This class is concerned with exploring

human sexuality from an Anthropological

perspective, which means we will be
focusing primarily on bio-behavioral,
evolutionary, and cross- cultural approaches to
understanding human sexuality. The aims of the
course are as follows:
1. to explore how sex research and sex
theory are situated within and beyond
Anthropology and how Anthropological
approaches can contribute to contemporary
debates on human sexuality;
2. to develop a basic understanding of
theoretical perspectives on sexuality
appropriate to Anthropology;
3. to critically evaluate research processes and
interpretations of results, in terms of both the
“quality” of research and its political contexts, and finally,
4. to provide relevant current information about human sexual behavior, based on quality research, and to
make that information relevant to everyday living; in other words we want to "demystify" human sexual
behaviour and help students feel more comfortable with thinking and talking about sex.
So now we’ll take a moment to consider each of those four course goals in turn:

In order to understand how Anthropology can

contribute to contemporary debates on human
sexuality, we must first pause to consider:
What is Anthropology?
Anthropology is a discipline that in its broadest terms is
considered “the science or study of humanity.” There are
four specific subfields in anthropology; those are cultural
anthropology, which emphasizes cultural practices and
cross-cultural variation among contemporary human
populations; there’s physical anthropology, which has an
emphasis on the biological aspects of humanity; there’s
archaeology, which is the study of past human
populations, and there’s linguistics, which focuses on
documenting and recording different language but also the
study of language in various social contexts.
 Key concepts within the field of anthropology
include culture, ethnocentrism, and cultural
relativism. Culture is often defined as a series
of commonly held ideas, values, and practices.
People often think of this in terms of traditional
cultures among various ethnic groups, but
social groups at various scales – whether it’s at
the national scale, or a club or athletic
association – those groups also have cultural
practices that social scientists can study.
Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own
culture’s or group’s beliefs and ways of doing
things are the natural ways, the normal ways of
doing things, and that those ways are better
than other groups’ ways of doing things.
Cultural Relativism is essentially the opposite
of ethnocentrism. If ethnocentrism involves
judging the cultural traditions of another social group in terms of one’s own cultural traditions, then cultural
relativism involves trying to understand those cultural traditions within the specific context in which they
develop in terms of its own history. And that’s what anthropologists try to do. They try to understand other
cultures in terms of their own values and meanings. It’s especially important when we’re trying to understand
other groups’ sexual behaviors.

The effective study of human sexuality requires

an interdisciplinary approach because human
sexual behavior is a complex set of phenomena
that is not determined solely by just one aspect of
what makes us human. So, for instance, we need
to consider biological factors of human sexuality
such as the physiology of arousal and response.
We also need to consider the psychology or the
formation of sexual behaviour and attitudes.
Sociological factors are also important to
consider. For instance, how does sexual
behaviour vary depending on different
demographic factors such as race, religion,
socioeconomic status, etc.? And finally,
anthropology really has a unique contribution to
make to the study of human sexuality because it
is so interdisciplinary to begin with, but especially
because of the focus on cultural differences. Anthropology can help us understand the vast array of human
sexual behaviour across different cultures as well as the similarities across different cultures. Additionally,
anthropology can provide an evolutionary perspective by treating human sexual behavior as another example
of primate sexual behavior or mammalian sexual behavior.

By approaching the study of sexuality holistically, that is, by integrating biological, cultural, historical, and
psychological methods and approaches, we can develop a fuller understanding of human sex than is possible
to generate than by using one approach by itself. This is especially the case with human sexuality, where
biology and culture are so intimately entwined it is unrealistic to exclude one or the other.
 A cross-cultural perspective provides evidence
concerning the importance of culture and
learning in the shaping of sexual behavior. It
helps us to understand human universals. An
example of which is that all human societies
regulate human sexual behavior in some way.
Perhaps the best example of this are incest
taboos, that is regulations prohibiting sexual
interaction between blood relative. In addition, to
helping us understand which sexual behaviors
are nearly universal, across human societies, a
cross-cultural perspective can also help us
appreciate the vast amount of cultural variation
there is in terms of sexual behaviors. For
instance, in some societies, kissing is an integral
part of sexual behavior, but in other societies,
kissing is not typically involved in sex. Also the
extent to which inflicting pain during sex as appropriate or not varies from one society to another. Societies
also have different approaches to or standards for masturbation, premarital sex, extramarital sex, as well as
sex with same-sex partners.
An anthropological perspective can also draw on information or data acquired from contemporary
populations through ethnographic research methods, as well as try to learn what human sexual behavior was
like in the past among ancient societies through archaeological research. And approaching humans within an
evolutionary framework allows us to see that our behavior is not so unique. For instance, masturbation is found
among many different species of mammals. Also same-sex behavior is found among many different species.
So, a cross-species approach can help us better-understand which aspects of our sexuality are unique and
which aspects are not quite as unique as we often think that they are.

The second objective is to develop a basic

understanding of theoretical perspectives on
sexuality. There are many available theoretical
models for looking at sexuality, and the textbook
tends to emphasize three broad categories of
psychological approaches, sociological approaches,
and evolutionary approaches. Although the
evolutionary approach that the textbook highlights
most frequently is evolutionary psychology. In
contrast, an anthropological perspective will
emphasize a cross-cultural approach, as well as a
cross-species approach, and more of a true
evolutionary perspective rather than evolutionary
psychology.
The model of Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
represents one of the psychological theories on
human attraction. Whereas the Time Magazine cover
story on sociobiology represents an evolutionary
perspective that’s closely akin to evolutionary
psychology.
 The third course objective is to critically evaluate
research processes and interpretations of
results, in terms of both the “quality” of
research and its political contexts, using sex
research as an example.
An important part of university education is
learning how to think not so much what to think,
and this will be a focus of this course. Sex is a
really good area to do this with because the
debates are often larger than life and the issues
are thrown into sharp relief. What is quality
research? How do you assess it? What is good
research in a broader sense -- research that is
ethical, well conducted, and relevant? We need to
learn how to improve our critical faculties, but also
for those of you that might progress to a research
career, you need to get a sense of the basic things
that researchers should be thinking about while doing research.
For instance, you should not assume that scientists or researchers are unbiased. Human sexuality is a value-
laden phenomenon or aspect of human social life, and the people who study it themselves are not immune to
bias or judgement. Instead, you have to critically evaluate the information that is presented to you. So, in order
to do this effectively, you need to maintain an open mind even if the behavior that is being reported on is not
something that you believe in or practice. You need to be skeptical, not just take for granted what they tell you.
You need to closely examine definitions because the way something is defined in research can affect what the
results are. You also need to closely consider the assumptions or the premises of the arguments being made.

The critical evaluation of sex research also involves

consideration of alternative interpretations of a
particular study. You also need to consider the kinds of
evidence upon which the author’s conclusions are based.
Is the author cautious about drawing those conclusions?
Does the author either over-simplify or over-generalize?
 As an example, here are the results of a
hypothetical study on the number of sex partners
over one’s lifetime and how that might vary between
men vs. women. So you can see presented here the
percentage of men and women that had zero sex
partners, one, two, three or four, five to ten, and
eleven to twenty, and upwards of twenty sex
partners over the course of his or her lifetime.
[Click] So, the interpretation based on these results
could be that there is a gender disparity in the
number of lifetime partners. In other words, men
tend to have more partners than women. So, to
critically evaluate this, you would want to consider
why this might be. So, should we believe these
results and the interpretation, or are there some
underlying factors that may be skewing the
conclusion.

The interpretation on the previous slide seems

overly simple, and the results may in fact be
spurious. Some possible explanations of the
alleged gender disparity in number of sex
partners over one’s lifetime could be affected by
a number of different factors. For instance,
sexual orientation of the respondent may not
have been accounted for. There is a cultural
practice wherein men tend to exaggerate the
number of sex partners they have had, and
women tend to under-report the number of sex
partners they’ve had. There’s also the possibility
that one woman has had over a million sex
partners over the course of her life. For instance,
since a sex worker could conceivably have that
many sex partners, this would be considered an
“outlier” because that data point is so unusual
from all of the others that it could be skewing the results, and thus also the interpretation. There could be age
differences among the men and women respondents. For instance, it could be that most of the women who
were contacted and chose to respond to the survey were in their early twenties, so they might not have had
that many years to acquire a large number of sex partners. In contrast, if the men who were contacted and
responded to the survey happened to be older, significantly older, say in their late fifties, there’s a thirty-year
average difference in age and also a lot of time for the men to have had more sex partners than the women
respondents. There may also be gender differences in what is counted as a “sex partner.” For instance, is a
sex partner only a person with whom one had sexual intercourse, or would oral sex also count for qualifying
someone as a sex partner? These are all things that need to be considered, and in the simple example
presented on the previous slide, you were not given all of this additional information. But these are the types of
things that you will need to consider, and the approach that you need to take in critically evaluating research,
including the original research studies you’ll be reading for this course.
 The fourth and final objective is to provide
relevant current information about human
sexual behaviour, based on quality research,
and to make that information relevant to everyday
living. In other words, the goal is to "demystify"
human sexual behaviour and help students feel
more comfortable with thinking and talking about
sex.
So, some of the things that we’ll be focusing on in
this course are definitions for anatomical features,
sexual positions, and sexually transmitted
infections so that everyone is familiar with and
comfortable with what we are talking about.
Something else that we will be looking at is the range of human sexual behaviors across cultures, and, as
mentioned a moment ago, we will have an entire lecture on sexual health, that is, different sexually transmitted
infections. More generally in this course we will explore such basic topics as how and why you get horny, why
your sexuality is oriented as it is, how you catch STIs, things that are basic information for getting through life.
We will also explore the more complex topics -- things that should help you make better informed decisions
about your attitudes and beliefs about some fundamental social and political issues.

Before proceeding we need to define what we

mean by “human sexuality”. Human sexuality
refers to our experiences and our expressions of
ourselves as sexual beings, factors which are
affected by our biology and our culture. It’s
important to draw a distinction between sex and
gender. For our purposes, “sex” will refer to
sexual anatomy and sexual behavior, whereas
“gender” will be used to refer to the state of being
male or female with regard to prescribed
behavior patterns and identification. So, for
instance, an individual could have male sexual
anatomy, but could take on female gender roles.

We should also backtrack in terms of focusing on

what we will define as “sexual behavior.” There
are a number of different possible definitions. For
instance, the textbook uses a psychological definition and defines sexual behaviors as any behaviors that
produce arousal and increase the chance of orgasm. This is a little overly-simplistic, because some sexual
behaviour is nothing to do with arousal. For instance, the victim of rape may not experience arousal. Another
common way of defining sexual behaviors are behaviors that increase or produce chance of reproduction, that
is, the gametic union of sperm and eggs. This is an example of an evolutionary definition of sexual
behavior. But it also is overly-because some sexual behavior has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction,
for instance: fellatio.
So this highlights the complex dualistic nature of sexuality: sex is pleasurable, or potentially pleasurable, but is
also necessary for the survival of our species. So, from Aristotle to Freud you see complex tensions between
notions of sex as pleasure and sex as procreative exercise. However, we can see sexual behaviors as those
that center on reproduction but are not dependent on them, and those that can lead to pleasure.
 The assigned reading by Sanders et al. highlights
the importance of defining the terms that we use.
Their research question was, “Do men and
women have different definitions of sex?” And
they explore what factors in terms of sexual
behaviors and actions could impact weather or
not an individual would categorize that act as
constituting having “had sex”.
So, for their sample they included men and
women ranging in age from 18 to 96 years old.
And they used the survey method, and they
asked respondents which of the following sexual
behaviors fit the definition of having “had sex”.

As you saw in the article, Sanders et al. concluded

that there is no significant difference between men
and women in terms of what constitutes sex, and,
perhaps more interesting, there was no real
consensus on which behaviors qualify as sex.
**Nearly all respondents agreed that penile-vaginal
intercourse constituted having “had sex”.
**Twenty percent said penile-anal intercourse is
not “sex”.
**Thirty percent said oral-genital activity is not
“sex”.
**While 50% said that manual-genital contact is not
“sex”.
So, the authors’ conclude that it’s very important
to use behavior-specific terminology when
conducting sex research. This is also crucial for
sexual health promotion, as well as sex education.
Additionally, researchers, educators, and medical
practitioners need to exercise caution and not assume that their own definitions of having ‘had sex’ are shared
with their participants, students, or patients.
With module 2, we’ll be moving into some of the
core content areas in terms of human sexuality
that we’ll be looking at throughout this course.
These include the practice of Sex research, The
History of Sexology; reviewing sexual anatomy
and response; examining sexual behavior
within a cultural and a cross-cultural
perspective; using historical and
archaeological perspectives to better
understand human sexuality, in addition to
reviewing primate mating patterns and placing
human sexual behavior within a larger primate and
mammalian context. There will be modules on
both evolutionary and cross-cultural perspectives
on human attraction and mating. And finally, the
course will conclude with modules on sexually
transmitted infections and sexual coercion.
_______________________________________________________________________

In this lecture we will be reviewing some of the

prominent theories of human sexuality. But before
taking a look at some of those specific theories,
we’re going to go ahead and define what exactly we
mean by theory.

In common parlance the word theory is often used

to refer to an idea or an educated guess. However,
a scientific theory is quite different from an
educated guess. Instead a theory is a principle (or
set of principles) that explain phenomena. Theories
are used to make predictions about phenomena,
such as human behavior. Theories are testable,
either via experiments, simulations, or even
potentially testable. If a postulation is not testable,
it is not a theory. Examples of theories include
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the theory of
evolution by natural selection.

Theories applied to human sexuality and sexual

behavior can be divided into three different schools
of thought: psychological, sociological, and
biological or evolutionary theories.
 While psychological theories proposed to explain
human sexual behavior are really quite diverse –
including psychoanalytic theory as developed by Freud
– here we will focus on only a few of those
Psychological theories. One of which is Learning
theory.
Much of human sexual behavior is biologically
controlled, but much of it is also learned. In essence,
learning theories seek to explain sexual behavior in
terms of conditioned (or learned) behaviors.
Learning theories can be broken down into three broad
categories: Behavioral Approaches, which focus on
the effects of rewards and punishment on behavior;
Cognitive Approaches, which emphasize cognitive
activity (such as problem solving, expectations,
decision making, and so on); and Social-Cognitive
Approaches, where individuals learn by observation
and reinforcement.

Cognitive theories focus on how actors perceive

and evaluate events. In relation to sex, cognitive
theory is concerned with the ways individuals perceive
and evaluate sexual experiences.
One specific example of a cognitive theory is the
gender schema theory. Gender schema theory
addresses the ways in which an individual’s
framework for “knowing” about a particular topic
influences subsequent thought and interactions. Bem
proposes that this framework for gender predisposes
us to process information based on the attributes we
associate with being male or female.
Social Exchange Theory uses the concept of
reinforcement to explain stability and change in
relationships between people. Some applications of
this theory assume that people are hedonistic, that is,
people try to maximize rewards and minimize costs when they act with others.

A sociological theory examines effects of sociocultural

institutions and beliefs on sexual behavior and attitudes.
There are three common assumptions that are part of of
sociological approaches: First, every society regulates the
sexuality of its members. Second, basic institutions
affect the rules governing sexuality, and third,
appropriateness and inappropriateness of a particular
sexual behavior depends on the culture in which it
occurs.
The textbook uses a macro level of analysis of social
influence, focusing on the ways that social institutions
shape norms and values relating to human sexuality. For
instance, the textbook considers the way that Judeo-
Christian traditions have exercised a pervasive influence on
Western sexual norms, how changes in the economy
influence family structure and availability of sexual partners,
how families socialize children into expected behaviors or norms, and how the laws of a society influence
people’s sexual behaviors in a number of ways, determining what is “normal,” establishing a basis for “control,”
and also identifying what are dominant interests.

Symbolic interaction theory seek to explain human behavior by analyzing the effects of interaction and
symbolic communication between individuals. Human
nature and social order are the products of symbolic
communication among people. So sexual behavior,
experience, values, etc. are constructed through
interactions with other individuals.
Social scripts are learned sets of behavior that
delineate the sequence and character of sexual
encounters. In other words, by observing those around
us, and by learning experiences of interacting with
others, we learn to identify and then follow these social
scripts related to dating or sexual intercourse.
Studies based on this perspective indicate that cultural
groups demonstrate significant agreement on the order
of events in dating and sexual encounters. So for
instance, this explains how we infer a sexual encounter
in a film when events leading to intercourse are shown,
but intercourse is not, and the camera “fades out.”

Another sociological perspective on human sexuality has been termed the social importance of sex. Reiss
points out that sexuality is universally important. He
explains this phenomenon as an effect of two factors:
first, sex is associated with intense physical
pleasure, and second, intimate interaction and acts
of self-disclosure are associated with sexual activity.
In terms of Reiss’ theory, that is, how we can explain
and understand human sexual behavior, we need to
look at the way that human sexuality is linked to
three structural areas in society, the first of which is
kinship. Family ties regulate marital behavior and
appropriate relationship conduct. Second, the
society’s power structure also relates to sexuality, as
powerful groups typically attempt to control the
sexual behavior of those less powerful. Finally,
sexuality is regulated by the ideologies of the society,
which define the normalcy or “abnormalcy” of
behaviors.
 The third cluster of theoretical perspectives of
human sexuality can be categorized as biological
or evolutionary perspectives of human sexuality.
These approaches study the role of genes,
hormones, the nervous system, and other
biological factors as they relate to human sexual
behavior. So, for instance, this could involve the
study of the mechanisms, the anatomical
mechanisms, of arousal and reproduction, as well
as the evolution of human sexual behavior.

To be able to make sense of these evolutionary perspectives on human sex, we need to have a clear
understanding of evolution and how it works.
Evolution occurs via natural selection – animals
that are best adapted to their environment are
more likely to: survive, reproduce, and then pass
genes to the next generation.
Evolution also occurs via sexual selection. This
involves competition between members of one sex
(usually males), and preferential choice by
members of a particular sex (usually females).
And on the bottom of the slide here you can see
images of two different species where sexual
selection has played a large role in their
evolutionary history. On the left you can see a
male peacock, whose long, numerous, and
brightly colored feathers have been interpreted as
an example of competition between males, so that
is sexual selection, and then on the right you can
see an image of stag beetles with female on the
left, male on the right, and you’ll note that the male has large horns on its head which it uses to fight other male
stag beetles in order to get access to females.
In 1970s saw the emergence of sociobiology – a controversial approach developed by E.O. Wilson – which
involves the application of evolutionary theory to understanding social behavior of animals, including humans.
We will spend more time exploring some
sociobiological interpretations of sexuality in more
detail in Module 8. But briefly, sociobiology offers
the premise that cultural conventions in mating and
pair bonding stem from successful reproductive
strategies. Standards of attractiveness are
generally those traits that are indicative of health,
which increases chances of reproductive success.
The nuclear family, pair-bonding, and infant
attachment are adaptive conventions that improve
the chances of offspring survival.
One of the fundamental precepts of sociobiology is
the difference between the sexes in their
investment in offspring (known as Trivers and
Willards’ sexual selection theory). The general
rule is that females do all of the investing (in part
due to limited number of ova or eggs and also
responsible for gestation, birth, and lactation);
conversely it is assumed that males invest very
little in offspring and instead take a “shotgun approach” to parenthood due in part to the volume of sperm that
they are able to produce. (Trivers, 1985).

Evolutionary psychology is a specific

sociobiological theory. Evolutionary psychology
proposes that emotional and cognitive functioning
evolved in response to selective pressures. Those
individuals most likely to pass on their genes are
those who make sound cognitive choices and who
produce offspring best suited to do the same. This
theoretical approach assumes that many
behaviors reflect adaptive cognitive modules that
evolved during humankind’s evolutionary history.
Within an evolutionary psychology framework,
human sexual behavior is assumed to reflect
strategies that increase one’s reproductive
success and are shaped by cognitive or
psychological modules. Essentially, the belief is
that there are universal aspects of human sexual
behavior that are hardwired into the human brain
as a result of thousands if not millions of years of
evolutionary history.
A number of critiques have been raised against evolutionary psychology, including the fact that not all
behaviors are adaptive. We will return to these evolutionary psychology explanations of human sexuality – as
well as the critiques of these claims - in greater detail in modules 8 and 9 during our discussions of human
attraction, mating strategies, and rape.
The so-called “feminist theory” is not a “theory” in
the strict sense, but a diverse group of critical
approaches that challenge such traditional views as:
Men as breadwinners, women as homemakers
Men as political policymakers
Men as sexual “aggressors” and women as sexual
“gatekeepers”
Men as objective, rational beings, and women as
emotional, irrational creatures

Likewise, “queer theory” is also not a “theory” in the

strict sense, but a critical approach to gender roles
and sexual orientation.
Queer theory challenges heterosexist assumptions,
that is heteronormativity, and also asserts that
sexuality, whether it is behavior, orientation, identity,
etc., is more varied than those in power would like to
acknowledge.

In summary, there is not one single theoretical

perspective that fully encompasses all of the
diverse aspects of human sexuality. For this
reason, multiple perspectives are necessary given
the complexity and range of human sexual
behavior. Each of the theories we have reviewed
within the three schools of thought, whether it is
psychological, sociological, or biological, each
of those has something to offer to our
understanding of human sexuality.
And one of the advantages offered by an
anthropological approach to the study of human
sexuality, is that anthropology itself incorporates
diverse methodological and theoretical approaches
as a discipline, and it is well-suited for the analysis
of human sexual behavior.
 In the last lecture we looked at theories of human
sexuality – that is ways different ways to explain
aspects of human sexuality. In this lecture we will be
looking at the nuts and bolts of sex research – the
techniques and methods researchers use to collect
data (information) on human sexuality and human
sexual behavior.
All the approaches used to collect data in sex research
are the same as those used in other anthropological
and social science studies. However, there are special
problems in studying sex that make research more
difficult, and results sometimes more questionable.
In this lecture we will explore how and why sex
research is difficult and fraught, and review some main
methods used in sex research.

To contextualize the different aspects of conducting

sex research, it helps to understand the goals of the
science of human sexuality, and the scientific
method in general. The goals of the scientific study
of human sexuality include describing patterns of
behavior in a way that is clear, unbiased, and
precise, explaining those patterns of behavior by
relating observations to other factors – ideally these
would be causal factors that indicate why certain
behaviors occur, and finally making predictions
regarding future behavior based on previous
observations. This can be rather tricky especially as
it applies to human behavior because it is influenced
by so many potential factors.

The practice of science is grounded in the

empirical approach, which means that the
information generated is derived from
observation, experience, or experiment. The
archetypical manner of conducting scientific
research is known as the scientific method,
which involves first developing a research
question, framing that question in the form of a
hypothesis (or expectation), and a hypothesis is a
precise prediction that will be tested, third you test
that hypothesis with data (information) collected
through observation or experiments. And the
outcome is either the hypothesis will be supported
by the findings or it will be rejected.
Finally, you interpret your results and make
conclusions regarding your findings.
 In a previous lecture it was noted that good, solid scientific sex research is a relatively recent development.
This begs the question then: Why is sex research difficult? Sex is perhaps one of the more difficult areas of
human behavior to study, for various reasons that we will now review.
First, sex is very personal and defined as private arena.
People often don’t want to talk about it. It is a near cultural
universal that sexual acts are shrouded in intimacy. One
possible ethnographic exception to this is Yapese society,
which is in Micronesia, where people tend to be relatively
open about sexual behavior. In many settings people tend
to get upset, disturbed, or humiliated by any frank display or
discussion of sexuality. Basically, a researcher can’t
observe it easily directly observe sexual behavior, so you
must ask individuals about it.
And like all other areas of research, researchers bring their
own biases. However, because sex is such a deeply private
matter, researchers may be less aware of their prejudices
when it comes to sex. So, healthy skepticism is therefore always a good place to begin to evaluate someone
else’s research of human sexuality.
Sex can be a very political arena for researchers. It can be challenging even to get funding for projects related
to sex, because funding often comes from governmental agencies (such as the National Science Foundation)
and therefore can be inextricably linked to politics. And frankly, without funding, research does not happen.
Furthermore, research can be dangerously appropriated by special interest groups or businesses. For
instance, results regarding contraceptive use could be used in marketing campaigns for condoms, while results
regarding abortion could be used to generate anti-choice propaganda.
A third reason why sex research is so difficult is that there is a substantial gap between ideology and
experience when it comes to sexual behavior. Cultural prescriptions of sexual behavior, above almost all other
prescriptions of human behavior, are pretty poor predictors of what people actually do in private. I'm sure each
of us could come up with a personal example of this. In essence, most of us lie about what we actually do. For
instance, what about questions to which your honest answers may be so politically incorrect that you really
have a hard time being honest? For women this could be fantasizing about being sexually coerced, or for men
it could be fantasizing about coercing. Certainly the public record on what is normal or acceptable sexual
behavior runs counter to what people are doing.
Even after researchers can elicit and trust informants’ statements and get a decent sample, representation is a
real problem. For example, one of the most surprising things about Kinsey's seminal studies in the United
States was the range of variation in reported behavior, even once all background variables controlled for. So, if
one is interested in conducting research on behaviors which are considered deviant or are even illegal, it may
be hard to recruit willing participants and acquire a sample that is both representative and large enough to
generate results that are statistically significant.
And finally, historically, sex researchers have had to deal with intellectual marginalization. There has been this
perception that only sick or perverted people would do sex research. Or others claim that sex is not a real
research topic. Even Kinsey himself had to deal with such claims and attacks on his character.
A critical aspect of any scientific study is undergoing ethical review. There are several basic principles for the
protection of human subjects participating in any research project, and we will review these now. The first is
respect for persons. This includes two different components: the notion of autonomy and informed consent.
Autonomy provides for self-determination of those capable of deliberating personal goals, and protection of
those with impaired or diminished autonomy (such individuals as children, or the mentally ill or
institutionalized). So in a nutshell it means that people should be free and capable of participating in a study
without coercion, and they should be able to withdraw
from a study any time they see fit.
Informed consent means that participants have a right
to be told, before they participate, what the purpose of
the project is, and what they will be asked to do. Prior
to initiating research, it is incumbent on the researcher
to inform participants – either orally or in writing - about
what exactly will happen during the course of the
study, the time commitment involved, and the benefits
and risks of participating in that particular project.
The concept of beneficence is the idea that the
researcher should maximize benefits and minimize
harms or wrongs. Generally, in sex research this is
posed in terms of the benefits of improved
reproductive health and defining how to reduce health
risk. However, even with the goal of improving health
and well-being, it is understood that it does not justify
asking questions that are unduly invasive, humiliating,
or accusatory.
Non-malfeasance means do no harm. However important the research might be, it must not jeopardize the
psychological well-being of the individual involved, or create for them social ostracism, or any family or
community repercussions. From this principle, the notion of confidentiality stems -- subjects may be damaged
by a breach of confidentiality, especially when it comes to sex research. Generally, this involves assigning IDs
to participants instead of using their names, keeping their real names locked away separately from data, that
is, the information they provided, and interviewing individuals in private.
Finally, justice requires that subjects in studies are treated equally, and that studies are designed so that
participants are also clearly beneficiaries of the studies. Additionally, it means the risks of participation and
benefits of results should be distributed fairly across groups in society.
There is a rather famous study that touches on a number of these principles in terms of protection of human
subjects in research. That is Humphrey’s study of the tearoom trade. A tearoom trade is sex with strangers in a
public toilet. So during his study, Humphrey served as “watch queen” (essentially the lookout in the restroom),
and this allowed him to observe interactions without revealing his role as a researcher. He then took down
license plates of individuals participating in public sex, and later traced down the owners. He then went to see
these men in an apparently unrelated capacity to do a health survey, which allowed him to get his background
data for the individuals in this study. So, part of the issue here is that these men were potentially at harm,
because they had not given informed consent to participate in this study, and if their information had been
linked to their particular acts, they could have been arrested for illegal behavior and they were not informed by
Humphreys that this risk had occurred.
Here at ASU all research involving human subjects must be reviewed and approved by the Office of
Research Integrity and Assurance before the research project has commenced. At other universities this is
often referred to as an IRB, an Internal Review Board.
Before we review some of the different methods commonly used to conduct sex research, it’s important that we
consider a few basic concepts of research practice. These include general types of data, the temporal aspect
of research, as well as the difference between a population and a sample.
First we are going to discuss the differences between
quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative
research involves the numerical classification of human
and social phenomena, (such as average age at first
intercourse, who is using what type of birth control, or how
hormone levels change through the lifespan).
Qualitative Research focuses on the subjective human
experience and interpretations humans ascribe to their
world. Qualitative research gets details and nuances and
insight that cannot be achieved typically through surveys,
but instead comes through interviews, focus groups, or
participant observation.
In the example presented on the slide, a quantitative
research project could involve reporting the percentages
for men and women in terms of giving and receiving oral
sex in the previous month. So, it’s quantitative, it simply
has to do with reporting numerical differences in behavior patterns. Now, a qualitative approach to that could
be what factors are related to why a higher percentage of women practice oral sex compared to men. So, the
qualitative example is not getting so much at the numbers themselves, but rather the underlying reason for why
women might engage in oral sex more frequently than men.

Research projects can also use different amounts of time

to collect data. For instance, cross sectional research
involves collecting data at a single point in time. And a
cross sectional research project allows a snap shot of
human sexuality at a particular point in time – for example,
how many people in a sample are currently sexually
active? But it can also be retrospective: how many partners
have you had in your lifetime? Much sex research is cross
sectional. The main advantage is that it is cheaper in terms
of both time and money. The primary disadvantage of
cross sectional research is that it offers no understanding
of how things change over time.
Longitudinal research involves collecting data on the
same variables over time, so the researcher can observe
change. In a longitudinal study, you could track the same
individuals over a 30-year time span and look at changes
in their frequency of sex over the course of those thirty years.
Generally retrospective, that is, cross sectional, retrospective survey is most commonly used method in sex
research.
 In order to properly evaluate the results of sex
research, you need to understand the distinction
between a population and a sample. In a non-biological
sense, a population is a complete group of people or
animals or a target population – that is, a particular
group being studied. For instance, that could be
University students in the United States, divorced
heterosexuals, and so on.
In contrast, a sample is a part or a subset of the
population selected to participate in research project.
Now it is important that samples adequately represent
the target population so that the findings are
generalizable to the entire population.
Sampling refers to the practice of identifying an
appropriate sample of people to be included in a study.
Two concerns related to sampling are sample size,
which is relevant to statistical significance, and representativeness, that is, does the sample adequately
represent the target population.

Now we will go over the types of methods researchers

can use to collect data on sex and will identify
advantages, disadvantages, and biases implicit in
each. The different methods include:
Experiments
Structured surveys
Observation
Ethnographic methods
Focus groups
The methods you use, and the research design
depends on many things, including the research
question, practicalities such as time, money, technical
know-how, and researchers own proclivities.

EXPERIMENTS test cause-and-effect relationships among

variables. That is, they involve manipulating variable X to
determine the effect on variable Y. Experiments are not
often used in studies of human sexuality or sexual
behavior, but they have been used to assess sexual and
aggressive responses to pornography and erotica. The
main advantage of experiments is they can provide
information about causal relationships. The two key
disadvantages are that experiments on human sexual
behavior are often plagued by small samples, and they are
typically based on artificial conditions. Therefore, the
results may not be generalizable to real life and other
people not included in the experiment.
 Survey-based approaches are the most common
way to study human sexual behavior. Surveys involve
soliciting responses to questions from a
representative sample of informants either via
questionnaires or through interviews. In a structured
survey, everyone gets asked the same set of
questions. Surveys can be done face to face, through
questionnaires in the mail, by telephone, or over the
internet. Most anthropologists use face to face
interviews, which was also the method used by
Kinsey.
Surveys offer a number of advantages. They make it
fairly easy to obtain large sample sizes necessary for
statistical significance, and it is a relatively cheap
method of data collection. In sex research, it is
thought that another advantage to questionnaires is
that people can answer anonymously, so they are
more likely to be “honest”.
The disadvantages are several. First, you do not know who is choosing to not respond, so you don’t know
whether the responder is different from the non-responder. This can be quite likely when the topic is sex – you
can’t tell what is causing people to participate or not– and this can be a source of bias. Second, it can be easy
to misinterpret, distort, or have irrelevant results because you have little idea what the data really mean. It is
also very easy to ask ambiguous questions, that respondents don’t quite know how to answer. So, perhaps
they either choose not to answer it. Additionally, surveys only describe patterns of behaviors or emotional
responses and they don’t leave a lot of room to actually understand or interpret those patterns or responses.
This is because it is difficult to address the context of peoples’ answers. These are things you can only really
get to in in-depth interviews, or ethnography.

All survey methods of collecting data are prone to issues

of accuracy of self-reports of sexual behavior. Three
factors contribute to inaccurate self-reports: The first is
purposeful distortion, which happens when
respondents intentionally give self-reports that are
distortions of reality. Types of distortion include:
exaggeration, that is, when people overestimate
frequency or duration of sexual encounters. Additionally,
people will tend to give ‘typical’ or ‘normal’ response so
they don’t seem weird or deviant.
A second factor is memory. People have difficulty
remembering facts accurately.
And finally there are difficulties with estimates. It is
difficult to estimate something such as time, especially
when someone is engaged in an absorbing activity such
as certain aspects of sexual behavior.
So, studies have revealed that diary methods are actually more accurate than surveys in tracking human sex
behavior. Diary methods involve having people record actual behaviors as they occur.
Berk and colleagues at UCLA did a study with psychology undergrads in order to compare responses to
surveys versus diary reports of sexual behavior. They asked students to keep a detailed diary for 2 weeks of all
sexual activity. Then 2 weeks later, the researchers did a recall questionnaire and asked students what they
had done in that two-week period. Then they compared the responses and found that two certainly matched in
some ways, but there were also some major discrepancies.
For starters, there were greater reports of vaginal sex by both men and women in questionnaires compared to
diaries, but this was most pronounced in men. The same pattern was noted with oral sex -- more acts were
identified in questionnaire than had been recorded in diaries.
Overall, study showed that questionnaire data, even with a very short recall of two weeks, tended to
overestimate sex acts among the sexually active. This makes researchers wonder if can really get accurate
recalls over longer periods of time. For example, how many times have you shaken hands in the last month?
Maybe because sex is a more salient act in our society, we might have better recall when it comes to sex than
for shaking hands, however that is yet to be clearly demonstrated.
The textbook mentions the test-retest reliability method for assessing the accuracy of self-reports, but one
way to avoid self-reporting altogether is to forgo it in favor of direct observation of human sexual behavior.

Direct observation – whether in a natural setting or in

a laboratory – is not used very often in human sex
research, although it is used more often in non-human
primate studies of sexual behavior. Direct observation
involves making a quantitative description of what
activities occur, between whom, how often and when
they occur. Examples of primate studies are
observational studies of bonobo sexual behavior and
peacemaking by de Waal. Basically the researcher
records all activities of interest and then develops
patterns from them that describe the basic range of
behaviors. Masters and Johnson are a notable
exception to the typical avoidance of direct observation
of human sexual behavior. They were among the first
sex researchers to report observations on individuals
and couples involved in sex acts. Their study
participants engaged in sexual acts in the laboratory.
And their study offered the first reliable data on what actually happens to the body during sexual response.
Additionally, naturalistic observation has been used to study courtship and attraction patterns among U.S.
and Canadian university students at bars.
The main advantage of direct observations is that it is accurate; no purposeful distortion or inaccurate memory
can affect the results. Disadvantages include the difficulty of obtaining study participants, the expense involved
in this type of research, and for laboratory observation, the unnatural setting can alter the behavior of the
participants.

Ethnography is a method wherein data are obtained

through participant observation, a research method
which involves interacting with the subjects under
study. Essentially the scientist becomes part of the
community under study, and makes observations from
inside the community. Patience and familiarity are key
aspects of good ethnographic research; you have to
get to know people, and you have to spend a lot of time
hanging out with them. This is the methodology where
anthropologists traditionally excel, and where
anthropologist’s kind of set the bar in regard to sex
research, although the actual number of good
ethnographic studies of sex are few.
The disadvantages of ethnographic research include
the amount of time it takes to conduct participant
observation; additionally, the ability to develop frank,
open, trusting relationships with informants often
depends on exchanging information openly. You can’t expect people to talk honestly with you if you don’t talk
honestly with them, and this may require divulging personal information, which some researchers may not be
comfortable with.
The main advantage of ethnographic research is that it offers explanatory and interpretive power that simply
cannot be matched by other methods.
Some examples of somewhat famous participant observation related to sex research include Herdt, whose
research among the Sambia we have already mentioned, and Bartell, who did participant-observation with
‘swinging couples’. He and his wife answered ads, went to parties, ended up having sex with these couples,
and then interviewed them after. Now this doesn’t mean that you have to take the participant observation to the
full level of participation. Most scientists who do this type of research, typically do not engage in sexual
behavior with their informants.

Focus Group is another method used to collect

attitudinal data. In a focus group, the group of
individuals (who may know one another or they may
not know one another) are asked questions about
their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and experiences
related to certain phenomenon. These informal
discussion groups are increasingly popular within
social science research because they are
inexpensive to operate and can potentially generate
lots of data. However, they are not always effective
for generating quality data. For this reason, they are
often used to generate domains or questions to be
included in a questionnaire. Another disadvantage of
the focus group is that participants may not want to
discuss sex so openly in front of their peers, and they
may purposefully distort their answers.
In summary, each of the research methods presented
here has advantages and disadvantages. The
research method one chooses often depends on the
research question the study hopes to investigate and identifying the method best suited to address that
particular question.