Tonight sees the first in a three part series ‘The Sex Researchers’ on Channel 4 (10pm GMT). It will focus on the history of sex research, explain what sex research involves, and tackle worries the public have about sex (particularly the obligatory ‘am I normal?’ question).

I’ve been a sex researcher since I started my PhD studies in the 1990s (academic background here). It’s a discipline I find fascinating. I love working in this area and I hope it shows. Over the past decade I’ve focused on trying to explain sex research to the public through writing for the media, public science events and training other researchers and practitioners in sex research methods. I also apply my work through advice giving in print, online and in broadcast media – using the evidence I take for granted and making it publicly accessible (and most importantly freely available). I work in different country settings, and am endlessly amazed by how similar and different our intimate lives are across the world.

So any programme that showcases sex research is going to get my vote. This post reflects on how sex research (and sex science) is portrayed in the media, reflects on the Sex Researchers series itself, and includes information about how you can learn about or get more involved in sex research.

Why do academics want Sex Research talked about?
The sex research community were excited to hear about this programme when it was first being researched last year. We’re keen to raise the profile of sex research – both to encourage people to participate in studies, and to enable them to be able to think critically about and apply sex research to their intimate lives.

Being involved in a programme about sex research also gave us hope we might be able to showcase the amazingly diverse range of sex ‘science’, which crosses multidisciplinary boundaries and can cover the social, cultural, biological, physical and more.

Why is media coverage of sex research important?
It’s important that sex research does get accurate coverage as often the media’s treatment of ‘sexology’ is either in terms of dodgy biological research, stuff about brainz, or cod evolutionary theory. None of which are particularly representative of the discipline. That’s alongside the slew of dubious commercial PR sex surveys and other ventures which are basically advertorials but the media accepts and shares as sex science. Editors and journalists don’t take sex seriously as a topic, often aren’t able to critically appraise sex studies. And can’t seemingly differentiate between a PR fluff survey, a drug company product push, and a kosher piece of detailed sex research. Which means the former two are far more likely to get media pickup, and the public are fed a steady diet of misleading information that in turn influences (but probably does little to help) their intimate lives. (More information on how the media gets sex stories wrong here and here).

Sex researchers also face major problems with the media (and public) with a general misunderstanding about what our work involves. Most journalists I have discussions with seem firmly wed to the idea that sexology is only carried out in laboratories; using brain scanning, thermal imaging or blood tests, conducted by white coat wearing researchers. Depending on the story the journalist is working on this stereotype can either be uber clinical, or rather kinky (sometimes even both!). It is difficult to convince the media (along with science communication event organisers too) that most sex research doesn’t happen in lab-based settings and doesn’t usually involve intimate physiological tests.

That’s not to say these don’t happen, but they’re not the staple part of a sex researcher’s toolkit. Instead things like surveys, interviews, focus groups, diaries, epidemiological research or visual methods (to name a few) are far more likely to be used. These give us a fascinating insight into our sexual lives, so where there is a (rare) chance to showcase these within the media sex researchers are keen to do so.

Unfortunately our diverse methods and philosophical approaches don’t often appeal to journalists because they don’t have the visual trappings of ‘science’ that laboratories, physiological measures and white coats do. For television in particular there’s an ongoing problem where ‘sexology’ is misrepresented or shown in outdated or judgemental terms because the only way a director/producer can envisage representing sex science is with gadgets and gimmicks. This means researchers whose work doesn’t fit in this area (particularly those of us involved in critical/community based practice) are ignored, forced to play out a make believe version of your job, or appear as some kind of clinician.

Another common problem we see in the media’s use of ‘sex science’ is cherry picking data. By that I mean finding a study (which may or may not be a genuine piece of sex research) that will help you support your particular story angle/agenda. This sometimes is called being ‘evidence based’ but actually is anything but. If you are taking an evidence based approach (a phrase which is still hotly contested) you would review all available literature on a given topic and summarise it all. Highlighting research similarities, differences, shortcomings and opportunities. Unfortunately the media; some (naughty) academics; and many organisations, charities and politicians lack the time, skills or incentive to do this. Meaning studies that are outdated, unrepresentative or flawed can be presented as having more importance than they actually possess.

Finally media approaches to sex/science can result in the quirkier areas of sexology (and often not really sex research at all) get a higher billing than our more mundane studies of sex and relationships in our daily lives. Coverage of oversized genitals, unusual fetishes or paraphilias are often presented as the norm in sexology (particularly with a judgemental angle which does not characterise genuine sex research). Work addressing how we experience sex, what we like or dislike, or how we interact with others are not so dramatic and so are covered less often. Indeed where they are covered you commonly encounter the default media sneering option of ‘wow, we could have told you that’. Implying that sex research is simply so obvious we needn’t bother doing it. An arrogant position that contrasts the media’s preoccupation with aspirational sex messages, and the public’s anxiety about how they measure up.

You may find this lecture I gave at my workplace (University College London) earlier this year helpful to expand on some of these ideas. It talks about some of the issues we experience in media sex education, which includes how sex ‘science’ is applied and shared with the public. [This is quite a long lecture so you might want to skip it for now and come back to it later]

Putting the ‘sex’ in sex research
To make things even more complicated, sex researchers (at least those that are on the ball and critical thinkers) also like to consider basic issues like what ‘sex’ means. While the media when making programmes or writing features about sex assume it means one thing – heterosexual penis in vagina intercourse. Sex researchers know from talking to the public about their sexual experiences, or recording sexual activity in other ways that there can be many activities that count as ‘sex’. Unfortunately the mainstream media aren’t always keen on this. Preferring to construct intimacy in fairly restrictive ways, thinking about ‘sex’ as penetration, heterosexual, monogamous, that happens in the bedroom between two attractive, able bodied, white people. Not surprisingly the ‘am I normal?’ anxiety that plays out in public and can be answered by sex research is often caused by media misrepresentation of the sex lives of us. This is another reason why sex researchers are keen to talk to the press about the work they do.

These limited roles also extend to how the sex researcher is seen. The media may well represent you as an academic or social/scientist but because there’s a lack of understanding of sexology as a discipline this is often overlooked. Instead you’re more likely to find yourself in the public gaze as the voice of doom about our sexual lives, the flirty sex doc sharing naughty tips, or the whipping boy/girl that has to justify other people’s perceived sexual ‘bad’ behaviour. Some practitioners will fulfil these roles, often acting unethically in judging celebrities or making sex science seem vacuous or over simplistic. Others simply shy away from them. Not that the media cares since their view of sex research is so confused often they’ll happily make out folk with no qualifications or experience are academically qualified – and there’s no shortage of ‘sexperts’ happy to take on this mantle.

It’s not just the media who causes us problems
Those are the barriers within the media, but there are additional barriers that come from our workplace. Not all of us are supported at work to talk to the press. The negative views some academics hold towards sex research means many are anxious about dealing with the media for fear their work will be judged, dumbed down, or make them targets for those with anti sex views. This can mean fewer practitioners engage with the media, or just see ‘public engagement’ as a one-off press conference following publication in an academic journal. It is only recently that public engagement in this area has been seen as part of our academic life and still many senior academics in this area look down upon or limit new researchers from public engagement.

That’s not to say sex research doesn’t have its own problems with poor practice, under theorised research or unethical studies. Certainly we do have to tackle overmedicalisation, simplistic quantitative approaches or an aversion to more critical, nuanced and qualitative approaches. This sometimes is an issue because many people doing said work may consider themselves social or health researchers but avoid the ‘sexology’ label. And it’s fair to say that any academic discipline has its own share of poor practice, bad science and dodgy researchers. It’s just sex research seems to be singled out more for the bad than the good. Maybe because of our anxieties about studying sex to begin with. It’s a handy silencing tool to simply state this is not a worthy area of study, nor is it ‘scientific’.

Those of you who work in media and want to write about sex/relationships more accurately, or those of you who work in therapy/education/healthcare/research and want to work with the media may find these resources on ‘Sex,Health and Media’ useful – from the Onscenity Network’s recent conference of the same name.

Being involved with The Sex Researchers Series
Talking to colleagues involved in contributing to The Sex Researchers suggested most of us found it a positive experience. Generally we felt sex research was taken as a serious issue, allowing people working in area to share their views/experiences. Those using different methodological/philosophical approaches were interviewed, which we hope will give the public an insight into the history of sexology (at least for the past century or so) alongside current examples of work. We were assured by programme makers that sexology would be presented as a relevant and important discipline, while illustrating some of the problems facing us in terms of science, ethics and funding – alongside problems with medicalisation and commercialisation of our sexual lives.

As you can see from the start of this post there are many reasons why sex researchers are nervous about working with the media. It’s probably fair to say not all the sex researchers featured in the series are representative of the whole discipline and there are many people whose work will not be showcased. There did seem to be a focus from the programme makers to initially start with the ‘usual suspects’ of sex research – those well known, experimental, positivistic folk (mainly from US institutions) who have had the most media coverage elsewhere to date. It seemed through taking a long term and more in depth approach to framing sex research that other researchers and academic branches of sexology were considered but it remains to be seen whether the series will rehearse the usual experimental/lab based/heteronormative/neo conservative version of sex research we’re used to seeing.

Those of us working in critical/cross cultural/community based settings were worried the focus of the series would be predominantly Western, focusing on a history and current practice of sex research from a Western European/American perspective. Obviously sex research happens globally and there are some amazing, critical and thoughtful projects happening everywhere. It’s always a let down to see this area only presented through the views of those in the Global North (or with those in the Global South presented in discourses of pity, shame, blame, abuse, sexlessness and inequalities). Even within Western settings we often see the focus on urban, young, able bodied, white folk. All of which fails to really showcase the true diversity of sexology.

Filming for The Sex Researchers unfortunately coincided with more worrying problems with Channel 4 and their series The Joy of Teen Sex a series aimed at twenty-somethings which caused anxieties among the research, education, healthcare and youth services for the way sex and relationships were presented. Many UK researchers felt unable to participate in a programme being made for Channel 4 at the same time the Channel seemed unwilling to acknowledge it was part of the problem in representing bad sex advice and misleading information on sex (particularly using poor data to stack up their programmes). All contributors were faced with a dilemma of challenging the Channel on its poor practice, while having the opportunity to showcase sexology. Ultimately many researchers opted out of filming because they lack trust in Channel 4. It remains to be seen how The Sex Researchers represent us and our work. Practitioners remain in negotiation with Channel 4 to try and persuade them to improve their sex and relationships broadcasting elsewhere.

My Contribution to The Sex Researchers
I was asked to talk about different methodological approaches, practical applications of sexology (i.e. evidence into practice through advice giving and similar), the problems of PR research, and how the public and media understand sexology. I refused to participate unless I was also able to discuss how poor coverage of sex/science in the media has negative public consequences (given my ongoing concerns about Channel 4’s approach to sex broadcasting). As with any TV series you’ve no idea if you’ll make it to the final cut, and given the media generally isn’t keen on self analysis I’d be surprised if most of my comments about media/bad science are aired. (In fact given my ongoing vocal challenges of Channel 4 I would be surprised if any of my interview is aired, but we will see).

This may be a really good series. I hope so. Myself and colleagues have given lots of our time (for free) to make this a success and to hopefully show the public what we do and why it is fascinating and important. I hope it introduces people to an area of importance and highlights the value in studying our sexual lives.

Want to know more about sex research? Here’s how!
Hopefully you may be keen to find out more – perhaps you’d like to take part in a study, maybe you would like to become a sex researcher, or perhaps you are already working in this area and want to highlight to others the importance of your work.

Here are some resources to get you interested in sexology/sex research
[Some of these are focused on Kinsey because I wrote them to tie in with the release of the film of that name. They are still relevant to sex research more generally]

Explore the Truth about Sex This is a lecture I gave for Science Oxford, talking about the way we study sex and relationships; the methods we use; and answering some of the most frequently asked questions about sex that the public want to know about from sexologists.

Want to be in a sex study? Find out how to get involved (and what really happens in sex research) here and here
Some of the methods we use to study sex
And a stepwise account on how you might run sex research
What’s it like to be a sex researcher? Answers to commonly asked questions
Why sex research is important What parents might want to know about sex research Barriers and opportunities in modern sex research Test your sexology knowledge

Useful sources of information
Kinsey Institute
Cory Silverberg’s fantastic blog About Sexuality
The Sexademic
Archive for Sexology
Onscenity Network
World Association for Sexual Health
Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
List of sexology organisations

Update 23/06/11
The first episode of the series is now available via 4oD and it continues to be discussed on twitter at #sexresearchers. Reactions from the sex research community to episode 1 are not positive. There is an anxiety that the sex lives of sex researchers from history have been mocked and misrepresented in places, made out to be comical, with some of the relationships of sexologists shown in homo/transphobic ways.

Given the efforts researchers went to in explaining to the TV company about what sex research is but also how it seeks to challenge heteronormative views of aspirational sex, and how the misrepresentation of sex/research makes our work difficult, it is worrying the depiction of what is sex research in this first episode is misleading. In particular the use of white, able bodied, attractive, young, slim women to illustrate research has bothered those whose research seeks to challenge such depictions of the body/intimacy as ‘normal’. However, you decide as you watch the programme and use the resources listed above to help you make sense of it. Among the sex researchers I’ve been talking to in the UK and elsewhere there is a sense of disappointment that what we were promised as a clear and fair approach to explaining our work has again been reduced to a bit of a joke. There is still hope the following two episodes will rectify the problems with episode 1.

Alongside the series Channel 4 have an viewer poll which asks ‘who benefits most from an active sex life?’ (with the options men, women or both benefit equally). If this were a poll thrown together by someone with no awareness of sex research we might dismiss it as the usual media sex question stuff up. Remember, however, this series was put together over months with hours of input from sex researchers all over the world. All of whom were explaining how important it was to think critically about how we measure sexual activity.

So it’s worrying to see that apparently little or no learning from this experience has happened to the Channel. Why? Let’s look at the question. First of all ‘sex life’ is not defined – what does it mean? Intercourse, masturbation, sharing fantasies, desiring a partner, talking about sex, oral sex? One core issue we pointed out to the TV company is the assumption we all know what ‘sex’ means, yet we know from research participants have very different ideas about what it might be. So there’s a lack of clarity in conceptualising ‘sex’. Next the term ‘active’. What does that mean? The amount you have sex in any given time period? The number of people you are intimate with? How physical you are during intimacy? Leaving such terms undefined means we don’t know what people are responding to. And ‘benefits’. What does that mean? Physically, psychologically, financially, emotionally or something else? Who is benefiting – you, your partner(s), and how does that benefit manifest itself?

The poll represents one of the core problems sex researchers contributing to this programme are anxious about – and one of the major ways the media makes our work difficult. It sets up the idea that your ‘sex life’ is (or should be) something that is ‘active’ and has ‘benefits’. Tapping into the current vogue of presenting sex as an aspirational activity that’s framed in the language of performance, positions, targets and achievement.

Finally there’s the choice of male or female (or both) with no accounting for trans or intersex people. Which again we know the media generally overlooks, but given the focus on gender and sexuality was an integral part of the TV company’s research for this series it is amazing they seem to have ignored pretty much all the input from experts about our methods, philosophies, and critical thinking about sex and gender.

Tomorrow sees the FDA Committee Hearing on Flibanserin, the drug created by Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) to address ‘hypoactive sexual desire disorder in women’. In advance of the meeting you can see the hearing’s list of materials here, BI’s submission of their research on Flibanserin to the FDA here, and my summary of the story/science of this case to date here.

For the past few years while BI have been developing Flibanserin there have been numerous concerns raised by scientists, therapists, educators and activists. Their concerns have included the measures used to assess sexual satisfaction, the trials undertaken to assess the product, safety/efficacy questions, marketing strategies aimed at practitioners and the public, and the fact the research has not been made available within a peer reviewed journal.

It is now possible to review the research (see above) and, as critics have already indicated, it seems there are problems with the method and measures used and particularly issues around side effects and the effectiveness of the drug.

These issues are part of a wider anxiety over the increasing medicalisation of reduced female sexual desire and have been discussed in advance of the FDA hearing by Leonore Tiefer and Liz Canner and challenged via groups such as the New View Campaign.

Over recent months press coverage has not been particularly critical. Numerous stories have run about the promised ‘Pink Viagra’, despite practitioners like myself consistently urging journalists to check the science, the ethics of marketing and the general backplot on medicalisation.

However, with the release of data by BI for the FDA hearing the press have become more critical of the research and finally have begun to raise questions about ethics, science and marketing. Some example coverage includes:
FDA Staff question female sex drive pill (Reuters)
Flibanserin Failure: Female Viagra Drug Disappoints (US News)
Female Viagra fails in clinical trials, or so male partners claim (TrueSlant)
Push to market pill stirs debate on sexual desire (New York Times)

Overall the media coverage is reporting the FDA as raising issues about the safety and efficacy of Flibanserin. Fewer discussions have focused on the equally troublesome aspect of the marketing of the product, though after the hearing tomorrow this may be raised.

It is a pity that journalists covering this story could not have perhaps applied a more critical lens when the story was being flagged up back in April/May. Particularly since they were actively advised by practitioners to ask core questions which have now been raised by the FDA.

More positively, it is worth noting that at least the media have kept up with this story and followed up discussions of the hearing and the drug. Previously when the drug Intrinsa (Proctor and Gamble) was being assessed by the FDA the media applied little critical coverage to the event and failed to follow up what happened at the FDA hearing – despite being encouraged to do so.

Certainly the role of blogs, twitter, and activists challenging poor science and misleading media coverage have undoubtedly ensured core questions that should have been asked about the drug have been addressed somewhere – even if not always in the mainstream media.

So, what may the hearing decide? It’s hard to tell. Previously with the Intrinsa hearing it was assumed they would approve the drug, but this didn’t happen. Early indications seem to be suggesting the FDA won’t approve Flibanserin but we cannot assume this just yet. Even if the FDA do turn it down we can expect BI to then approach the European Medicines Association (EMEA) for approval (as happened with Intrinsa).

The media often tends to suffer with memory loss on such cases so it’s very important if the FDA do not approve Flibanserin that journalists remember this. Because if BI then goes for EMEA approval and relaunches their ‘Pink Viagra’ PR drive journalists need to remember the problems already highlighted with the drug.

You can keep up with the discussions at the FDA tomorrow by following The New View Campaign on Twitter who will be tweeting live from the event. Do follow them and keep watching and asking questions about science and medicalisation. Tomorrow is a very important day for the future of women’s sexual wellbeing, but the quest to find a pill to fix our sexual problems without looking at wider social/cultural issues is not going to end there.

In the news today is coverage of research suggesting abstinence-based sex education leads to children delaying sex and is better than other approaches to sex ed. But is this what the study actually found? Here’s the low down on the paper and what the findings really mean for sex education.

Study: abstinence programs most effective at delaying sex among youths – CNN

Teaching abstinence makes children delay first sexual intercourse: research – Telegraph

Study: abstinence only program shows promise – Baltimore Sun

Study finds benefit in abstinence programme – New York Times

These stories, and countless others like them in the global media today suggested abstinence only sex education is more effective than other forms of sex education. The press coverage was based on a study by Jemmott et al entitled ‘Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months’ in the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (unfortunately not open access). But did the research actually find abstinence sex education is superior to other approaches?

Before we can answer that question, let’s look at the study itself.

What did the research involve?
The research was based on 662 male and female low income African American students aged between 11-15 (grades 6-7) mean age 12 at the time the study started in 2001. Students were recruited through announcements in school assemblies, adverts in schools and youth clubs, and letters to parents as part of a pre-existing health promotion project. Those who volunteered were randomly assigned to one of four interventions that lasted an hour and ran over an eight week period in schools on Saturdays. 16 male and 51 female African American facilitators (mean age 43) were trained to deliver the interventions all of which included group work, games, watching videos, and skill building activities. The interventions were:

Abstinence information only
Focused on abstinence (not having sex) to “eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STIs including HIV. It was designed to (1) increase HIV/STI knowledge, (2) strengthen behavioural beliefs supporting abstinence including the belief that abstinence can prevent pregnancy, STIs and HIV, and that abstinence can foster attainment of future goals and (3) increase skills to negotiate abstinence and reduce pressure to have sex. It was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behaviour was abstaining from vaginal, anal or oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected” (p.153)

Safer sex information only
Promoted condom use as a means of preventing HIV and other STIs and pregnancy, it did not mention abstaining from/delaying sex.

Comprehensive intervention
Combined both abstinence/delay and safer sex messaging (some of these sessions were 8 hour sessions in total, some were 12 hours in total).

Health promotion intervention
This activity served as a control and covered health-related education on topics such as preventing heart disease, stroke, or diabetes, and encouraging exercise plus avoiding cigarettes.

Participants in all of the interventions were asked to complete questionnaires before the study began, straight after the last intervention session and during follow up at 3,6,12, 18 and 24 months afterwards. The self-reported questionnaires assessed whether students had engaged in sexual activity, number of sexual partners, unprotected sex, and condom use.

What was the aim of the study?
The researchers sought to identify which approach to delivering sex education resulted in teenagers delaying sexual activity, and the researchers hypothesised the abstinence based approach would be most successful at delivering this.

Why focus on these participants?
In the US the rates of HIV and other STIs and unplanned pregnancy are higher among low income African American youth than other groups of teenagers. The study aimed to identify effective means of enabling this group of young people to reduce their risks of pregnancy and infection.

What did the study find?
The results indicated those who received the abstinence only intervention were significantly more likely than students in the health promotion (control) group to have delayed having sex at 24 months post-intervention. From the paper “the abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (P=.03). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the health-promotion control group. The safer sex and comprehensive interventions did not differ from the control group in sexual initiation” (p.156). This suggests the abstinence based approach was not significantly more effective than condom promotion only or combining delay plus condom use messaging. [Update 03/02/10: I was emailed about my review of the research by Joe Paxton from Harvard who pointed out I'd previously not been clear about the differences between the conditions and to question the outcomes presented in the paper - specifically that the claims that abstinence only education was 'better'. It appears better than control in delaying sexual activity, but not signficantly different to the other conditions (safer sex or combined interventions). This has led some critics to question the study further in terms of its outcomes and claim of the effectiveness of abstinence based education].

What were the limitations of the research?
As with any study there will be limitations on research, and educational interventions are notoriously difficult to manage and directly demonstrate effects. The researchers are very clear about potential limitations on this current study which include reliance on self report data (which can be biased by recall problems and pressure to provide socially desirable answers). They also note that across all groups most of the young people had not had sex by 24 months follow up (probably due to the wide age range of participants and the fact most teens don’t have sex aged under 16). So although a difference in groups was noted, overall participants hadn’t had sex regardless of whatever intervention they received. And that would make it impossible to assess issues like safer sex, number of partners or condom usage reliably.

The students were perhaps also unrepresentative because they volunteered to be in the research and were willing to attend 8-12 hourly educational sessions in school at weekends. Not only were they motivated but they presumably had family support too. The researchers explain this makes it difficult to assess whether similar interventions on different kinds of pupils in the US or elsewhere would be as effective. This is particularly important given a growing awareness that while young people would like access to social clubs or sexual health clinics many find those offered at the weekend to be particularly inaccessible (particularly those with strict parents, or for girls who may be more likely to have their movements more closely monitored).

In addition to the concerns noted by the researchers, I’d raise some further questions that aren’t addressed in the paper. A large number of facilitators were involved in delivering the interventions. All of them were trained but with so many people included in a study there is potential for messages to differ. An account of how this was controlled for would have been very helpful within this paper.

There’s also the issue of the timing of this research. As a follow up study it naturally required time to run, however the study began in 2001 with data collected until 2004, yet it was only submitted for publication in 2009. While there is nothing suspicious about this, it does raise questions about the cohort being studied as over the past decade (during which time this research was completed, analysed and published) there have been many changes in Western culture in relation to a shifting consumerist and sexualised culture. So it may well be the outcomes obtained might be different were the research to be replicated. This is not a reason to dismiss the study but it would have been useful to see this issue addressed within the paper.

The biggest problem with the paper however is the use of the term ‘abstinence only’. To many this may well imply a faith based approach and yet if you read the description of the abstinence only intervention quoted above it is very clear this was not remotely faith based and in fact differed quite markedly from such approaches – particularly around the accurate mentions of condoms. The focus appeared to be about confidence, delay and anticipating sex as a positive event.

When I read about the paper in the press coverage I anticipated a study that compared a faith-based abstinence programme with other approaches. In fact this study is really about a delay-based programme that anticipates sex positively. And that is not what many people would understand as abstinence.

This is unfortunate as it may well be many working within sex education and healthcare will dismiss or perhaps not consult this paper believing it is promoting a faith based, sex negative approach. And faith groups who advocate abstinence will claim this paper supports their educational approaches which often spread misinformation about condoms and do not adequately cover issues about STIs or pregnancy. Indeed such approaches tend to use scare tactics and a lack of information to encourage young people not to have sex until they are married. This was not a feature of this current study. If I had reviewed this paper I would have recommended the term ‘abstinence’ be replaced by ‘delay messaging’ which would be more accurate and helpful to those searching for educational interventions that might inform their sex education practice.

Unfortunately the media for the most part didn’t make this clear. Admittedly a few journalists (and media blogs) did pick up on some of the issues I’ve touched on above (particularly relating to the idea of faith based abstinence approaches). However most did not explain the research – most likely because they did not read the paper (or failed to understand it). This is problematic because the coverage does not faithfully explain the study. It has suggested that faith based, sex negative abstinence approaches are better than other forms of sex education. And this study (and countless others) clearly show that’s not true.

So what’s the take home message?
This is a useful paper and a fair piece of research. It has limitations which means it can’t reliably be used to inform sex educational policy, but it would certainly benefit from adaption and replication and a longer follow up. Unfortunately the problem is less about the study (which is clearly discussed by the researchers) and more about how the media has misreported it and how politicians and faith based groups are misrepresenting the findings to suit sex-negative abstinence programmes.

Rather than falling into that trap we should take this research as further evidence that sex education is effective when it is tailored to the individual needs of different children; builds confidence; resists peer pressure; addresses feelings and emotions as well as infections and contraception; promotes delay until a young person is ready for intimacy (see also here and here); and prepares them for positive relationships when they are older.

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 successful 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, other newspapers (and probably many members of the public) this cannot really be serious. After all, sex isn’t a topic taken seriously by the press 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, 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 often cited example of research practitioners view as problematic). 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 social/science, awareness of critically appraised research 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.

On 12 November 2009 the Policing and Crime (P&C) Bill went through Parliament. The hotly contested and controversial Clause 14 – originally proposed to prosecute anyone having sex with a prostitute who was ‘controlled for gain’ (a vague and unworkable term) – was changed so people will now only be prosecuted for paying “for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force”. This will now become law.

New legal changes will also be coming into effect soon. According to the English Collective of Prostitutes these include “a new definition of
“persistence” for loitering and soliciting which makes street workers more vulnerable to arrest; removing “persistence” from the kerb-crawling law so that guilt can be proved on the first offence; compulsory ‘rehabilitation’ orders, though the government has had to limit to 72 hours the time street workers can be detained before they are brought to court for breaching the order; more powers to close premises where they suspect that certain prostitution offences are being committed, including someone being ‘controlled for gain’; more powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act to seize people’s assets and property and profit from them”.

These proposed legal changes have been subject to political debate for many years now, and the P&C Bill was noteworthy for the deliberate disregard by many politicians for independent evidence on prostitution. Many academics, sex workers and those campaigning for better health and social support for anyone involved in prostitution see the proposed changes as continuing to put prostitutes at risk, and will continue to challenge the current trend of policy making based on opinion rather than evidence.

Still on the topic of prostitution the unmasking of popular blogger Belle de Jour has been a media favourite over the past couple of weeks. In case you don’t know the history Belle de Jour is a blog about a high class call girl that proved so successful it led to a book deal and spin off TV series. It also led to some frankly astonishingly bad sex features in women’s magazines (where high class prostitution was mixed in with aspirational and commercial sex messages). And complaints from some quarters that the TV series in particular was glamourising prositution. All the while debates in mainstream media raged about whether Belle really was a prostitute, or whether she was a male journalist making up stories.

It turns out Belle is a scientist, Dr Brooke Magnanti. She was a prostitute for several months after submitting her PhD thesis (a time well known for being strapped for cash and in-between jobs). Having already been a science blogger, she then blogged about her sex work experiences. This would have remained secret but an ex boyfriend threatened to out Dr Magnanti who decided it was safer to tell her own story to the media.

This has led to a really odd mix of media coverage with journalists expressing surprise that a smart woman was also a prostitute, rehearsing sad stereotypes about prostitution, and in the name of ‘balance’ contrasting Belle as the happy hooker with dismal stories of drugs and disease. It’s been open season to revive the ‘glamourising prostitution’ argument – although now with added bite as critics have a named person to go after, rather than an anonymous blogger.

Channel 4 news did host an interesting discussion on the topic (albeit with the standard hat tip to high class prostitution vs. murdered prostitutes – an unhelpful comparison which does nothing to respect the memories of those prostitutes who have been killed or injured).

This whole case raises a number of issues for academics and universities. We know from bitter experience that academics involved in prostitution (or who support sex workers) have faced discrimination at work. I’ve written a short piece for the Times Higher on this topic, feel free to join in the conversation about this issue that’s running below this piece.

Many of those involved in the debates and campaigns around supporting sex workers identify as feminist. It was unfortunate, then, that a key component of Saturday’s Reclaim the Night march focused on celebrating Clause 14 (see above). Given the fact that many sex workers had felt excluded by radical feminism in this debate – and many academics also felt the agendas and so-called ‘research’ of such groups was given greater weight by the government – it’s a shame the divide was further emphasised on an event that should bring women together. Not least sex workers who are more likely to be at risk from sexual violence. Penny Red has a candid take on this story, while Sarah the bringer of tea explains why trans women are also excluded by some feminists involved with Reclaim the Night. Distressingly it seems that a woman was attacked while on the demonstration (which is both ironic and depressing).

I’ve no quibble with the right to protest against sexual violence or for women’s safety. My concern, however, with events like this is they don’t present a safe space for all women and often have the effect of alienating the very women those organising such activities are claiming to protect.

The National Chlamydia Screening Programme has been reviewed by Dr Ruth Hussey for the Department of Health. You can read the five page summary here. This indicates there are concerns over whether the programme will be continued, too many (and as a consequence confusing) sexual health branding messages (via websites etc). The report also reveals problems with funding, agreement on which services are responsible for delivering testing, and PCTs that are not aware of/up to speed on evidence and so are promoting ‘good ideas’ rather than evaluated best practice. Well worth a read if you’re a healthcare practitioner, health commissioner or anyone working in sex education.

Spot what’s unethical about this research. A Leeds University professor asks four of their female students to hang out in nightclubs and observe whether women pull more men if they’re wearing more revealing clothing.

Following on from recent research about the lack of evidence underpinning cosmetic genital surgery The Guardian has an interesting feature exploring issues about vulval ‘enhancement’. While Vagina Dentata takes a more sex positive view with some handy hints for some vulva-related gifts. Just in time for your Christmas list.

Cory Silverberg has details of what promises to be a fantastic online course about Disability, Sexuality and Rights which could be very useful to those of you working in healthcare, education or social care.

If you’re around tomorrow evening you may want to pop along to Westminster Skeptics in the Pub where a number of science bloggers will be debating What next for science activism in the new media?. Here’s a summary of what will be discussed:

The rise of science blogging and the effective exploitation by activists, scientists, and science writers, of online communication has been a significant but fairly recent phenomenon. This meeting, which is an unofficial sequel to the Science OnLine conference in London earlier this year, will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of this phenomenon, both now and in the future. A stellar panel of Martin Robbins, Petra Boynton, and Hauke Riesch, as well as the writer of Gimpyblog and a writer from Evidence Matters, will set out their views on the current problems and challenges facing science bloggers, activists, and online communicators. They will reflect on what has so far been achieved and also offer thoughts and insights on what can – and cannot – be achieved next. This will then lead into a general discussion and Q&A session.

Hope to see you there!

Finally, you may have noticed I’ve organised the links on the blogroll over to your right. I’ve had a number of emails from people asking me to link to their blogs. Please do feel free to let me know of any blogs on sex education, activism or science/psychology/journalism you think I’d be interested in. I won’t endorse blogs that are judgemental, sex negative, promote commercial or aspirational views of sex that are unrealistic, or endorse outdated or unhelpful ideas. But I am happy to link to blogs that are evidence based, represent critical thinking, and are accessible.

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.