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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s Times Weekend focuses on an important yet taboo issue – Infertility. ‘Sex, fertility and commitment: what men really think’ includes in depth interviews with several men about the topic. While it’s right to talk about this issue from a male perspective, there are messages within the feature that are worrying in relation to sex, orgasm, fertility and gender. Not least because the issue of sex is not covered in any depth, but what is discussed about sex and orgasm is misleading.

Part of the feature focuses on an interview with Lord Robert Winston, a recognised pioneer in fertility treatments. He states: “Many years ago I did a study that, to my great regret, was never published. It was on women who were not orgasmic. We showed a clear correlation between women who did not enjoy sex and unexplained infertility. The study indicated that women who didn’t achieve orgasm and were having IVF were more likely to experience unexplained infertility”

This is troublesome for several reasons. Firstly it is always difficult when practitioners talk of research they’ve done but never published. It means we have no idea of assessing the work, and it won’t have been subjected to peer review. If we’re hearing about a study it needs to be treated according to standard academic conventions. Which usually include noting other evidence in the area. As in this case there is an established body of research on sexual functioning and fertility that has been steadily growing since the 1970s. This is not discussed.

The idea of orgasm as something to ‘achieve’ has long been a worry within the sex research community, not least because it sets up sex as something that must end in orgasm and prioritises orgasm as the main focus of sex. It overlooks wider areas of pleasure couples may explore. And in relation to fertility these aspects are crucial.

For couples looking to enjoy sex within the confines of infertility treatment the Times represents sex in a narrow way, with orgasm as end goal, something you ‘achieve’. It does not help the readers appreciate a more varied approach to pleasure and affection which may be vital to a couple where sex is increasingly becoming only about conception. It gives no guidance on how that might be explored. Something we might expect when headlines promise a discussion of sex and fertility.

Moreover it does not fully explore the wider and more complex issues relating to sex and infertility that result in sexual problems. Just a few examples include the stress of treatment, anxiety about fertility, fears of being childless, relationship breakdown, preoccupation with having a baby, and the cost of treatment (if one is paying privately). While these are all talked about within the Times interview they are not really presented as a clear explanation of a complicated problem that contribute to psychosexual difficulties. Instead the piece highlights women’s lack of orgasm/sexual pleasure as a major contributor to infertility.

We know women’s fertility problems and psychosexual issues are intertwined (see here and here). However the nature of this relationship is complex. In some cases psychosexual dysfunctions lead contribute to infertility, while in others it may be the anxiety around fertility problems or undergoing infertility treatment that leads to psychosexual difficulties (see for example here and here).

Men’s psychosexual dysfunctions similarly experienced, regardless of whether it is the man or his partner who has the clinical problem (see here and here). Indeed if a couple is struggling to conceive and the man is unable to get an erection or is struggling with premature ejaculation (during intercourse or masturbation) it adds to the strain they are already under. Given the Times’ feature focuses on men, sex and infertility it is somewhat worrying this issue is not fully explored.

For women and men sexual pleasure is possible without orgasm. And while some theories have argued women need to orgasm to conceive, this is not the case. Discussions that focus on sex only in terms of orgasm miss the wider pleasures couples may experience, and also overlooks more important questions about the general quality of couples’ relationships. The Times could have used this opportunity to explore how couples might experience this, but they sadly failed to do so.

From the reporting of Lord Winston’s comments in the Times report readers could be forgiven for thinking women can control their fertility by making more of an effort to enjoy sex or having orgasms. This massively oversimplifies the wider body of research on this area.

Healthcare professionals, therapists and sex educators also need to take greater responsibility in this area. There is plenty of evidence about psychosexual problems and infertility. What we lack is clear advice programmes for couples that focuses specifically on addressing those problems as they arise, and to combat them in the first place with support and information about pleasure and intimacy that is not goal oriented to the ‘achievement’ of orgasm. We need more research on this topic and more training for professionals working with couples to help them maintain a positive relationship under highly stressful and often very distressing conditions. Part of the reason couples do struggle in this area may well be to do with professionals failing to provide this information in a timely fashion.

The issue of infertility is still taboo and highly emotive. Any practitioner talking about the area needs to do so in a way that fits with current evidence based practice and focuses on couples not women or men. We also must ensure advice given does not make people feel they have contributed to their infertility by a lack of female orgasm, which is likely to scare anyone considering trying for a baby – whether they have fertility problems or not.

The Times undoubtedly covers the male experience of infertility with their case studies. But given its focus was on sex and infertility it fails to engage on this level and misses a vitally important opportunity to help readers with a major worry couples struggle with.

The papers are full of a new survey of female twins that’s about to be published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. As part of a ‘debate issue’ on the g spot, this research by a team of UK scientists claims the g spot does not exist. Here’s a taster of some of the press coverage.

G spot ‘is just in the mind’ – The Express
Sexy g-spot a myth – New York Post
What an anti-climax – g spot is a myth – The Times

This research is brought to you by the team who also gave us studies (presumably carried out on the same cohort of twins) suggesting an infidelity gene; claiming (emotionally) intelligent women have more/better sex (covered here and here, that orgasm (and orgasmic problems) is genetically determined – plus a criticism that women shouldn’t orgasm too easily. As you’ll see within these links there are numerous problems around the conceptualisation and measurement of sexual response and orgasm within these research reports.

Backplot to the g spot
The G spot is not without controversy. Originally identified (in research) by Ernst Grafenberg the 1950s. It was remamed the g spot in his honour in the 1980s by Beverly Whipple and colleagues who revived discussions of the g spot in science and popular culture. Debates have raged since then over the importance and existence of the g spot, summarised neatly in this recent account from sex educator Betty Dodson.

The problem with much existing research on the g spot is it’s hampered by small sample sizes (for physiological research), self report in surveys, and anecdotal evidence for/against the existence of a g spot in qualitative research and popular culture. Participants are often white, middle class volunteers, and women who are bi or lesbian usually excluded from g spot studies. As have those who are not in a relationship or don’t engage in penetrative sex. Moreover inconsistent wording on interviews and questionnaires have often confused participants so it’s unclear what has been measured. Advances in research – particularly with ultrasound and thermal imaging – do offer more opportunities to study the g spot, although the political question remains about why are we so desperate to find the area and ‘prove’ its existence (or absence)?

Due in part to the 1980s revival of g spot research and also our changing commercialised and sexualised culture, the self help market was quick to pick up on the idea of a g spot. So you could go hear a sexpert tell you where yours was and how to find it, or read a book they’d written all about g spots. Or you could buy products with widgets and knobs and bendy bits to give your g spot attention. Or you could read one of the endless features in womens (and latterly) men’s glossy magazines praising the spot and telling you how to find it. Porn also shifted to include a hat tip to the g spot, although it wasn’t so easy to show. However, female ejaculation (the squirty friend of the g spot) was easy to demonstrate. Hence the popularity of this within porn currently. And most recently the cosmetic surgery industry has got in on the act offering g-shot parties where you can get a collagen injection into your vaginal wall to enhance the g spot (and make it easier for a partner to find).

The media have played no small role within this story, in particular women’s magazines keen to talk about sex but without being too raunchy. It’s no coincidence the g spot has had so much media coverage. As any journalist will tell you it’s much easier to get a g spot past your editor than mention the clitoris. Something that editors dislike and advertisers run scared of. It’s much easier to mention the g spot or show a picture of a g spot stimulating sex toy than it is to mention other genital names or frankly discuss what you actually need to do to stimulate a partner.

For some, the ability to discuss the g spot and have products available to explore it was a step forward within women’s sexual pleasure. Critics raised concerns over the focus on the g spot meant other areas of pleasure were neglected. The quest to find the spot (and the much promised g spot orgasm) created anxieties and insecurities on the part of couples. Disputes over whether women had g spots or could ejaculate meant women felt anxious. Either because they did feel they had a g spot orgasm (but science argued this was impossible), or because they didn’t have such an orgasm (but science told them they should).

In the past couple of years science has gone bananas for the g spot. In 2008 we were told the g spot definitely does exist, which the press went crazy for.

The current study
Is called ‘Genetic and environmental influences on self reporteg g spots in women: A twin study’ and will be published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine shortly (early view here). It focused on a self reported postal questionnaire sent to 4625 women. 1875 responded to specific questions about sex. Of these the researchers excluded 71 women. Those ‘who reported they were homo or bisexual were excluded from the study because of the common use of digital stimulation among theses women, which may bias the results. Also excluded were women who had never engaged in vaginal intercourse’. Respondents were aged 22-83 with a mean age of 55.

Women were asked a series of questions about their sexual practices and frequency of sexual activity, including the questions ‘overall how frequently do you experience orgasm during intercourse’ and ‘overall how frequently do you experience orgasm through masturbation’. The wording of these questions is problematic and is discussed further in the links to previous studies by this team near the start of this blog. It appears from reading the paper that the participants in this study are also those reported in the previous studies on emotional intelligence and orgasmic heritability.

To identify the presence of a g spot participants were asked “Do you believe you have a so called G spot, a small areas the size of a 20p coin on the front wall of your vagina that is sensitive to deep pressure?”. This reads like a leading question with the inclusion of ‘so called’ and I’m not sure how useful/clear all participants would have found it.

Analysis revealed that women reporting orgasms through intercourse did not necessarily report the presence of a g spot, and those who reported having a g spot noted they were likely to orgasm through other forms of stimulation such as kissing or breast stimulation.

The researchers conclude “the g spot is rather a perception created by non physiological factors that can cause a heightened sexual sensation”.

Although the paper is interesting, and the researchers are at pains to stress they want to reduce women’s anxieties about pressure to find an elusive g spot, it really doesn’t fully explain the presence or absence of a g spot. Aside from being limited by self report and problematic wording of questions, the study really seems to capture the diverse ways women enjoy pleasure rather than the requirement of a g spot to have orgasms. It’s also concerning within the introduction of the paper the researchers repeat the message they’ve written in related studies – “knowledge of the anatomy, biology, physiology, and pathophisiology of female sexual function is limited. Female orgasm, in particular, is a complex phenomenon that is far from being understood”. This indicates a worrying lack of awareness of the wider evidence base on female sexual functioning that is not limited in scope, but does take issue with the stereotype of women’s orgasm being both complex and mysterious.

Previous studies claiming the g spot absolutely existed (linked to above) were limited by small scale samples that weren’t really large enough to draw conclusions from. Although the current study draws on a larger participant group it’s based on self report and isn’t really any more reliable in showing the g spot doesn’t exist. Critics may question why the research team have produced so many papers based on the same cohort? A cynic might call allege it’s a case of ‘salami slicing’.

In short recent studies claiming the presence or absence of the g spot are all limited and none of them appear robust enough to accept a claim either way. Although interestingly all have been funded in part (or wholly) by grants from Pfizer, so one might wish to question what that company’s interest is in the g spot.

The media response to the latest (no) g spot research
As you may expect the media’s response to the current study has been (as with all previous g spot studies) uncritical, unquestioning, and not based on reading the original paper. There’s little or no reference to other studies by this particular team, nor compared with existing research claiming g spot existed. Indeed it’s as though the media’s had a complete memory wipe and haven’t noticed that two years ago they were emphatically telling us that the g spot existed. Still, this study is harder to report for journalists. When they were working on the g spot does exist study it allowed for loads of features plugging sex toys, quoting ‘sexperts’, and giving loads of top tips about the g spot and how to find/enjoy it. Not possible if you’re now reporting the g spot doesn’t exist.

So the take home message is?
It’s pretty simple. Women are diverse. Some of us really enjoy vaginal stimulation by finger, penis, sex toy (or other item). Some women prefer clitoral, anal, breast or other stimulation.

Research that tells us we should focus exclusively on one spot or ignore it completely does little to reassure us or enhance our sex lives.

During the many conversations I’ve had with journalists today on this topic, one asked me ‘should we ignore the g spot?’ which is a good question. The current study suggests we should. The trouble is the g spot is deeply embedded in popular culture and the sex product industry and it’s unlikely to just disappear because one study says they don’t think it exists. Perhaps a better way forward is to think critically about the g spot. Be aware there’s plenty of folk who make money out of your worries of whether you do or don’t have one. Go exploring, but don’t feel under pressure.

You can expect this story to run over the coming weeks – and be spun into some fairly tedious and polarised debates – during which women’s voices and experiences will most likely be ignored.

The question for science is why are we still having this debate? Why can’t we accept genital diversity and explore through rigorous and novel methods what that might mean for women – rather than these tired old does the g spot exist? Yes it does! No it doesn’t! debates.

I’ll leave you with the excellent Daily Mash, who, as ever, provide a great spin on this story – Men who care about the g spot are a myth.

Update 06.01.10 – Tom Geoghegan over at BBC News Magazine’s written a great spin off piece Err on a g spot about the G spot debate looking at the history of the topic, talking to key advisors/researchers, and including practical advice for women and their partners.

Update 12.01.10 – Katy Kelleher’s produced an excellent overview of the research and media coverage in The Mystery of the G Spot: untangling the headlines.

Edit: A reader emailed and asked me if I based the title on this blog on Paula Cole’s song Where have all the cowboy’s gone? The answer is no. I based it on Peter, Paul and Mary’s Where have all the flowers gone? (Hippie parents). Either way you can easily insert ‘where have all the g spots gone’ to each song and sing along. Meanwhile, Dr Aust suggests The Kinks song Where have all the good times gone? works even better when the term ‘g spot’ is inserted into the lyrics.

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.

We’re all familiar with the term ‘designer vagina’, but did you know there’s actually no clinical evidence to suggest non-essential female genital surgery is effective or safe? A systematic review of the literature on labial surgery for women (just out in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology) has found “medically nonessential surgery to the labia minora is being promoted as an effective treatment for women’s complaints, but no data on clinical effectiveness exist”. The paper isn’t open access but is well worth a read if you can find it. It outlines the issues around genital surgery including why this trend is increasingly popular. Sadly women’s media is not massively critical on this topic, so here’s hoping this research might encourage a bit more critical reflection among editors (although I’m not holding my breath).

Predictably plastic surgeons haven’t responded massively well to this review – I wonder why? You might be shocked or amused to see one practitioner’s reaction courtesy of the BBC:
“Essentially this is just about removing a bit of loose flesh, leaving behind an elegant-looking labia with minimum scarring”.
As ever, The Daily Mash wade in with their satirical take on what makes a whole ‘perfect vagina’.

Are orgasms bad for your health? Well, yes, according to Marnia Robinson (lawyer turned sex expert) who suggests that orgasms ‘play havoc with your neurochemistry’ and recommends people should practice sexual intimacy without orgasm. This is an interesting theory, but it’s only a theory, and the data included in Robinson’s thesis seems to be selective rather than systematic. While Robinson rightly does talk about conventional messages about sex being around achievement and unrealistic goal setting, her message ultimately becomes less about personal choice and slips into the familiar rhetoric of their being a ‘right’ way to have sex. This story’s picked up on here.

Movie star Jane Fonda’s got the media in a fluster by announcing sex is still great aged 71. It’s led to the predictable discussions about whether it’s okay or not for seniors to be sexy – and a whole flurry of spin off features and radio programmes all arguing that older people ought to be getting it on, and are sexier than ever before. Which doesn’t quite fit the evidence. Some older people do report positive relationships and enjoying intimacy – although that may not necessarily involve lots of intercourse (or even any intercourse at all). Caution is required so we don’t reinforce the stereotype that anyone over 60 should be sexless, or pressurise older people to think sex is a mandatory activity and there’s something medically wrong if they’re not still doing it. [You might be interested in some blogs about senior sex I've written previously - all linked within this blog].

In anticipation of tomorrow’s Disability: sex, relationships and pleasure conference at the Royal Society of Medicine, The Times asks ‘Is sex for the disabled the last taboo?’. The piece covers some of the issues facing disabled people about relationships (it’s a bit limited by some inaccurate reporting in places – the comments after the piece I think are more interesting). I’ll be blogging a report on the conference early next week where I’ll be particularly focusing on some of the key questions of evidence based policy and practice relating to sex positive support for disabled people.

Want to know how to talk dirty? Here’s a quick guide I contributed to for Playboy about some common errors people make around naughty chat (over 18s only). [I was glad to see this feature didn't go down the usual uncritical approach to spicing up your sex life and encourages readers to reflect on why they want to talk dirty and ensure it's something their partner is equally interested in].

There are two key errors people make with sexy talk:
- The first is to assume their partner is fine with talking dirty without checking, and launching into some rude chat that embarrasses, upsets or unnerves them.
- The second is thinking talking dirty is something they ought to be doing, but not feeling sure what to say – or when to say it.

Talking dirty can be a real turn on, but isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Saying something unexpectedly could really spice things up, but it also could be a disaster if you offend, upset or just make your partner fall about laughing. If you want to get better at communicating your desires I’d recommend Carol Queen’s Exhibitionism for the Shy.

Sex writer Brian Alexander contacted me recently with a problem he was answering from a reader of his Sexploration column. The woman in question had a partner who was getting off on her being sexually provocative with other men. It was hard to tell if this was a case of a couple with communication problems, or a guy being controlling and forgetting the key rules of acting out sexual fantasies – that it must always be safe, sane and consensual. You can read the problem and answer here.

Finally, the fantastic international sex education campaign 15 and counting have launched a competition where rappers, singers and musicians have been composing songs relating to the campaign. All the entries can be found here. With some of the most popular here. My favourite is Hemanifezt – Be a Protector for Yourself.

So if you’re a musician, song writer or performer why not contribute your song to the competition? Educators working within schools or healthcare may want to encourage young people to get involved in the competition. And feel free to share this information – both about 15 and counting and this music comp.

And if you want a bit of inspiration, let’s go back to the 90s with a groundbreaking safer sex song that still sounds great today.

Let’s talk about sex!

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.