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.

Want to know what testicle size has to do with your relationship status? Whether a long tail may help or hinder you get a mate? Or what scents you might secrete to attract a partner? If so, head to London’s Natural History Museum where you’ll find a sexual surprise between now and October 2011. ‘Sexual Nature’ is an exhibition that focuses on attraction, reproduction and sexual behaviour in non-human animals.

In a climate where all too often our understanding of the ‘evolution’ and ‘biology’ of sex come in a package of bad science or gender stereotypes, it’s interesting to see an exhibition purely focusing on what different species do – rather than how they compare with humans. It gives you the opportunity to reflect on how animals are similar and different to each other – often challenging many beliefs you might have about monogamy, sexuality and reproduction.

Through the exhibition you’ll learn more about how the senses – sight, sound and smell particularly play a role in attracting a mate. Indicating how these factors may differ between species, while what you think might be desirable for a particular creature may not turn out to be advantageous when you factor in the risk of predators.

A wide range of animal activity is shown (although of course there has to be an appearance from dolphins and bonobos). Lesser known ‘sexy’ species are also included, with the chance to see the positions animals favour for mating, plus the chance to listen in to mating calls and smell desire.

There is a focus on homosexuality, monogamy and non monogamies, and different genders which is another pleasant surprise in an area which often tends to reinforce rigid gender/sexuality/relationship stereotypes. That said I think the exhibition would benefit from reviews from gender/sexuality experts who could unpack the core messages still further. Part of me suspects although a more diverse view on gender/sex/relationships is taken, it is still presented through a heteronormative lens.

A major treat is the screening of clips from Isabella Rossellini’s ‘Green Porno’ focusing on the diverse mating habits of fish, insects and other creatures). (Some clips from her work can be viewed here).

Along with the exhibition the Natural History Museum are hosting a series of debates, discussions and talks, rethinking how we view sexual behaviour, attraction, desire and sexuality. You can keep up to date with these here and don’t forget you can see the exhibition on a Friday night late night viewing (last Friday of every month).

You may want to know where humans fit into an exhibition on non-human animal sex, and those into narrative and discourse may be particularly excited to learn the close of the exhibition does include the human – focusing on how language shapes and creates sex, gender and relationships. I wasn’t expecting this aspect to the exhibition but found it a really fitting way to think about how humans ‘do’ sex.

Of course as with any exhibition there’s an obligatory exit through the gift store where I was pleased to see a range of STIs on sale – obviously in plush toy form (you can also view and purchase these here). I was disappointed the range of texts promoted alongside the exhibition were not really what I’d like showcased as explaining human or animal sexual behaviour. The works of Desmond Morris or sex tips from actress Kim Cattrall aren’t really cutting edge sexology. Worryingly some of the texts showcased represent to me some of the worst examples of bad sexual science. If you’re hosting a cutting edge exhibition on animal sex you’d really expect similarly high quality books available to buy. Not least because this area is riddled with dire sexpertise and the problem of poorly researched/misleading sex advice books has been well documented. Perhaps in the remaining months the exhibition is open the museum may change their stock – I’d certainly be happy to recommend them some suitable titles.

I’d definitely recommend a visit to this exhibition (although wish the entry price could be a little cheaper!). It could be an ideal outing for schools as part of tackling science/sex and relationships education (it is open to 16s and over, more information including teacher notes here). You might enjoy a visit with friends or perhaps as a date? Parents may wish to read about the exhibition before deciding whether to take children (more information here). Younger children may only understand the exhibition in terms of seeing different animals, while older children may experience a range of reactions (positive and negative). Knowing how comfortable your child is thinking about mating/attraction and how much awareness of sex/relationships/sexuality should determine whether you take them along. The fact your child may be learning about sex/relationships/sexuality issues with other people present may feel off putting to some so it’s important to consider your child’s comfort levels before and during a visit should you decide to go. This exhibition could be a useful addition to other sex/relationships education you’ve been sharing with your child but definitely is not a replacement! Elsewhere in the museum human reproduction and development is covered in more depth so you may wish to begin with this before viewing Sexual Nature.

More information, sneak previews and ticket sales available here.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s a roundup of some of the sex/science stories that I’ve been following this past week.

I’m sure pretty much everyone tuned in to see Question Time last Thursday, and to find out what British National Party leader Nick Griffin had to say. I found the programme a bit disappointing, although Griffin did manage to give us a few gems. Including his dislike of school based sex education (he doesn’t agree it ought to be taught to primary school children). And homosexuals, or rather the ‘militant homosexuals’ (seemingly mild mannered ones are fine in Griffin’s book). Men kissing. He doesn’t like that. He finds it ‘creepy’. So if you want to bring down the BNP a well organised gay male snogathon might be a good place to start.

During Question Time Griffin is he tried to discredit Islam by discussing its approach to women. While Islam may be problematic in its treatment of women in places, the BNP hardly does well in this area. Witness their Family Law White Paper (which incidentally also returns to Griffin’s bete noir – the homosexual – as the BNP propose dissolving gay partnerships). Or you might want to see what policy resolution they proposed for teenage mothers at their recent conference:

‘Teenage mothers – the problem and the solution

If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.’

[A reader got in touch asking whether I agreed with the BNP policy for teenagers. The answer is no. They also wanted clarification about why the suggestions above are problematic. Firstly, the BNP state sex education won't make a difference to teen pregnancy rates, yet evidence clearly indicates it does. Secondly they outline a pattern of activity (different babies by different dads to upgrade accommodation) that doesn't happen in reality as much as the tabloid's would have us believe. Many teen mothers live with their families or the baby's father, or if they are in social housing often are placed in bedsits or flats. The most vulnerable mothers are often placed in the most inappropriate housing. I do agree that some young mothers can end up not being mature enough to parent effectively and this plus poverty can cause problems to mother and child(ren). However maturity isn't age related and while some teen mums can struggle, not all do. Mothers who are older may also lack the maturity or social support to parent effectively.

Thirdly, the BNP's report describe teen mums as feckless queue jumpers who get housing above those who've been waiting longer. Although there's no evidence for this happening on any large scale - again often teen mums are housed in bed and breakfast or shared accommodation rather than a home of their own. Withholding to young mothers (single mothers under 21) means they will have no independence or the opportunity to enjoy life. Enforcing a dress code is impractical and patronising (also if you're a young mum then a below the knee skirt and top where no cleavage is on show is not a great outfit when you're busy with a baby and might be breastfeeding). These suggestions imply young mothers will be being punished for having a baby. Parenting classes and support are ideas that are good, but these are already on offer and in most areas considerable effort has been put into providing these for young parents. Certainly the idea that those who do not confirm will be imprisoned and have their baby put into care is draconian and unworkable.

My main concern with the policy is it's not considered evidence, it has not researched what actually happens to young people, and has only focused on teenage girls - ignoring the roles and responsibilities of young men.

This is also discussed over at Lancaster Unity and Sim-O's Good Old Fashioned Values. The issue of what to do about teenage pregnancy is an important and emotive one. I'll be writing a future blog about what contributes to teen pregnancy/motherhood and what we can do about it]

Back to Question Time which also featured Sayeeda Warsi who has opposed gay marriage and school based sex education. In 2007 she said “I will campaign strongly for an end to sex education at seven years and the promotion of homosexuality that undermines family life”. So while Warsi was placed on the programme to challenge Griffin, there was little opportunity for the audience or other panelists to identify that sadly it’s not just the BNP who are promoting homophobic or sex negative policies.

Staying with the topic of bigotry, Jan Moir has tried to explain her recent column about the death of Stephen Gately. Moir’s most recent response does not fully apologise for her column, nor does it put right the inaccuracies about sudden death or sexuality she described. Perhaps it might have been better for Moir to issue a genuine and short apology, or say nothing at all.

Still on negative stories, Ben Goldacre over at Bad Science alerts us to The Spectator’s plans to screen the AIDS denialist movie House of Numbers as a means of encouraging ‘debate’ about AIDS. Goldacre’s blog highlights the problem with the movie (and links to numerous blogs who’ve been challenging the film and how it’s been accepted/promoted by people who ought to know better). Although gossip now suggests the event may be off.

On a more positive note, Halloween is just around the corner (although I promise not to mention the (over 18s) Pumpkin Dildo again this year). So in the run up to the event why not think about something suitably supernatural and consider dating a (real life) vampire? Actually I’ve done little else but fantasise about Edward Cullen of late, so this guide 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.

And if you want some super sex education this week the Kinsey Institute’s running a Sex Research Live event on 28th October where you can find out about your sexual personality and find out more about how we research sex. Or pop to London’s Science Museum (also on 28th) from 6.45pm where you can find out more about sex – including a chance to test your own sexual knowledge. And I’ll be telling you exactly why scientists study sex.

LOADS of sex and science stuff to get through today, so let’s get cracking with the fantastic news that as of the end of last week India has overturned its law against homosexuality. Some are already calling it ‘India’s Stonewall’ and LGBT campaigners and sexual health groups have welcomed the ruling.

While the change in the law won’t overturn stigma and prejudice overnight it will go a long way to tackle homophobic crime, forced marriages, and enhance mental and physical wellbeing of lesbians, gays, transgendered, hijra and men who have sex with men. It will also be helpful to our Desi LBGT friends in the UK. You can see some reactions to the ruling here. And if you’re from South Asia and want more information on sexuality you can find support from the NAZ project (UK) or TARSHI (South Asia).

Back in the UK discussions around the latest trafficking statistics have been circulating following information being posted on the website They Work For You. Figures suggest since the anti trafficking legislation came into force 568 arrests for human trafficking offences have been made with 114 convictions. Details on the nature of the offences are not broken down, but these will include trafficking for domestic service, manufacturing and other industries, and prostitution – and will include children as well as adults. Undoubtedly any case of trafficking is wrong, but we do need to be careful when considering this issue since politicians and the media are frequently led to believe the figures are far, far higher than suggested. Which can have adverse effects on policy, practice – and ultimately the wellbeing of those who are trafficked.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Pisani documents the ongoing and increasingly bitter debates and campaigns around prostitution. Depressing.

So while we’re on the subject of sex work you might want a more rounded view, from the latest edition of Research for Sex Work (11). Along with something a colleague referred me to – a recent (and surprisingly balanced and fair) report produced by Tower Hamlets describing a public consultation on the licensing of lapdancing clubs in the borough.

Moving away from sexuality and sex work, my friends over at Evidence Matters tipped me off on a very useful ruling by the Advertising Standards Association against a very shoddy survey by Clairol’s Nice and Easy hair dye. The ASA investigation identified numerous problems around recruitment of participants for the survey and how it was conducted. You can read the full account in the link above. My hunch is this is not a particularly bad survey, it was just something that was brought to the ASA’s attention. Which is bad news for Proctor and Gamble (the makers of Clairol) but good news for those of us who dispair of dodgy surveys used for promotional purposes. The take home message is we just have to keep complaining about them to the ASA.

As a reminder, here’s the ad, without the dodgy data. I don’t think it ever needed it.

To finish, here’s a really great piece of news from a fantastic piece of research just published by one of my sex research heroes – Peggy Kleinplatz. Her research on seniors sex lives has indicated that intimacy, emotional closeness and communication are the most important factors for a pleasurable sex life as you get older. The study is summarised here and I’ll be blogging a longer summary of the research soon. How nice to see a sex positive write up about intimacy that isn’t about ‘mind blowing orgasms’ and ends with the wonderful message from the research: “those with fulfilling sex lives “have learned to ignore conventional performance expectations in order to listen to and take responsibility for their own hearts’ desires.”

Glorious.