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.
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.
The Sex Researchers (Channel 4)
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.
TweetRelated posts