t know – behind the scenes of marketing Flibanserin
While Flibanserin has been developed, there has also been a systematic approach from Boehringer-Ingelheim to promote the product before it has been developed. In 2008/9 I’ve had two invitations to attend two two-day long ‘training days’ at top London hotels (with an honorarium of £1000 per session). This invitation has been extended to other practitioners within sexual health.

My understanding of the aim of these events were to highlight FSD (or more specifically Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder) as a problem and inform practitioners about treatment approaches. From that, key advisors who’d attended training days could speak further and influence colleagues to also promote FSD as a problem and recommend future treatments as they came on board. Here’s a copy of the agenda for one of the events to give you an idea about what was covered.

I did not attend these events. However, this did not prevent Boehringer-Ingelheim from trying to engage me in other ways. On 1 April this year I was sent an unsolicited invitation to write a paper for their journal British Journal of Sexual Medicine. You’ll see from both the letter and instructions for writing the paper that they had clear instructions about what they wanted me to say and how this would set the scene that HSDD was a prevalent and distressing problem doctors ought to be aware of – presumably so they could be alerted to a problem and be more willing to prescribe a pill when said medication became available.

This may not seem like a major issue, but it’s worth noting that such activity is frowned upon by reputable academics as really all you are doing is marketing a product, not engaging in true peer reviewed science. So obviously I didn’t accept this offer either.

[Since writing this Boehringer Ingelheim's Medical and Scientific Affairs Manager contacted me and requested a right to reply. You can read their response here].

I’m raising this here as journalists and the public need to know this may be considered a case where the market for the product is being worked upon at the same time the product is being developed.

Nobody is denying women have problems, but there are many ways to approach these without slapping a clinical diagnosis on women who don’t feel sexy.

Questions you should be asking about FSD and sex drugs
If you’re a journalist, healthcare provider or member of the public you should think about what may cause women’s problems with sex and solutions to those. Question whether a clinical intervention is the best option, and research how the category of FSD (and related diagnoses like HSDD) have been created (and who by). In particular you should ask the question whether taking SSRIs on a long term basis is the best answer to women who aren’t feeling desire.

Update 16/11/09
The press release for Flibanserin is now available. If you’re a journalist covering this story you may want to ask questions about efficacy, safety and medicalisation (as outlined above). You may also want the drug company to clarify exactly how many ’satisfying sexual events’ (their term) were classed as significant as compared with placebo. The press release states a significance, but in lay terms how much more satisfying sex per month can a woman expect if she’s taking her daily dose of Flibanserin?

Update 17/11/09
Cory Silverberg has a clear and thoughtful analysis of the Flibanserin studies, reflecting particularly on how sexual experiences were measured. This blog highlights how Flibanserin is still an experimental drug (not quite how the media are reporting it). Also, it’s worth noting from Cory’s appraisal of the research how not all women in the study did experience significantly better ’satisfying sexual events’ compared with placebo. Well worth a read for an appraisal of both the research and marketing approaches from Boehringer-Ingelheim.

Also, Neuroskeptic has a fantastic blog that tackles in depth the trials for Flibanserin and the interpretation of the findings.

Every so often I hear about a quote I supposedly gave to a journalist which I didn’t actually provide. Sometimes that’s been because a journalist (or sub editor) has muddled my name with another expert quoted in a story or feature. Sometimes it’s because a journalist’s taken something from my blog and rewritten it. And sometimes it’s because a journalist has written what they thought I might say and put my name to it.

When I’ve questioned this misreporting editors are usually willing to rectify mistakes, but journalists and editors have often questioned why it would bother me. After all, in an era where many ‘experts’ are thrilled to get a mention in the press (as a form of self promotion) it presumably shouldn’t matter what you’re quoted as saying, so long as someone is quoting you. Right?

Well maybe for some, but not for me. Here’s why.

Firstly, it’s just bad journalism to decide to misquote, rewrite or make up something you claim an expert has said. It dishonest reporting and is unfair to readers and journalist colleagues who are investigating their stories and reporting accurately.

Secondly, it’s unfair on the person being misquoted. It can misrepresent their expertise or area of study (if they’re a genuine expert) and make them the target of unjust criticism from colleagues. [If they’re a quack it just gives credence to their unsubstantiated ideas and allows them further publicity]. It can also create more work for the expert concerned as if you’re misquoted about a story and more journalists catch on to this you have to explain the error to them – which can actually lead to them treating you with suspicion. And you feeling like you’re going crazy and can’t remember what interviews you’ve given.

I’ve had a few experiences like this over the past couple of years and it’s always annoying and again reduces my faith in the media. It’s particularly annoying because I actually want to work with journalists and am happy for them to quote my blog (accurately and with acknowledgement), or to get in touch with me so I can either help them or refer them to someone who can be of assistance.

What’s a real pain is when you’re misquoted but then other people pick up on the story and you discover you’re an expert in something that you perhaps aren’t qualified in. Flattering, possibly, but irritating too.

And that’s how today I discovered I am a ‘renowned English sexologist’. Which is a nice compliment but nowhere near as exciting as also finding out I also invented “Twilight success”. Yes. All that fuss in the media you’re seeing about the Twilight books, Team Cullen vs Team Black, and the New Moon film? That was down to me.

I sincerely hope you’re impressed. I certainly was.

Although, of course, it’s not true. I have not researched nor published any academic papers about Twlight. I have read the series (and enjoyed it). But I’m not an expert on the topic of the book or the interest it’s generated among teens (particularly young women). There are people who have researched the Twilight phenomenon and it’s a growing interest area within literature, philosophy, media and cultural studies (for some examples see here, here and here. Not to mention being a hot topic within the Slash Fiction genre.

Unfortunately all this escaped the journalist from Dutch newspaper De Pers, who recently quoted me in a feature about Twilight ‘Alleen dat haar, al o my god’. Translated (with thanks to my friends over at Bad Science forums) my contribution reads something like this: “The renowned English sexologist Dr Petra Boynton calls it Twilight Success, that, according to her, is all about the almost tangible gigantic sexual longing of Bella for Edward, the longing of woman for man, as a signal on the cultural level that female sexual feelings are not all romance and roses, nor indeed the acrylic nails and fake tan of most porn films. But they exist in another place that women have perhaps not looked into before. Are you ready to look into it yourself?”

Now perhaps I’m being a bit facetious about my interpretation of ‘Twilight Success’, but this quote does represent problems for me. Particularly because another journalist saw this story and contacted me for their story on desire and the Twilight phenomena. It’s how I discovered I’d been quoted in the first place. Luckily I was able to refer that journalist to some people who are more expert in this area than I am. But it would have been nice to do that for the De Pers piece – and also nice not to seem particularly stupid when I was called by the second journalist and had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

Nobody from De Pers contacted me about this story. This is not an area I’ve researched. The only possible link to this story I have is that I wrote in my pre-Halloween blog a few weeks ago “Actually I’ve done little else but fantasise about Edward Cullen of late, so this guide (how to date a real-life vampire is useful in case he tires of Bella and comes for me. Join me, and check out the Twilight series, or tuck into Susie Bright’s Bitten – a great new gothic erotic anthology”.

Which doesn’t mention anything about desire between Edward and Bella, new genres or comparing romance with porn. (I have researched the latter issue and published on it, but not in relation to Twilight. So I’m still confused).

I contacted the paper pointing out this error and questioning whether it was a case of either muddling me with someone else, or completely misquoting an unrelated blog entry, or simply putting my name to something to help a story stack up.

I’ve heard nothing back.

It’s tempting to ignore events like this when they happen. After all there are many more serious issues going on in the world that we could be focusing on.

My reason for flagging this up is how can we trust journalists to report on the serious issues if, even if it’s only occasionally, we find there are those who attribute experts to content without gaining their consent or checking for accuracy? If they fabricate the simple stories, what other lies might they be telling us?

Without further ado, let’s find out the answers to the questions I posed as part of the Science Late evening of sex event on Wednesday. How did you score?

1. What are the most common methods sex researchers use to study sex?
a. By looking – watching people have sex in a laboratory or on film
b. By measuring – assessing sexual behaviour via brain scanning, blood tests or heat sensors
c. By listening – recording answers from surveys or interviews
d. By participating – having sex with the people they are studying
e. Not sure

Correct answer = C

The most commonly used methods in contemporary sex research globally are surveys or interviews/focus groups. Brain scans, heat sensors or blood tests can be used, as can observational studies (where people have sex within laboratory settings). However, these latter two methods are used less as they’re often more difficult to recruit representative participants for studies. With the internet the opportunity for people to film their sexual activities and share those with researchers, and methods where participants film or document their own lives may become increasingly popular in the future. One thing we don’t do, but which people often assume happens, is have sex with the people we’re studying and then write about it. This would be considered unprofessional and unethical in research nowadays, and would focus the study on the researcher rather than a wide range of participants.

Want to find out more?
Check out the Kinsey Institute and the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology who provide information about sex research being undertaken and provide answers to your frequently asked questions about sexual behaviour.

You might also find these guides helpful too:
Want to be in a sex study? Tells you about how sex research is conducted and how you can get involved

Sex research since Kinsey’s day – explains the different methodological approaches that can be used to study human sexual behaviour.

What’s it like to be a sex researcher? answers the frequently asked questions I’ve received about studying sex.

How to run a sex study outlines the steps you’d undertake to carry out a scientific study.

2. How often does the average UK couple have sex per week?
a. 7-10 times
b. 4-7 times
c. Once a week or less
d. Not sure

Correct answer = C

Robust and reliable research indicates that younger people do have more sexual encounters annually than older people. You can see links to research where frequency has been addressed here. The UK Natsal study found the average for heterosexual sexual activity per month was around 6 times. If you account for sexual behaviour over a wide range of ages the average is once a week or less. However, reputable sex research focuses more on quality rather than quantity. We would usually ask people for a range of sexual behaviours they engage in (masturbation, oral sex, intercourse) and whether they enjoyed them. That way you might find someone doesn’t report much ‘sex’ (as in intercourse) but they enjoy masturbation on a regular basis and are happy with this.

This contrasts with the media’s description of sex where ‘sex’ is usually only considered in terms of intercourse and quantity is taken as a measure of ‘great sex’.

Want to find out more?
Set yourself an experiment. Look at magazine or newspaper coverage of sex/relationships over the next month and see how ‘great sex’ is described. Is it written about in terms of exploration, variety and pleasure, or described in terms of quantity and penetration.

3. The average penis size is 5 inches long
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

Correct answer = B

Many studies do give the average erect penis length as 5 inches. However, there are numerous problems with studies on penis size as they vary in the methods used to collect data. Some studies relied on self report, others on a researcher either measuring an erect or flaccid penis. Critical reflection on penis size studies suggest there are problems with the inconsistency of measuring penis size (summarized here). Interestingly research in this area suggests men (gay and straight) are more worried about length than girth, although women seem to be more interested in girth. And partners of men (male or female) are usually most bothered about their partner’s technique and the way they treat them. With anecdotal evidence suggesting men with larger penises don’t try so hard to please their lovers.

4. Women and men are equally stimulated by visual images of sex
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

Correct answer = A

Women and men are just as likely to be turned on by visual images of sex. This may run counter to common knowledge of this issue, particularly since the media often repeats the idea that men are visual creatures and provide various evolutionary and biological explanations for this. What science is now discovering is that women, like men, do get aroused by sexual imagery. There is a diverse range of what turns women on – as with men. There is often the myth that women prefer erotica and men like porn, or women need their sexual imagery served up with a warm slice of romance. Yet studies where women have been asked about or shown sexual imagery suggest they do respond to a variety of arousing stimuli.

Interestingly many of the studies assessing response to visual images of sex (usually done through showing a series of images or sexual film clips and measuring genital response) did not include women. These were conducted on male participants (often undergraduate students) who were tested in response to viewing sexual images to see if exposure to said imagery had led to them feeling more hostile towards women.

More recent studies of women show they report enjoying a range of sexual imagery but do often worry more than men about the content of materials and how they’re made. Debates around the impact of porn, and whether the content is sexist, can often make women feel guilty for looking at/enjoying sexual imagery. Interestingly we’ve focused more on asking women critical questions about how they respond to porn than we have inviting men to reflect on their porn use.

Want to learn more?
Violet Blue’s written a fascinating book called The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos which discusses how to pick porn to view, and answers some of the common concerns people have about content.

Alternatively there is a vigorous debate about porn/sexual imagery that’s ongoing. Some view porn as innately sexist and degrading to women, others feel it’s a symptom of a sexist culture but not a direct contributor to sexism/abuse. While some believe porn could help improve relationships, or at least has no harmful effects. You can find debates ongoing across different websites (particularly those with a feminist/political focus). Read up on the issues and see where you fit in.

5. Men can fake orgasm
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

Correct answer = A

Men can, and do, fake orgasm. We don’t know exactly how many do this, but therapists and educators are increasingly hearing from men who are worried about faking orgasm. Reasons for doing so include being tired, sore, wanting to bring sex to an end, and not wanting to let a partner down. Men report feeling the need to fake because of pressure to perform sexually. It is unclear whether this pressure is experienced more or less acutely by straight or gay men. Interestingly, we tend to respond to women faking orgasm as being an inevitable (partly linked to the stereotype of women being less sexual). We tend to respond to the idea of men faking with disbelief or humour. This does little to help either gender if they feel the need to fake.

Want to find out more?
Comedian Richard Herring has written a great book called Talking Cock which although based on humour is a useful survey on male sexual behaviour and includes some discussion about faking orgasm.

If you’re a man and find it consistently difficult to orgasm it might be you have delayed (or retarded) ejaculation. More information about this condition and treatment options available here.

6. Men reach their sexual peak at 17 years old, women at around 40 years old
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

Correct answer = B

Although this is often quoted in the media it doesn’t make sense in social research terms. The data seems to have come from surveys in the first half of the 20th century on sex where young men could record an interest in sex, but young women couldn’t. Culturally young women weren’t supposed to be sexual (particularly before marriage) and so either were unable to report on sexual behaviour, or were too afraid to disclose what they may have done. Older women who were married and had experienced sex were in a stronger position to report on their experiences. So early surveys measured behaviour and found younger men were able to report sex positively, as were older women. This is not the same as hitting a sexual peak during lifespan.

Although studies do still about that reinforce this myth or suggest particular ‘peak’ times for sex, reliable research suggests that rather than their being specific peak times for sex, there will be times when people enjoy, desire, and have sex more or less. This will be influenced by many factors including health, parenthood, financial security, relationship quality, and lifestyle factors (such as work stress).

Sexual activity may reduce as people age, and certainly we do see young people reporting having more sexual encounters. However, this does not mean the same thing as pleasure or desire or exploration. Older people do also report they may not have as much sex as in their youth, but the sex they have remains important and pleasurable.

Part of the misrepresentation of sexual behaviour across lifespan as having one off peaks is linked to the quantity over quality. A more accurate way of looking at this issue would be to see sex intertwined with other factors (listed above) and to expect points in your life when you’ll have no sex (with a partner), lots of sex, and occasional sex – with quality differing also.

Want to find out more?
Keep a diary for the next year and record when you had sex. Note periods when you enjoyed different sexual activities (masturbation alone, oral sex, intercourse), who you were intimate with, and when you were or were not enjoying sex to identify what else was happening. It might be something negative like being made redundant, or something positive like starting a new job where you put your energy into that activity.

7. Animals (other than humans) can be gay
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

Correct answer = A

Homosexuality has been observed in numerous species from dolphins to monkeys, dogs to sheep. We have only recently begun to learn more about this topic as science has in the past often misrepresented homosexuality in animals, describing it as ‘immature sexual behaviour’ or reporting it as something that only happens because no other sexual partners are available. Or simply not discussing it at all.

Want to find out more?
The question of sexuality is one that fascinates people – and can be a reason for concern or celebration. If you want to find out more about your own sexuality why not try the Kinsey scale which gives you a score from heterosexual through to entirely homosexual. You can even get a t-shirt to proudly display your rating.

Within the scientific community we’re still debating homosexuality and for two differing takes on this issue you might consider Queer Theory which sees sexuality largely as a social construct or contrast this with Qazi Rahman and Glenn Wilson’s excellent book Born Gay.

There’s also widespread discussion about whether homosexuality can be ‘cured’. Evidence shows it cannot (because it’s not a disease or dysfunction). You might find these papers interesting – they feature interviews with psychiatrists and patients who were part of treatment programmes to ‘cure’ them of homosexuality.

8. Where do most people get their sex information from?
a. Friends and family
b. School/college sex education
c. Self help/sex experts
d. The media (magazines, films, television, internet)
f. Pornography

Correct answer = D

Most people do use the media, and particularly the internet (where available to learn more about sex). Friends can be highly influential, although more for young people than older adults. The self help/sexpert market (which often influences media content) is worrying given that many sex experts are not adequately qualified to discuss sex and relationships issues. Porn is not the first place people look for information, however evidence suggests it is somewhere people will turn to if they can’t find answers elsewhere.

Want to learn more?
If you want to find useful places to get quality sex information (aside from the links above), I’d recommend:
Paul Joannides – author of Guide to Getting it On
Cory Silverberg – who writes Sexuality About
Good Vibrations magazine
Dodson and Ross – sex tips, advice and information
DIY sex education from All About My Vagina
Susie Bright gives great sex advice over at Jezebel

9. What’s the most popular area in sex research currently?
a. Desire and pleasure
b. Sexual problems
c. Sexuality
d. Sex addiction
e. Love, romance and courtship

Correct answer = B

The most funded and most prolific research globally focuses currently on sexual problems. That’s things like sexual dysfunctions and sexually transmitted infections (particularly HIV). While these are issues requiring investigation, there are problems about other issues such as love and romance, desire and pleasure receiving far less attention. In particular concerns have been expressed about the ‘medicalisation of sex’ (for women and men) and the way sex research has been influenced by pharmaceutical funding.

Campaigners working within sex research are working to try and broaden the range of topics studied in this area, but limitations around funding and academic priorities do still influence what gets studied. This is a problem since many members of the public have many unanswered questions about sex which are currently not being addressed.

Interestingly, the area of sex addiction is hyped up a lot in the press but is not being researched to the same degree within academia/therapy. That’s because the concept is not agreed upon by practitioners. You can find out more in this great discussion between Susie Bright and Leonore Tiefer on the topic, or see just how problematic the diagnosis of sex addiction is in my blog ‘Help! I’m a sex addict and I didn’t even know it’.

10. Why do sex researchers study sex?
There are numerous reasons why we study sex. To find out more about human sexual behaviour, to get people answers to questions they have. To reduce problems – STIs, anxieties, fears. To promote sexual pleasure. Or to encourage abstinence (not all sex researchers are sex positive). Some sex researchers are motivated to research sex because they want to offer help, to share pleasure, or to learn more about themselves. Some may have had a personal experience (positive or negative) that’s motivated them to study a particular area of sex.

As part of the Science Museum event I asked guests to share why they thought we studied sex and I’ll blog all their ideas next week – along with some updates from real life sex researchers about their motivations.

So, are you a sexpert? You may have scored well or badly on this test. It doesn’t really matter. Many of the questions were deliberately tricky. Hopefully what the test has revealed to you is that there’s a lot more to sex research than you may have imagined, it’s an area that spans many academic areas (science, medicine, history, anthropology and zoology to name a few). It’s a growing subject area and one with a real application to human life. By continuing to read up on sex (using some of the links above) and ask questions about all the sex stories you read in the press (and anyone who calls themselves a ‘sexpert’) you’ll be well on the way to sexpertise.

If you work in science communication, sex research or sexual health you are welcome to use this quiz (and answers) in your own activities (with acknolwedgement). Please do research all answers before presenting to ensure you fully understand topics, and perhaps you can bring in questions and resources of your own to add to the quiz.

Last night the Science Museum in London hosted one of its fabulous ‘Lates’ events. The theme of the evening was ’sex and science’ and there was a great range of things to do. From learning more about yourself in the ‘who am I?’ tour, through to speed dating, finding out about the history of sex toys, salsa dancing, an experiment in ‘dance, hormones and sexual selection’ and some sexy punk science. Condoms were available to all guests, just in case things got extra fruity, and judging by the amount of drink and giggling going on I think people had a good time

I hosted a talk called ‘So you think you’re a sexpert?’ where we took 10 commonly asked questions about sex or commonly quoted sex ‘facts’ and put them to the test with some interactive voting to find out how smart our audience were about sex.

I’d like to give a great big thank you to everyone who came to Science Lates last night. I thought it was a novel way to share science, and the range of talks/events going on ensured we could create a balance between the fun and frisky and the serious and scientific.

For those of you who weren’t able to make it, I’ve reproduced the ‘So you think you’re a sexpert?’ quiz below, and I’ll give you the answers tomorrow, along with incorporating questions from the audience last night.

1. What are the most common methods sex researchers use to study sex?
a. By looking – watching people have sex in a laboratory or on film
b. By measuring – assessing sexual behaviour via brain scanning or heat sensors
c. By listening – recording answers from surveys or interviews
d. By participating – having sex with the people they are studying
e. Not sure

2. How often does the average UK couple have sex per week?
a. 7-10 times
b. 4-7 times
c. Once a week or less
d. Not sure

3. The average (erect) penis size is 5 inches long
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

4. Women and men are equally stimulated by visual images of sex
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

5. Men can fake orgasm
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

6. Men reach their sexual peak at 17 years old, women at around 40 years old
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

7. Animals (other than humans) can be gay
a. True
b. False
c. Not sure

8. Where do most people get their sex information from?
a. Friends and family
b. School/college sex education
c. Self help/sex experts
d. The media (magazines, films, television, internet)
f. Pornography

9. What’s the most popular area in sex research currently?
a. Desire and pleasure
b. Sexual problems
c. Sexuality
d. Sex addiction
e. Love, romance and courtship

10. Why do sex researchers study sex?
This was an open-ended question we gave to the audience last night. I’ve got all their answers to sort through and I’ll be posting those in a blog next week, along with some answers from real-life sex researchers and educators.

Come back tomorrow and you can find out whether you’re a sexpert, and learn more about each question.

The word ‘therapist’ means something. It’s a job title like ‘cardiologist’, ‘architect’, ‘choreographer’, or ‘solicitor’. You’d expect newspapers to get basic facts like this correct.

I opened my Sunday paper this morning to see myself described as ‘Dr Petra Boynton, Relationship Therapist’. Which is all very nice, except I’m not a therapist. I’m a psychologist who researches sex and relationships.

Perhaps you see no difference between the two. But if you called a solicitor a police officer, or perhaps lawyer, there would be problems.

Recently a number of complaints have been made in the press about people described as ‘sex therapists’ who have no qualifications, skills, or training in this field. Myself and other colleagues have let the media know it’s wrong for people give themselves titles they don’t deserve. It’s misleading and confuses the public at a time when trust in science, medicine, and research is at an all time low.

I told the newspaper three times that I wasn’t a therapist. Didn’t make any difference though, they still couldn’t get it right.

So maybe we’ve been wrong to criticise our colleagues for setting themselves up as ‘therapists’ and abusing their position. Perhaps they never described themselves like this at all. Perhaps the writer or sub editor assumed titles are simply interchangeable. After all, ‘it’s just a word’ as one journalist once told me.

Want to know what happens if you get it wrong? You face sneers from your colleagues, complaints from other practitioners, and possibly disciplinary action from your employer or any professional body to which you belong. Nobody believes you if you say you were misquoted. The public continues to mistrust what’s written, won’t accept advice from genuine professionals, and may put their emotional or physical health at risk as a result.

And if you think that academics or practitioners are going to want to talk to you a second time, after you’ve insulted they by getting their title wrong and probably got them into a whole heap of trouble, you can think again. They won’t trust you, and maybe they’d have a point. If papers can’t even get a simple thing like a job title right, can we trust anything else they say?