It’s the holiday season and my best wishes are with you whether you are celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah or Yule.

If you are still looking for presents for loved ones, or perhaps are just feeling full of seasonal spirit, I’ve a few suggestions for folk who’d appreciate your support.

I have selected 8 charities/organsations in the areas of sex, relationships and reproductive health. Some are faith based, some secular. You may want to support the one you feel most impressed by – or perhaps give a small amount to several of these very good causes.

And to celebrate the holiday season I hosted a virtual Charity Christmas Concert over on twitter. You can catch up with all the seasonal goodies I shared there at the end of this post – there’s music, comedy, quirky things and the occasional NSFW treat.

Hesperian Foundation
Hesperian is a non-profit publisher of books and newsletters for community-based health care. It produces free resources in various different languages on topics such as Where There Is No Doctor, Disabled Village Children and Helping Health Workers Learn. Here are ways you can get involved, which don’t just involve financial donations – you can also volunteer, translate and review books, and let other people know about the work Hesperian are doing.

Jabulani Rural Health Foundation
Jabulani is a non-profit organisation that supports Zithulele Hospital and its surrounding community. Zithulele Village is situated in a remote part of the Wild Coast (Eastern Cape Province, SA). Founded in 2007 by four Christian doctors, our focus is on healthcare, education, poverty relief, environmental issues and care for those affected by HIV/AIDS. Practitioners at Zithulele have introduced a number of innovative programmes for rural health which have been reported in The Lancet and SAMJ and include nutrition, maternal health, occupational therapy and education projects. Donation information can be found here
Become a friend of Zithulele here

A short film about the hospital can be found here:

Scarleteen
Scarleteen is an independent, grassroots sexuality education and support organization and website. Founded in 1998, Scarleteen.com is visited by around three-quarters of a million diverse people each month worldwide, most between the ages of 15 and 25. It is the highest-ranked website for sex education and sexuality advice online and has held that rank through most of its tenure. While Scarleteen is held as a benchmark in quality youth advice giving Founder and Executive Director Heather Corinna explains “we do not and have never had any state, federal or foundational funding, but are supported solely by individual donations. We do what we do with insanely small amounts of money: most years our budget has been smaller than the median household income for one family here in the states. For the majority of the years we’ve been around, our budget has been far lower than that”. More info here . Donate here

Outsiders
Outsiders is a community for people with physical and social disabilities that enables people to meet, make friends, overcome isolation and form relationships. It coordinates local meet ups, provides advice and hosts numerous events to raise funds for greater advocacy for people with disabilities. It also operates a peer support network, lobbies for greater rights for disabled people, and informs health and social care practice around sex, relationships and disability. As well as providing financial assistance there are other ways you can help Outsiders including lobbying on issues around disability rights, and assisting the organisation with research, advocacy and resources. More information on how to give here.

Education for Choice
Education For Choice is the only UK-based educational charity dedicated to enabling young people to make informed choices about pregnancy and abortion. “Education For Choice’s work is focused on the word choice. Whilst we concentrate on the issue of abortion, as it is the issue that receives least attention, we believe that work with young people should value all pregnancy choices equally. Our ethos is that the best outcomes of unintended pregnancy occur when the woman involved has been able to make her own informed choice”. Donate here

The New View Campaign
“The New View Campaign was formed in 2000 as a grassroots network to challenge the distorted and oversimplified messages about sexuality that the pharmaceutical industry relies on to sell its new drugs. The goal of the New View Campaign is to expose biased research and promotional methods that serve corporate profit rather than people’s pleasure and satisfaction. The Campaign challenges all views that reduce sexual experience to genital biology and thereby ignore the many dimensions of real life”. More information on donating and volunteering for the New View, as well as implementing its ideas into policy and practice can be found here

Bliss
“One in every nine babies in the UK is born premature or sick. That is over 80,000 babies every year. Bliss is the only national charity dedicated to improving both the survival and long-term quality of life for babies born too soon, too small or too sick to cope on their own”. You can give to this invaluable organisation here.

The Miscarriage Association
“Founded in 1982 by a group of people who had experienced miscarriage. They felt strongly that someone needed to provide the support and information which they had found lacking in their medical care, and so they set up a new charity. Nearly thirty years later, the Miscarriage Association has grown and developed in many ways, but we still pursue those founding aims:
• offering support and information to anyone affected by the loss of a baby in pregnancy
• raising awareness of miscarriage and
• promoting good practice in medical care”.
This organisation offers advice and information to women affected by miscarriage and their partners. Giving to this organisation helps offer care and challenge taboos around this area. You can donate here.

I hope you are able to support one or more of these charities/organisations either financially or as a volunteer.

Thanks for your continued support for this blog. Your feedback, suggestions and ideas for content (and how to improve the blog) is always very welcome.

The Charity Christmas Concert
Kicked off with Kate Rusby’s carol ‘Sweet Bells’ (as recommended by @BrightNomad)

At Christmas we love some snow. And also naked men. And tea trays

Matt Whistler’s Merry Christmas 2010 Southover Street Brighton from Convict Films on Vimeo.

One for children of all ages – Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer

Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer – Original Movie by goldrausch

Next up in the concert it was time for Dickie Valentine and his Christmas Alphabet

This is one to save for later, when you have a spare two hours and a stiff drink. Yes it really is THAT BAD – it’s the Star Wars Holiday Special

Then it was on to a song. A very bouncy version of Joy to the World – from the amazing Klezmonauts.

You probably have a collection of embarrassing family photos. But probably none as bad as this collection. It’s Awkward Family Photos – Christmas Special (watch out for The Full Monty).

The Shepherd Who Stayed – Theodosia Garrison for all of us who sometimes feel our work’s not noticed.

Christmas meets safer sex messaging in this super HOT video – Little Taiko Boy. Turn this up LOUD!

Ever wondered what goes into those letters to Santa? Find out here (be warned, some of these will make you cry). Or you could make your own snowflake.

The best ever Nativity, as told by the kids from St Pauls Church, Auckland (and shared with me by my Uncle)

One for the geeks now, Dot Matrix Printers play Czech Carol Nesem Vam Noviny

It’s a Father Ted Christmas – and what could be behind the Advent Calendar door?

Some more music with Vince Guaraldi Trio playing Christmas Time is Here (from A Charlie Brown Christmas).

And a reminder that we live in a Wonderful World

All finished off with my favourite carol. In The Bleak Midwinter (words here).

Wishing you a very Merry Christmas a Happy Hanukkah or a Blessed Solstice. And all the best for a happy and healthy New Year.

I’m going to be stepping away from this blog for a few months for a very happy reason. I’m having another baby.

I am currently setting myself a timescale of early Autumn before I consider blogging again, but I may take longer, depending on how I am managing motherhood.

Where time permits I’ll use twitter (@drpetra) to share information on forthcoming events, conferences, papers and other interesting stuff. I’ll be checking in on twitter regularly, but won’t be tweeting for the next month or so. In the meantime check out the folk on my lists who are all worth following and will keep you up to date with sex/relationships, science communication and healthcare issues.

While I’m away, here are some useful resources based on the main things folk ask me about via this website. You might find the links to sites and blogs I posted last time I went on maternity leave useful to rummage through as well.

If you’ve a personal problem
Here are some places you can get help and support on sex/relationships/reproductive health issues:

COSRT
FPA
Sexual Dysfunction Association
Brook
Scarleteen
Bish Training
Mermaids
The Site
NHS/Sex worth talking about

You can also get support from many of the people and organisations linked to in the blogroll.

If you are a journalist
I won’t be able to help with media requests until the autumn. Please email me (info@drpetra.co.uk) from October onwards and if I can help you I will. In the meantime if you are working on sex/relationships/health features or programmes you may want to contact the following organisations:

British Sociological Association
British Psychological Society
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Onscenity Network
Kinsey Institute

If you’re organising a talk or event
If you are planning something you’d like me to speak at please note I’m taking bookings for science/public communication from Summer 2012 onwards. If you have events coming up after that date please do email me. [As ever my speaker activity is based on my timetable and your event being low cost or free for audiences. I don’t charge a speaker fee but you will need to cover my travel, accommodation and reasonable expenses; and I don’t appear at events to promote pharmaceutical/commercial companies]

If you need an academic paper
Or help with your research, want me to review something, need feedback on a grant proposal, or any academic related activity please note I’m having a year’s maternity leave from University College London and will not be undertaking any academic activity in that time. If I am already in touch with you about ongoing projects I will make individual plans about appropriate contact during my leave.

While I’m away, don’t forget…
5th July 2011 – Channel 4 is hosting a meeting between programme makers, production companies and sex/education/health professionals. This follows complaints from a collective of UK practitioners concerned over the Joy of Teen Sex series (more info here). Unfortunately there are additional problems with the recent series The Sex Researchers that presented a misleading view of both sex research and sex information. Practitioners and researchers concerned about this problematic series will also be complaining to Channel 4 and those it commissions on the basis that programmes are not concerned with accuracy or ethical practice. You may also want to write to the Channel if you feel their sex broadcasting is poor.

9th July 2011 – There will be a Pro Choice Demo in London on 9 July 2011. More information here or follow on Twitter @ProChoice9July or #prochoicedemo2011. Additional information on this demo here and here plus information on reproductive rights in the UK here.

The government’s plans to tackle Sexualisation (along with other media outlets running their own campaigns). These still require follow up, interrogation and public discussion. The government will be reporting further on action taken regarding this review in the Autumn. I’ve linked to a number of forthcoming events conferences that will be tackling this issue at the end of the linked blog post. Academics and practitioners (including myself) have now formally declared how we feel this review is flawed and many of us will continue to push for better political decisions based on critical thinking about research, not ‘policy based evidence making’.

Other media outlets are planning programmes on sex/relationships in their Summer/Autumn seasons, so use this media appraisal guide to assess their quality.

Ongoing debates around sexual and reproductive health, teen parent blaming, regulation of pornography, sex work, and termination of pregnancy are all likely to be in the public domain over the coming months. They’ll need following, questioning and discussing. Where possible I’ll highlight information on these along with related conferences, campaigns or core issues on Twitter.

When I come back…
I’ll be using this blog to focus on some specific areas. Mainly sex/relationships and conception, pregnancy and parenthood. I planned to do this from the start of this year but ended up being sidelined by more interesting, challenging and topical issues. I’ll be aiming to be a lot more focused and disciplined on my return!

Looking forward to catching up with you again soon, and in the meantime enjoy the summer months. Thanks for your continued interest in and feedback on this blog, it is much appreciated.

I’ll post an update here when there is some baby news to report.

You may remember earlier in the year Channel 4 ran a new series called The Joy of Teen Sex (JOTS). Series 2 is currently in production. Practitioners and educators were anxious about JOTS while it was being made. When the series aired we continued to be very worried about the core messages shared, the way sex and relationships were presented, and how messages of heteronormativity, commercialised and aspirational views of sex were normalised. We were not alone. Parents and young people also were troubled by the ideas shared in JOTS. This prompted a group of professionals working in education and healthcare to write to the Channel expressing our concerns.

Channel 4 responded, and the remainder of this post shares this and our reply, along with some additional updates about problems with sex/relationships programming at the Channel.

Channel 4′s response (25 February 2011)

“I am writing in response to your letter to Channel 4 of 8 February regarding The Joy of Teen Sex. As the head of Channel 4′s features department which commissioned the series I have been asked to respond on David Abraham’s behalf.

Channel 4 values feedback from viewers and experts and we have considered your letter carefully. I think it is important to confirm, before discussing any of your points, that we share your overarching belief of the importance of young people having access to open and honest information on sex and relationships.

It was in light of the Government’s 2007 Review of Sex and Relationships Education in Schools that we developed a slate of sex education programmes that would address the systematic issues raised in the Review, in particular the paucity of and poor quality of sex education in schools; the importance of complimentary information being provided in and out of school; and that sex and relationship education should be inclusive and meet the needs of all young people. Television is a powerful medium through which we can provide information in a way that is educative authoritative and entertaining, and which can draw-in significant audiences, both watching on their own or with friends and families. Channel 4 has a particular resonance with younger people who see us as a friend and youthful presence, and characteristics that make us uniquely able to bring effective sex education to the screen.

Over the last few years we have provided a range of sex education programmes and online resources – each seeking to reflect different aspects of sex and relationship education. The Joy of Teen Sex formed part of that mix, alongside programmes such as The Sex Education Show, KNTV Sex or Underage and Having Sex. We are proud of our track record in this area – both in terms of a frankness and relevance that young people rarely have access to – and crucially the impact that the programmes have had.

After last year’s Sex Education Show: Am I Normal, Channel 4 commissioned a public value case study, on the impact of the programme among teenagers. The research found that overall the show did a great job for teenagers:
- 78% of 14-19 year olds agreed it told them things that they would be too embarrassed to ask about
- 70% said they learnt things they didn’t know before
- 60% said that the programme made them feel more confident about themselves
- 62% of those who watched ep2 or 4 said they had changed their attitudes towards disabled people having sex
- 76% prefer learning about sex on TV than at school

Although we do not yet have comparative data for The Joy of Teen Sex, we have had some anecdotal evidence that the programme has had a positive impact on young people. Dr Rachael Jones has reported a marked upswing in attendances at sexual health clinics and that often The Joy of Teen Sex has been cited as a motivator for attendance.

In addition, the Sexperience website, which has sat alongside both the Sex Education Show and Joy of Teen Sex strands, has been immensly popular (attracting up to 5,000 user comments/questions a week), providing a forum for discussion and advice sharing. That the programmes and website have had a positive effect on young people seeking sexual healthcare advice or changing behaviour is evidenced by their being referenced or included in various NHS booklets and websites as well as their use in secondary schools.

In response to your particular points of concern about The Joy of Teen Sex, I would first like to reassure you that the programme was commissioned with the intention of providing accessible, relevant, entertaining and empowering information about sex and relationships to young people. Its purpose was to inform and educate by offering a platform to discuss any problems, questions or anxieties they might have. The programme was aimed at teenagers over the age of 16 (and their parents) and deliberately sought to be up-front and honest and to reflect the issues that young people wanted to discuss. Throughout the course of the series we sought to represent a wide variety of young people from different cultural backgrounds; heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual contributors featured alongside single people and those in steady relationships; sexually active young people as well as those considering their first sexual experience.

The series deliberately did not shy away from the fact that many 16-and-overs are sexually active and want to lead fulfilling as well as healthy sex lives. In tone and content it was also not an attempt to replicate The Sex Education Show – which is more focused on adolescents and the care to be taken before sex becomes part of a young person’s life – but was aimed at at the issues confronted by youngsters already having sex or being pressured by their peers to do so.

In putting together the programme we worked with a number of experts in the sex education field, both on and off screen. This included Peter Greenhouse, Consultant in Sexual Health at Bristol Sexual Health Centre, who also worked on The Sex Education Show and the highly regarded Dr Rachael Jones of the West London Centre for Sexual Health, who featured in the series providing medical and contraceptive medical advice. The background of other contributors – including Ruth Corden, Billie JD Porter and Joanne Wierzbickia – was made clear as was their role in the series to add to the mix of viewpoints and expertise, rather than to provide medical advice. We believe that it is critical to the success of these programmes that they are supported by credible medical experts who are available to advise us on medical matters and vouchsafe the reliability and authenticity of any advice proffered either during the programmes themselves or through the supporting website. While we will not always agree with our medical experts on presentational matters or issues relating to the narrative conventions used in television, we will heed any advice we have sought from them on any specific medical matters.

Given Channel 4′s ongoing committment to provide content that deals with young people sex and relationships, we have been planning to hold a roundtable discussion about television and sex education in the next few months to bring together people involved in providing sex education in the health and education spheres and people involved in making TV content. We very much hope you will be able to attend the event, and that it will provide a forum for your concerns to be addressed more fully by a range of experts.

We will be in touch in due course about the event. In the meantime I hope this reply provides some reassurance about the intentions behind this programme and across our sex education output, and the positive impact that the series has had during and since broadcast.

Yours Sincerely

Sue Murphy
Head of Features”

Our reply
26 June 2011

Dear Sue Murphy
Cc: David Abraham, Andrew Jackson, Katy Boyd, Liam Humphreys, Kate Teckman, Dominique Walker

Thank you for your letter of 25 February 2011. We are glad to hear of Channel 4’s ongoing commitment to improving the quality of broadcasting and that you share our ‘overarching belief of the importance of young people having open and honest information about sex and relationships’.

Our previous letter outlined a lack of underpinning of Channel 4’s programming with strong evidence and critical thinking and we are concerned that your response does not fully engage with the issues we outlined. It appears to be justifying problematic programming rather than reflecting on areas where content needs to be improved.

As stated in our initial letter we agree television is a powerful medium to share sex/relationships information, something supported by the wider literature on media and education. You are right to state you have the trust of young people, placing you in a strong position to share sex information with them. However, our concerns over how you have been going about this – and will do so in the future – remain. It is because you have a position of authority and trust among viewers it is vital to ensure messages shared are accurate, informative and entertaining. We would invite you to revisit our first letter and consider many of the areas we identified as currently not being adequately addressed. As ever, our offer to help you improve upon the quality of your programmes remains.

You cite within your reply a ‘public value case study’ but you do not include full details of who this was run by, how it was conducted, on whom, or how representative of the public/viewing audience these participants were. While the figures from this ‘case study’ seem striking the outcomes are not completely clear. Respondents stated they learned things they did not know, but this is only positive if the things they learned were accurate – learning something you did not know that is also misleading is not the same as learning something that is accurate and explained in such a manner as to give you the life skills to ensure confident behaviour in sex and relationships. Claims that teens prefer learning about sex/relationships from TV rather than school are not particularly helpful given most teens will prefer learning anything on TV rather than school and is disingenuous to the many creative and thoughtful sex/relationships programmes already offered within UK schools.

Your claim from anecdotal evidence that Joy of Teen Sex had a ‘positive impact on young people’ is not particularly helpful. Those of us working in clinical settings can equally supply our own anecdotes that following Joy of Teen Sex screening we did not notice an increase in clinic attendance. Those of us working in pastoral/advice-giving settings have had to counter fears and anxieties raised by the programme, with young people requiring reassurance over misinformation shared. In particular the coverage of anal sex, STIs, lack of sexual desire and contraception shown on Joy of Teen Sex made young people we have contact with feel afraid of sexual and reproductive health services, or that they were abnormal for not identifying with the sex tips featured on the programme.

You state ‘we sought to represent a wide diversity of people from different cultural backgrounds; heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual contributors featured’. Again we would draw you back to our previous letter that highlights how many of your messages within the Sex Education Show and Joy of Teen Sex were heteronormative and misleading over LGBT issues. Simply having some guests who may be LGBT or mentioning homosexuality is not helpful if your wider programming focus is through a heteronormative lens. By that we mean presenting diverse sexualities as ‘different’, problematic or unusual; or seeing heterosexual, monogamous and sexually active relationships as ‘normal’. Given the Channel’s stated focus on diversity we would also expect to see programming that made explicit how many young people are not sexually active until over 16 and that many enjoy relationships based on delaying/actively consenting to a committed intimate relationship when they are older. We disagree that you have included a wide diversity of cultural backgrounds and would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you what an inclusive and sensitive programming schedule that is culturally diverse could look like.

We note you spoke with experts to inform the series but we would again refer you back to our first letter. This clearly indicates many of us were also approached to inform the Joy of Teen Sex, shared our expertise – and our concerns – but were ignored. We are hoping a learning outcome for you from the feedback we have given in this letter and our previous one makes it clear that you need to listen to a wide range of practitioners – not just those who are agreeing with your programme remit. Indeed if experienced professionals are all telling you there are problems with your programmes and consistently offering to ensure you are both accurate and entertaining, you should listen to them. We would also remind you many of the counter signatories on our first letter and this one have extensive media experience delivering sex/relationships advice in print and broadcast media. Some of us have even been consultants and contributors on programmes such as The Sex Education Show or other sex programmes for your Channel. Or have spoken at Channel 4 events on education/health.

We remain concerned over the way the contributors finally selected in the series of the Joy of Teen Sex were portrayed, including some of the messages they were providing. We do not feel their qualifications were completely transparent – for example one appeared to be a qualified Social Worker but her status was later amended, while another had experience in sex toy sales but not necessarily the more complex and nuanced area of sex education/care. Equally concerning is the lack of young people’s voices and experience which could have been a feature of the series but was not included. In empowering sex/relationships education and healthcare the voices of young people as peer to peer advisors and consultants are central. We hope future programming acknowledges this.

We welcome your comments and are looking forward to your proposed round table discussion about your programming. We hope you will use our first letter and this response to inform some of the conversations at that meeting. We note Channel 4 have recently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Trans Media Watch which will ensure ‘accuracy, dignity and respect’ in its portrayal of transgender people. We hope a similar commitment to sex and relationships broadcasting could also be developed.

As ever we remain committed to supporting young people, sex and relationships information and media opportunities to deliver this.

Yours Sincerely
Petra Boynton PhD, Social Psychologist and Sex Researcher, University College London
Dr Stuart Flanagan, Genito Urinary Physician
Justin Hancock, Bish Training, trainer and consultant
Lisa Hallgarten, Director, Education For Choice
Wendy Savage MBBCh FRCOG MSc (Public Health) Hon DSc
Marge Berer, Editor, Reproductive Health Matters
Romance Academy – a nation-wide, holistic, relationships and sex education initiative
Dr. Meg Barker, Sex therapist and social psychologist, The Open University
Alice Hoyle, Sex and Relationship Education Advisory Teacher
Alison Terry, Second year student, Applied Community and Youth Work Studies, University of Manchester
K. Barratt, Second year student, Applied Community and Youth Work Studies, University of Manchester
Becca Thompson, BSc MA COT
Steven Norris, Student Teacher
Clare Bale, RGN, BA (Hons),MPH, PhD Candidate, University of Sheffield
Dr. Lesley Hoggart, Principal Research Fellow, School of Health and Social Care University of Greenwich
Matthew Greenall, advisor on international HIV & sexual health programmes
David McQueen, International Speaker and Youth Advocate
Janet Horrocks, Healthy Schools Project Officer
Joelle Brady, MSc, Researcher
Kendelle Bond, MD of Zest Consultancy, Public Health Consultant
Dr Jayne Kavanagh, Medical Ethics and Law Unit Lead, UCL Medical School and Associate Specialist in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Camden Provider Services
David Evans, Researcher and Chief Executive SRE Project
Peter Bone, Chair of the Advisory Council, PSHE Association

Further Issues
Comparing our first letter with Channel 4′s reply and our response makes it transparent how there are problems with the Channel’s approach to sex/relationships programming and despite their claims about delivering quality broadcast materials this has not been achieved. Indeed where core problems have been pointed out, I would argue the Channel has sidestepped discussing or dealing with them. I feel the Channel has not adequately considered the problems with their past and current broadcasting on sex and relationships. As we speak The Sex Researchers – a series that promised to promote accurate and empowering information on past and current sexology is being aired. Only it is misrepresenting sex research (and researchers), again rehearsing narrow views of sex, gender and sexuality. Making out quirky lab based studies on desire and attraction (heterosexual obviously) are representative of mainstream sexology. The sex research community, including the Kinsey Institute, who helped put the programme together are very upset about how our time has been wasted in putting together something that seems to ridicule our work – and mislead the public on sex/relationships information.

Since JOTS aired we’ve also seen another series of The Sex Education Show broadcast. This series focused on sexualisation. When researching this issue the programme makers asked how they might ‘test’ sexualisation. They were referred to the Buckingham (et al) report on commercialised goods which is an excellent critical discussion of the area and provides a template of how to investigate the concepts of sexualisation and commercialisation. Rather than using this template, and while going against information from experts solicited for the series, the Sex Education Show went looking for examples of sexualised goods then made a fuss in stores about their sales. This is despite other evidence from reviews like the Buckingham one which indicates such products are not that usual and are interpreted very differently by parents and young people, but the concern over them from parents is often tied up in anxieties about girl blaming. Indeed the discussion of boys are largely absent, while the subtext of class and racial prejudice (about the ‘type of girls’ who wear such clothing) is problematic.

When acting as a consultant on Series 2 of The Sex Education Show I suggested Sexualisation could have been a topic to cover (from a critical perspective) since it tied in with the APA report on this issue that had just been launched. This was ignored with a focus given instead to limiting access to internet porn. When it comes to sex Channel 4 and related production companies seem to want to focus instead on topical issues that are both televisual and capture a public anxiety over a popular concern – rather than looking at and using evidence in a critical way.

Indeed if you look at how discussions pan out on the Channel’s Facebook page for Stop Pimping Our Kids (the campaign part of the last series of The Sex Education Show) it seems any in depth critical reflection is avoided or only included under duress (for example, witness how they position critical blogs discussing sexualisation research by myself and Dr Brooke Magnanti). Channel 4 now has a campaign for one current series (The Sex Education Show) which calls for restrictions on sexualised media. But other series the Channel has recently created – such as JOTS or The Sex Researchers seem to be promoting sexualised media (particularly for a youth market). In fact you could argue these plus Series 1 of The Sex Education Show with its focus on pubic hair removal, burlesque classes and new lingerie to boost sexual desire (in a show aimed at teens) comes under the Stop Pimping Our Kids campaign to crack down on sexualisation.

We are currently left with a situation where Channel 4 as a broadcaster focuses on a lot of sex/relationships content in various guises (entertainment, advice and education). These seemingly fall within part (or all) of it’s Public Service Broadcasting remit. Consistent, public and vocal calls for programmes to be improved – by the public and professionals – have been ignored. Programmes have been made during the past year which fail to have learned from the input from experts and feedback from professionals about content, accuracy and tone. We have an ongoing situation where programmes are being made by the Channel that contradict each other (and even contradict themselves), while offers of help to sort this muddle out are generally overlooked.

I hope the meeting the Channel are hosting in the coming weeks will be productive and the Channel will listen and really apply the core messages being shared. Otherwise we will continue to have a situation where both Channel 4 and production companies it commissions to make sex/relationships programmes will be viewed with mistrust and suspicion. We cannot currently trust Channel 4 to make quality sex and relationships programmes. And that is a situation entirely maintained by the Channel in the face of ongoing offers of support.

How sad.

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.

A friend emailed me today, asking why I’d not posted anything on the blog for weeks.

I was about to reply telling her she’d obviously not noticed I’d only just written something. Then I realised of course she was right. I have been extremely remiss in my blogging chores.

After sharing my excuses with her, I thought it best to also explain them here. A house move, pregnancy, no home internet access for weeks, plus less childcare than I’d had previously have meant I’ve been struggling with juggling part time work, motherhood and life generally.

One of several casualties of this has been the blog, which I’ve kept meaning to write but haven’t exactly got around to.

So my apologies for the slackness and my promise that things will improve from now on. In the coming weeks I’ll be updating on the female sexual dysfunction/medicalisation debate; critiquing how sex education is delivered via the media; and reflecting on how sex and relationships issues can effectively be tackled in science communication activities. Plus an update on where we are with the complaint to Channel 4 regarding The Joy of Teen Sex, and some musings on how sex and relationships advice is framed for mothers-to-be.

It’s nearly Christmas and you may have already got gifts for friends and family. But if you’re still wondering what last minute goodies to buy, or can stretch to one more present, then here’s a few suggestions for charities and organisations who could do with your support.

These are all programmes I feel are often not given much publicity and may not fit in the usual ‘good gift’ type Christmas promotions, but nevertheless do amazing work all year round and deserve our support.

I’ve picked 6 charities/groups who represent various different activities around sex, relationships and health. Some are faith based, some secular. Some are specifically focused to one region or country, others are international. You may want to support the one you feel most impressed by – or perhaps give a small amount to several of these very good causes.

As well as financial support there are also other ways to help these organisations so do read up on any that interest you and see if you can help them as a volunteer in the new year.

Hesperian Foundation
Hesperian is a non-profit publisher of books and newsletters for community-based health care. It produces free resources in various different languages on topics such as Where There Is No Doctor, Disabled Village Children and Helping Health Workers Learn.

Here are ways you can get involved, which don’t just involve financial donations – you can also volunteer, translate and review books, and let other people know about the work Hesperian are doing.

Jabulani Rural Health Foundation
Jabulani is a non-profit organisation that supports Zithulele Hospital and its surrounding community. Zithulele Village is situated in a remote part of the Wild Coast (Eastern Cape Province, SA). Founded in 2007 by four Christian doctors, our focus is on healthcare, education, poverty relief, environmental issues and care for those affected by HIV/AIDS.

Practitioners at Zithulele have introduced a number of innovative programmes for rural health which have been reported in The Lancet and SAMJ and include nutrition, maternal health, occupational therapy and education projects.

A short film about the hospital can be found here:

Donation information can be found here
Become a friend of Zithulele here

Scarleteen
Scarleteen is an independent, grassroots sexuality education and support organization and website. Founded in 1998, Scarleteen.com is visited by around three-quarters of a million diverse people each month worldwide, most between the ages of 15 and 25. It is the highest-ranked website for sex education and sexuality advice online and has held that rank through most of its tenure.

More info here

Donate here

Outsiders
Outsiders is a community for people with physical and social disabilities that enables people to meet, make friends, overcome isolation and form relationships. It coordinates local meet ups, provides advice and hosts numerous events to raise funds for greater advocacy for people with disabilities. It also operates a peer support network, lobbies for greater rights for disabled people, and informs health and social care practice around sex, relationships and disability.

As well as providing financial assistance there are other ways you can help Outsiders including lobbying on issues around disability rights, and assisting the organisation with research, advocacy and resources. More information on how to give here

Education for Choice
Education For Choice is the only UK-based educational charity dedicated to enabling young people to make informed choices about pregnancy and abortion.

When young people have opportunities to explore the decisions that can lead to and result from pregnancy they are better able to:
Protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy
Make informed choices
Access appropriate services to support their choices.
Education For Choice’s work is focused on the word choice. Whilst we concentrate on the issue of abortion, as it is the issue that receives least attention, we believe that work with young people should value all pregnancy choices equally.
Our ethos is that the best outcomes of unintended pregnancy occur when the woman involved has been able to make her own informed choice.

Donate here

The New View Campaign
The New View Campaign was formed in 2000 as a grassroots network to challenge the distorted and oversimplified messages about sexuality that the pharmaceutical industry relies on to sell its new drugs.
The pharmaceutical industry wants people to think that sexual problems are simple medical matters, and it offers drugs as expensive magic fixes. But sexual problems are complicated, sexuality is diverse, and no drug is without side effects.

The goal of the New View Campaign is to expose biased research and promotional methods that serve corporate profit rather than people’s pleasure and satisfaction. The Campaign challenges all views that reduce sexual experience to genital biology and thereby ignore the many dimensions of real life.

The New View Campaign is devoted to education, activism, and empowerment. We invite you to benefit from the information on this website, and we invite your support and participation.

More information on donating and volunteering for the New View, as well as implementing its ideas into policy and practice can be found here

I hope you are able to support one or more of these charities/organisations financially or in some other way.

Thanks for your continued support for this blog. Your feedback, suggestions and ideas for content (and how to improve the blog) is always very welcome.

Wishing you a very Merry Christmas and all the best for a happy and healthy New Year.

To get people in the Christmas spirit – and the mood for giving, I’ll be sharing carols, seasonal songs and a few sketches on twitter between 1-4pm on 22nd December (GMT) on the hashtag #PsXmasCharityConcert.

If you missed it, here’s the concert in full – please consider giving to one or more of the charities/organisations listed above while you tune in!

We opened with Mariah Carey’s All I Want For Christmas Is You

Followed by Meryn Cadell’s The Cat Carol which you can listen to here. [Not really suitable for young children, anyone who feels a bit hormonal, or people who like cats]

Then it was time for a bit of reading, with the fabulous Joyce Grenfell’s Nursery School Nativity Play And George, Wise Men never do that…

I bet you’ve never heard a better (or madder) version of The Little Drummer Boy than this one by The Klezmonauts.

It’s a Christmas tradition in our house that my dad reads King John’s Christmas as part of our family concert (he does it beautifully). So it felt apt to include it in my virtual Christmas Concert.

Next it was time for some Christmas kitsch – and it doesn’t get much kitscher than Eddie Dunstedter and his organ. I feel like I need a pair of heels, a cocktail and a Christmas pinny to really get into this one…

And if that wasn’t camp enough, it was time for some innuendo with Larry Grayson asking ‘Who’s stuffing your turkey this Christmas?’ (Go on, you can tell me!)

Do you believe in reindeer and the magic of Christmas? Of course you do! It’s only those pesky physicists who try and spoil things with all their logical explanations. Bah humbug!

Another song due after that, and it was over to Si Cranstoun and a very jolly Miss Santa Claus (he’s part of the Dualers – who are fab!)

What could be more seasonal than a song about an Angel Gabriel by LAMB?
I can fly
But I want his wings
I can shine even in the darkness
But I crave the light that he brings

Hoping you have someone in your life who make you feel this way.

On a lighter note I asked if people were familiar with the term Camp As Christmas? You will be after watching Bearforce 1 and ‘Christmas is here’ (which frankly ought to be the Christmas number one IMHO)

Next it was time for an activity for all the family – and kids of all ages. The Santa Application form (which I use in teaching questionnaire design – only at Christmas obviously). Still time to get your application written!

Obviously it wouldn’t be Christmas without a bit of Judy Garland, and the tearjerker anthem Have yourself a merry little Christmas

Last up in the virtual concert was my favourite carol In The Bleak Mid Winter which has the most beautiful words written by Christina Rossetti. I have a bad habit of ruining carol services by blubbing my way through the final verse of this.

Thanks for joining in my charity concert – either here or on twitter, and remember this was all for the good causes listed above, so please give them your money or your time if you are able.

Merry Christmas!

Today is International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. If you’ve not heard about it before it aims to highlight hate crimes committed against sex workers, show support for and among sex workers, and alert the public about the physical and emotional violence sex workers face – and the systems that maintain this. A good introduction to the aims and purpose of the day can be found in Annie Sprinkle’s essay Stopping the terror: a day to end violence against prostitutes.

In this essay Dr Sprinkle explains why sex worker violence remains a problem:
From working as a prostitute myself for two decades I know that violent crimes against sex workers often go unreported, unaddressed and unpunished. There are people who really don’t care when prostitutes are victims of hate crimes, beaten, raped and murdered. They will say:

No matter how people feel about sex workers and the politics surrounding them, sex workers are a part of our neighborhoods, communities and our families and always will be. Sex workers are women, trans people and men of all shapes, sizes, colors, ages, classes and backgrounds who are working in the sex industry for a wide range of reasons. Many of us are out and proud, and spend a lot of time trying to explain to the public that we freely choose our work and we are not “victims.” But the truth is, some of us have been, or will become, real victims of rape, robbery and horrendous crimes.

Across the world there will be a number of events marking the occasion which you may already be part of.

Coinciding with International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, are a number of excellent articles shared on the issue of violence and stigma over the last few days including:
Rosie Campbell and Shelly Stoops’ Treating Violence Against Sex Workers As A Hate Crime and Chi Mqbako’s Can We End Violence Against Sex Workers?

NSWP (Global Network of Sex Work Projects) are marking the event with the release of a special issue of the journal Research for Sex Work – Focusing on Violence and Sex Work (open access). Matt Greenall picks up on this theme with a wonderful example of a project around addressing violence and abuse in Madagascar. More resources for international projects and programmes on sex work can be found at the Paulo Longo Research Initiative. Clarisse Thorn discusses why ‘whore stigma’ makes no sense (this piece focuses more on cis women sex workers but still raises issues relvant to male and trans workers, gay or straight).

Meanwhile both Laura Agustin’s ‘Helping women who sell sex’ and Audacia Ray’s Things That Are Broken: Sex Worker Activism invite reflection on some of the core issues facing sex workers and their allies.

You may be unsure how you might mark this occasion, so this blog post from last year by Cory Silverberg discusses more about the day and includes 10 suggestions from Annie Sprinkle about how you can show your support. Audacia Ray outlines other related sex worker events running throughout December.

In sharing information about this day I’ve been asked, very reasonably, about the appropriateness of just one day to address such a major issue. And as with other events (like World AIDS Day) it is worth noting that for some people violence is a frequent part of their lives, not a one off event. It is for that reason, the high prevalence of abuse faced by sex workers (and the generally poor response to it), that such a day is needed. It reminds us of the problems that exist and encourages us to take action. That may be through campaigning for legal changes, improving education and research in this area, lobbying politicians, tackling the barriers to healthcare many sex workers face (an overview of some of these issues can be found here), learning how to be more of an ally for sex workers, or supporting one another (if you’re a current or ex sex worker).

Today is World AIDS Day with events taking place globally around the theme of Universal Access and Human Rights. You can follow discussions about the day with links to activities and organisations involved on twitter using the hashtags #WAD2010 and #PreventionRevolution

Access is an important but often overlooked issue within this area. Getting education to help people protect themselves from HIV or making care available for people with HIV/AIDS are both still major problems being faced worldwide. Particularly in resource poor communities. Women, children, sex workers, LGBT communities may find it more difficult to reach basic educational and health services, particularly in countries with gender inequalities or where homosexuality is illegal. A lack of critical reflection on the meanings of masculinity within research and care around HIV/AIDS can often mean mens’ health needs or problems can be overlooked or only focused on in negative terms.

Aside from funding and staffing issues, access to HIV services can center around transport and roads, availability of aid, poverty, housing, and education generally (particularly literacy programmes). Not to mention problems of rape and sexual violence, domestic abuse and availability of medication.

Access isn’t just about treatment services for those living with HIV/AIDS but also around prevention and treatment programmes. Which can often be blocked by moral or political opposition or apathy. Which is why access and human rights are interlinked. People deserve the right to have accurate information to help them protect themselves from HIV or gain appropriate care and support if they are positive.

The theme of access for the coming year is an important one and hopefully will be an opportunity for health care staff, educators and researchers to focus on a broader definition of the term. Access also applies to the education, training and support of staff working in health and social care in HIV/AIDS. We still have problems with a lack of open access for many academic journals covering issues staff need to be aware of and that should be something we all press for in the next twelve months.

Easily available and high quality education programmes for staff also need to be based on the specific needs of communities, encourage capacity building and are constructivist in nature – using the lived experiences and local contexts of staff to inform their teaching. Currently much teaching, while well intentioned, is delivered in a context-free, top down and short term fashion. Illustrated here with these wonderfully reflective pieces by Matt Greenall here and here. This can result in programmes that tell people what they ought to do, but not how to achieve this – and how to amend messages if they don’t fit people’s personal or local needs. A lack of sustainability and support within programmes can also often leave communities disempowered and distrustful of research, education or health initiatives.

There can also be a problem around applying what we know. All too often funding for HIV programmes can lead to people deciding to do more research (a survey or focus group) without consulting the existing evidence base on this area which could well inform practice and save time. This is not to say there’s no place for research in HIV/AIDS. Just for practitioners to think carefully about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Critical reflection on both our research and teaching in this area is essential if we wish to improve upon current care and outcomes for the communities we serve.

Health educators and researchers working in this area often struggle themselves with limitations of time, money and demands of funders and local/national politics. Not to mention barriers caused by internalising homophobic, sex negative and gender/class/tribal judgements. With a call to consider access it is important we focus more critically about the teaching we offer and how this work can have meaningful outcomes that include and work with communities.

A couple of examples of this in action can be found in the recent Distance Learning for Health conference which brought together health educators who shared examples of good practice and reflected on ways to improve their work internationally. A review of the event and access to presentations given can be found here. While Contestations provides space for practitioners, activists and educators to debate and think critically around topics related to healthcare that often are oversimplified or overlooked. And, as you can see from Matt Greenall’s posts above are crucial to reflect upon if we’re to improve our understanding of health and human rights.

Finding ways to share knowledge and educational resources can be a powerful approach to tackling HIV/AIDS, but equally importantly allows us to remember that HIV is not the only health problem the world is facing. Thinking about access to education and creative ways of providing this can also allow us to consider additional issues that are impacted upon by HIV but can also be ignored because of a focus on HIV/AIDS. Things like maternity services, mental health, disability, tackling poverty, or managing non communicable diseases, or infections such as TB or malaria.

I will share more on the blog about programmes I hear about in expanding access to education and prevention and would be keen to hear from bloggers, institutions or organisations who are finding creative ways to introduce empowering, critical and reflexive educational programmes with health care staff on HIV (and related issues).

In the meantime if you are thinking these are interesting issues but ones you cannot contribute to directly, here are 10 things you can do in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

This week, according to The Sun, the newspaper marks 40 years of Page 3. Across the course of the week the paper promises further celebrations, including a giveaway of a pack of playing cards and images of popular Page 3 girls such as Sam Fox, Jordan and Linda Lusardi.

Although Page Three seemed to have a heyday in the 1980s, it remains popular both within the paper and online. Indeed the newspaper can credit much of its revenue to the presence of bare boobs on Page Three.

However, it is not without controversy and certainly over the past 40 years debates have raged over the presence of the page and what it stands for.

Some (particularly The Sun itself) have presented the paper as harmless fun, a bit of a joke that celebrates the female form. It has been seen as a means of launching highly lucrative careers for a number of women, and for that reason beyond reproach.

Others view Page Three far more negatively. Views here range from seeing it as a representation of sexism in action – that its very presence devalues and dehumanises women. Or that it contributes directly to sexual harassment of women and girls – either in encouraging men to see women as sex objects, or by the display of Page 3 images in places of work that make women feel excluded.

A slightly different interpretation of Page 3 linked to this is that it isn’t the cause of abuse in women but it is a symptom of an unequal and sexist society. Or that it is racist, presenting mainly young white women as the norm, while fetishising on the basis of race the minority of Black or Asian models who feature.

Complaining about Page 3 has presented people with problems, however. For example critics of the Sun’s editorial policies, treatment of its workers, or wider political aims have seen those as more important issues than challenging Page 3. And advocates of free speech within media have remained unsure what to say about calls for banning pictures of bare breasts. Others have questioned whether Page 3 really is a big enough issue to get upset about given other problems around housing, pay, childcare women have to deal with.

In the 1980s there were some debates around the impact of Page 3 with some academics such as Guy Cumberbatch questioning what effect it might have on human behaviour. His argument was that while hard core porn existed, it was not as accessible to people as Page 3 which was mainstream, and available on a daily basis with no restrictions. Cumberbatch and other academics questioned whether having more access to less explicit materials could have more impact on sexual behaviour. Anti porn feminists, though coming from a different position, also questioned the mainstreaming of Page 3 as part of our daily lives as being a means of reproducing sexism as an every day event.

Critics of Page 3 complained the images of women were not always the problem and the photos had to be viewed in the wider context of the captions that appeared alongside them and the news stories on the same and preceding pages. The appearance of stories of rape, child abuse, or more recently discussions of sexualisation of young people appearing within the same paper (or particularly close to a Page 3 image) can be seen as hypocritical and inappropriate.

Page 3 has not gone without direct challenge. In the 1990s Clare Short attempted to have Page 3 removed. Her experience of resulting backlash towards her (which was vicious and sustained) and responses from women was published in a book Dear Clare, this is what women feel about Page 3 you can read the Introduction here.

Regardless of how you feel about Page 3 this book is worth reading. It is a couple of decades old now but it is a fascinating record of a point in history and tackling a contentious issue. It highlights in particular the problems that can be faced in questioning sexual images in the media – and how attempts to silence critics centre on devaluing their argument with accusations of their being prudish, ugly, boring or anti sex.

Unfortunately discussions around Page 3 have often resulted in women being judged or blamed. Whether it’s women who oppose Page 3 being dismissed as killjoys or Page 3 girls constructed as stupid or immoral. Sadly some of the debates around Page 3 often pitted women against each other with feminists called to attack Page 3 stunnas by the media eager to orchestrate a bitch fight.

This missed the many relevant criticisms of women (and men) of the presence of Page 3, while targeted hostile and aggressive responses towards Page 3 models rather than at the Sun, its editors, staff, advertisers and readership. Even now debates around Page 3, when they happen, tend to focus on discussions that quickly degenerate into girl blaming and rehearse female victimisation stories rather than looking at wider issues of commercialisation and the Sun’s editorial approaches.

Part of the problem within this area is that not everyone who dislikes Page 3 can agree on exactly why they have a problem with it – or what should be done about it. It is possible to be pro porn but still have questions about Page 3, although this can cause tensions when discussing with predominantly anti porn groups. Indeed many people who have issues with sexually explicit media also have issues with the politics and actions of anti porn groups – making it complicated to talk about issues in a calm way.

Aimed at straight men, the assumption is that Page 3 has nothing to say to women (or that women universally oppose it). While the voices of bi and lesbian women have been heard less in discussions of Page 3 certainly it would be wrong to say women have only one (negative) response to the images. In her 1983 essay ‘The Page Three Girl Speaks to Women Too’ Patricia Holland discusses how the images in Page 3 show other women how they should look, dress, pose and act in order to ‘be sexy’ for their ‘fella’. Rather than just being something women dislike and turn the page on, Holland explains how the presence of Page 3 plays a role in constructing what female desire looks like.

This leads to perhaps some of the less reported struggles women have with Page 3. That they may feel it is sexist but they also feel it excludes them from relationships with men or sets up a standard of femininity to which they cannot compete with. Page 3 girls are young and selected for particular body shapes (the fashions for which have changed over the past 40 years). They are photographed in flattering poses to accentuate breasts and bums. This can make women feel insecure in comparison, or imply the normal or preferable female form is that shown on Page 3.

It may be easier to dismiss such concerns if the paper itself did not play upon them. Even in the recent celebrations of Page 3 the launch of a video that focuses on ‘the woman you would secretly like your woman to be’

Despite the major opposition to Page 3 in the late 1980s and early 1990s cultural changes more widely perhaps explain why we appear less bothered about it now. Lads’ mags, wider accessibility to the internet, a more mediated and commercialised culture have all led to more access to sexualised imagery than we had in the recent past. With such changes you may question why Page 3 remains so apparently popular? After all the images of topless women are no longer unique to that paper.

Page 3 seems to have been archived along with Carry On films and Benny Hill as a bygone representation of gentle sexism that we know is there but we turn a blind eye to. Or perhaps can be rewritten as an ironic joke.

Have we resolved how we feel about Page 3? Is it just a joke? Are we no longer bothered by it? Or has its presence over 40 years simply meant we see it as part of our media fixtures and fittings?

What does seem certain is Page 3 is unlikely to disappear. It is a very lucrative part of The Sun. But it is undoubtedly presenting women, and sex and the female body in a specific way. Claims that it’s empowering to women may be questioned given the gimmick that goes with the 40th anniversary to see the Page 3 girls in 360 (also available for the iPad) where you can “make our model go full screen and she’ll pirouette at your command”

It may be easy to simply dismiss Page 3 as sexist or silly, ignoring how it has been a major part of a particular publication for 40 years. Over that time our attitudes to sex and relationships, to sexual politics and to sexuality have changed. The paper itself has both reported and constructed desirability and the female form with shifting fashions for poses, breast sizes, hair styles and clothing. Studying the history of Page 3 and what it’s had to say about women and men is worthy of consideration.

Page 3 hitting 40 is perhaps not as interesting as the history that hides behind the page, and the fact that as it reaches this milestone there has been relatively little public response. Certainly people don’t seem to be joining in the celebrations, but nor are many people speaking up about concerns over Page 3 or views on female imagery in the media more widely.

Perhaps people feel these debates no longer need to be had. I’m not so sure this is right. Page 3 presents us with a number of often uncomfortable issues for discussion, many of which we haven’t resolved. If The Sun is celebrating this is a good a time as any to debate the presence of Page 3 – and the politics of the paper more widely.

Recently I’ve been asked to talk about why I blog through activities like the ‘Bloggers Behind the Blogs’ series on psychology/neurology blogs or at Science Blogging Talkfest 2010.

Talking about why I blog or being introduced at any event as a blogger involves mentioning the name of my blog. ‘Dr Petra’. Or ‘Dr Petra’s Blog’. Which I find a bit embarrassing.

Why? Well, given the amazing, witty, fun and quirky names many people have for their blogs, particularly in the areas of health and science, mine seems to have a very dull title. Or perhaps seems to be the work of a raving egomaniac.

The truth is I had a website called ‘Dr Petra’ long before I had my blog, and so when I added the blog five and bit years ago I didn’t think to call it anything fancy. Mainly because it was largely experimental and I wasn’t even sure it was something I’d stick with.

As I became more familiar with blogging I realised how some folk had truly fantastic names for their blogs. I also learned how giving a blog a title based on your name is probably not the best idea – although a lot of that advice comes more from the world of commercial blogging rather than science blogging. Either way, but the time I’d realised it may be a plan to think of another title people had got used to ‘dr petra’ and I worried a rebranding might lose or confuse readers.

This didn’t stop me fretting the blog’s name implied a certain kind of arrogance I didn’t wish it to have. And disconcertingly that played out in real life where people I met seemed to be under the impression I wanted to be called ‘dr’ at all times. Which in spite of me getting a PhD being a very big deal to me (more on this in a bit) I’m actually not that fussed about.

All of which got me thinking what I might have called it if I’d been foresighted enough to consider a snazzy name might be important.

‘Confessions of a sex researcher’ was my first choice. Quite catchy, and I’d already written a short piece using that title for Libido Magazine. But then the blog’s not always about sex or research so I felt it might make it seem too focused and abandoned that idea.

On a naughtier level I considered ‘Red hat, no knickers’ or ‘Fur coat, no drawers’ either of which are a nod to my interest in sex work and represent my fascination with how we talk about female sexual behaviour. But I discarded these as they implied a blog that was someone talking about their sexual experiences or fantasies. I’m a fan of blogs that do just that, but my blog doesn’t detail my sexual diaries, and people arriving hoping to hear about some erotic encounters might be sadly disappointed by the regular discussions of research governance, ethics and survey design.

So then I thought about ‘The Ruined Maid’ again focusing on my interest in sex work, but thought that might suggest I was a sex worker and detract from the many excellent sex worker blogs out there. I also didn’t want to offend sex worker bloggers who have complained about ‘faux ho’ websites that describe fictitious encounters, speak for sex workers (rather than being an ally) or talk about pornography/prostitution in ways that put sex workers at risk.

Still on the fallen woman motif I tried ‘No better than she ought to be’ – a hat tip to how women who study sex are often sexualised through what they do (and are put down for it by academic colleagues and sometimes the public). But that reminded me too much of my schooldays when I was told I was ‘thick’ and to leave at 16 without going on to further education. In fact, still feeling bitter about being pigeonholed as ‘the kid who wouldn’t amount to much’ I toyed with using that line for the blog. Changed tack when I realised Robbie Williams had got there first with his poem Hello Sir, which is sampled in One Giant Leap’s fantastic ‘For My Culture’.

As a psychologist I ought to know dragging baggage around isn’t all that helpful and I don’t feel a blog title based around past problems is all that healthy. Besides I’ve preferred to work through those demons by doing action research on access to higher education for disadvantaged young people (examples here and here).

Leaving the opportunity for passive aggressive blog titles behind I considered an historical take with ‘The Net Braider’s Granddaughter’. My maternal grandmother was a net braider as well as a wife, mam, party activist and all round wise woman. I owe her a lot and strongly identify with the life skills and values she taught me. I still love the idea of this as a title for the blog as it sums up a sense of weaving together different areas of my work and life. But while it holds sentimental value to me it doesn’t really tell anyone what the blog’s about, which I felt might be confusing.

Focusing back on my academic work I thought about The Research Companion, as a lot of my lecturing is based around making research accessible, ethical and safe for people working in the social and health sciences. Having published a book using this title I thought it was too nice to not recycle. Then I worried that as the blog often deviates from discussing research and prances into sexy chat, those people turning up who only wanted to talk about research governance, ethics and survey design might be somewhat offended – or wildly aroused.

My work is a mix of many things. It straddles the sexy and the scientific. Sometimes it’s about advice, sometimes about activism. Often both. Sometimes the sex topics are highly sensitive and serious, other times they can be erotic or humorous. In between there’s interrogation of method, discussion of media processes and reflections on research in the social and health sciences. So finding a blog title that accurately represented all these things proved pretty much impossible.

My readership is also fairly broad and I didn’t want to exclude anyone with a title that seemed overly flippant, explicit or dull. And since a lot of the work I do focuses around sex education and the rights of young people I also didn’t want a title that would prevent younger people from reading the blog.

So there you are. Due to a lack of real forethought the blog is what it is. Call it what you will, just keep reading and keep telling me what you like and dislike about it – and what you want me to talk about.

After all, the blog is for you and represents something for everybody.

While you mention it ‘Dr Petra: something for everybody’ has a nice ring to it.

(And I believe someone I admire a lot used it as a catchphrase too).