From Difference to Sameness: Gender Ideology in Sexual Science

Author(s): Janice M. Irvine

Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, Feminist Perspectives on Sexuality. Part 1
(Feb., 1990), pp. 7-24
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812880 .
Accessed: 12/06/2014 12:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
Sex Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 7-24 February, 1990

From Difference to Sameness: Gender

in Sexual Science
Ideology

JANICE M. IRVINE, Ph.D.

Tufts University

Sexological ideas about gender similarity and difference have changed

dramatically over the course of the last one hundred years. In the nine?
teenth century, sexologists, Uke other scientists, focused on the differ?
ences between women and men. This perspective is typified by
researchers like Havelock Ellis, who considered female sexuality to be
weaker, less fulfilling, and more passive than that of the male. Modern
sexology since the Kinsey era has shifted to the ideology of similarity.
Sexual scientists, most notably Masters and Johnson, emphasize how
alike men and women are in sexual response and functioning. This
change in emphasis was related to both socio-political influences and to
the quest by sexual scientists for cultural legitimacy. In addition, the
ideology of similarity raises complex questions about scientific
methodology and political considerations.

KEY WORDS: gender differences, women's rights

For the last one hundred years, as sexology has aspired to cultural
authority over issues of sexuality and gender, ideas about similarity
and difference have comprised a central research trajectory. Principle
concerns have been comparisons of men with women, and of hetero?
sexuals with lesbians and gay men to determine the similarities of
sexual behavior and functioning. Conclusions about the extent of
difference between groups have changed historically, and a closer
examination of these data reveal that,while east in the dispassionate
language of biomedicine, sexual science is inextricably linked to sexual
politics.
Questions about similarity and difference have been central not only
to the scientific discourse on gender and sexuality, but to issues of
social justice. For in a culture that is hierarchically structured, dif?
ference is not
simply neutral but often serves as a vehicle through
which and justify
to enact inequality. Arguments, for example, that
distinguish or liken women and men, or gay people and heterosexuals,
are not wholly theoretical but can play an important part in political
strategy. (Do women in the workplace, for example, want to assert

Requests for reprints should be sent to Janice M. Irvine, Ph.D., Tufts University,
Community Health Program, 112 Packard Avenue, Medford, MA 02155.
7

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 IRVINE

sameness withmen [which is typically then thought to mean equality],

and thus potentially forfeit special privileges related to maternity
leave? Or do they demand unique treatment based on biological and
social differences surrounding childbirth and risk possible exclusion
and discrimination?) Civil rights battles often hinge on the perceived
differences of the group in question from those in positions of power.
Yet the complexity of socio-sexual identity, and the tensions inherent
in questions about difference have allowed for no clear theoretical or
strategic answers. Ann Snitow (1989) has discussed how the women's
movement, for example, has been deeply divided between those who
would emphasize and extol women's differences from men as opposed
to those who assert sameness. Debates over gay rights proceed in a
similar tension. Such dissension is perhaps inevitable, for as will
become clear, the positions are not polar opposites, and each may
embody both progressive and conservative impulses.
Not surprisingly, in some instances science has become the arbiter of
questions about difference or similarity. As Cynthia Russett (1989)
documents, the late nineteenth century was a time in which race and
gender were the foci of intense scientific scrutiny. This was an era in
which both women and Blacks were engaged in emancipatory move?
ments, and scientific rationality had achieved widespread popularity
and credibility. Science thus became the investigatory mechanism by
which claims for equal rights were evaluated and social policy was
developed. Supporters of the dominant order hoped to dismantle
threats to social power and privilege through a body of data that could
prove natural inferiority, while reformers hoped to marshall scientific
truth for liberatory purposes.
The discourse on women's rights hinged on questions about the
natural differences between men and women. Researchers from both
the social and
physical sciences
proferred elaborate theories about
anatomical, physiological, and intellectual differences between the
genders. Despite a lack of compelling empirical data, scientists over-
whelmingly concluded that not only were women fundamentally dif?
ferent, but innately inferior to men. In this profoundly Darwinian era,
it was believed that women were developmentally stunted, and
occupied a more primitive rung of the evolutionary scale. Not sur?
prisingly, these scientific theories resonated with the nineteenth cen?
tury social order
of rigorously enforced gender separateness and in-
equality. In this schema of gender complementarity, women were
deemed more naturally suited to domestic roles as wives and mothers.
Feminists and progressive reformers attempted to challenge this

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GENDER IDEOLOGY 9

ideology by enlisting scientific knowledge in service of a more

democratic and humanitarian society (Leach, 1980).
Gender difference in the 19th century clearly signified social in-
equality, and so proponents of women's rights had to negotiate these
complexities: to achieve equality, women had to either deny any possi?
ble distinctions from men or glorify differences as evidence of moral
superiority. Yet, as Russett notes, a consistent strategy of opposition
eluded feminists even then. Some accepted and even accentuated the
scientific data on differences, but they claimed that male scientists
misinterpreted their significance
as offering support for inequality and
separate spheres. Other women refuted the research as inconclusive,
and emphasized that social factors were the cause of any differences
that might be discerned.
Scientific scrutiny of women's differences extended to questions
about sexual nature as well. Consistent with the broader penchant of
nineteenth century science for differentiation, classification and rank?
ing, the early sexologists embarked on ambitious projects to define the
range of human sexual behavior into categories of natural and un?
natural, normal and
deviated. There are two important features of
early sexual science
which, as we will see, are thematic to modern
sexology's approach to gender differences. First, sexologists sought to
discover the "truth" of sexuality in biology and the physical body.
Late nineteenth century scientists viewed human behavior in general
as springing from an instinctual biological impulse, so sexologists logi-
cally considered sexuality to be an innate drive or natural force.
Significantly, the sexological discourse on sex/gender differences has
been largely confined to bio-physiology. Secondly, scientific sex
research functioned within a larger climate and therefore was in?
fluenced by existing social concerns, anxieties, and power relations.
Although the intellectual terrain of sexology was not simply dictated
by cultural imperatives, ideas about male and female sexuality were
clearly shaped by prevailing gender roles.
Given both the contours of nineteenth century science and the socio?
sexual hierarchy of separate spheres, questions about the relative
nature of male and female sexuality were addressed with an eye
toward difference. Medical experts of the era differed over the extent
of women's sexual interest yet there was considerable
and desire,
evidence advanced to support the theory of women's passionlessness
(Degler, 1974; Weeks, 1981; Russett, 1989). Although many sexolo?
gists adamantly defended women's right to sexual expression, female
sexuality was often considered a paler, weaker version of the male's.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 IRVINE

And, since ideas about sexuality were based in biology, the over-
powering role of
reproduction as the defining event of women's
sexuality could not be dismissed. Existing socio-sexual roles were thus
rationalized as the outcome of a natural process which would ensure
harmony, through complementarity, between men and women. As
historian George Chauncey (1983, p. 117) writes, "Just as the con-
temporaneous theory of social Darwinism served to legitimate racism
and colonialism by postulating a biologically based racial hierarchy of
social development, so the early sexology sought to justify the particu?
lar form of women's subordination to men during this period by assert-
ing its biological determination."
The complexity of advancing scientific theories of gender difference
in early sexology is revealed by an examination of the work of
Havelock Ellis. Although Ellishis major works, the multi-
pubiished
volumed Studies in the Psychology of Sex, at the turn of the century,
and in many ways he challenged nineteenth century ideas about sex?
uality, his views on male and female sexuality were often decidedly
Victorian (Robinson, 1976; Smith-Rosenberg, 1985; Weeks, 1981). Like
earlier scientists, Ellis highlighted the sexual differences between the
genders, differences which he considered biological and inevitable.
Unlike the way in which he viewed male sexuality as simple and
aggressive, Ellis
thought women's sexuality was mysterious, diffuse,
and above all, passive. The complexity of female sexual response was a
direct result of what he viewed as the intricate system of the clitoris,
vagina, and other internal
reproductive organs. Female anatomy, then,
dictated that women's
sexual expression would be more complex and
laborious. These biological differences necessitated courtship patterns
of male aggression in order to overcome female reticence. As historian
Paul Robinson (1976, p. 20) notes, "In sexual relations, as in life as a
whole, Ellis seemed to imply, biology had assigned man the more
creative role."
Like most sexologists, Ellis was an essentialist, a perspective which
was manifested in different ways. First, he believed that sexuality was
a universal and biologically driven impulse. Further, this instinct, if
left to naturally unfold, formed the social fabric of harmonious and
complementary male and female In a web of associations,
roles. social
status was related to sexuality, which was determined by biology.
Since Ellis foregrounded differences between men and women, he
argued that certain cultural arrangements must be developed in light
of unique physiological distinctions. Although in the late nineteenth
century Ellis was a staunch advocate of women's legal and sexual

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GENDER IDEOLOGY 11

equality, he later revised his position and determined that feminists

had overstepped the limits (Smith-Rosenberg, 1985). He criticized the
women's movement for emphasizing the similarities between women
and men, and was particularly vehement concerning motherhood.
Women's biological role in parenting made them inevitably more con?
nected to and responsible for children than men, he believed. He urged
women to stay home from work during pregnancy and after birth, and
he proposed several days of rest during menstruation and a year-long
hiatus for young women during puberty.
Ellis, of course, is not unique in holding these beliefs, but his social
conservatism is striking given his status as a sexologist and sex
reformer. Robinson (1976, p. 36) notes, "At precisely that moment in
history when feminists were making their boldest move to expand
woman's role in the world, Ellis seemed committed to maintaining,
perhaps even enlarging, her domestic responsibilities." Yet in this
historical context, an ideology that maximized sexual difference led
this otherwise progressive thinker to advocate policies that would
effectively enforce and perpetuate women's repression.
The question of sexual similarity or difference between men and
women continued to be central in modern American sexology in the
twentieth century. As with nineteenth
century research, such inquiries
have been shaped by cultural expectations and social anxieties about
sexuality and gender roles. In addition, the content and direction of
sex research must be viewed in the context of sexologists' professional
aspirations to establishcredibility and create a viable sexual science.
Throughout the century, responses to the notion of the dispassionate
and scientific study of sexuality have often ranged from skepticism to
outright opposition. Pioneering researchers such as Kinsey and
Masters and Johnson faced not only the challenges of working in an
emerging field, but also of professional
the possibility ostracism and
public outrage. Sexologists operated, then, with a set of explicit and
implicit strategies to achieve legitimacy. This endeavor has resulted in
a classic paradox in sexology: despite liberal ideas about gender and
sexuality, sexologists frequently assume conservative positions that
support the status quo. And research that seemed likely to spark
public outcry was sometimes kept hidden. Few people know, for in?
stance, that the laboratory investigations into the physiology of
human sexual response which catapulted Masters and Johnson to
fame had in fact been initiated much earlier in the century by Alfred
Kinsey, Robert Latou Dickinson and others. Yet the strategy of
secrecy was only a temporary exigency, for sexologists have been com-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 12 IRVINE

mitted to establishing sexual science as a visible and powerful agent of

cultural authority over issues of sexuality and gender. They believed
that this could be achieved by addressing cultural anxieties such as
changes in gender roles and widespread perceptions of crisis in mar?
riage and the nuclear family. It is in this context that questions about
the sexual similarities of men and women have loomed large.
An examination of sex research
early twentiethin the
century
reflectsthe persistence of both the deeply based belief in the biological
origins of sexuality and gender and the social biases of science. In
those years, groups such as the Rockefeller Foundation were looking
to science to solve thorny social problems related to sexuality, such as
VD and prostitution. Research breakthroughs in endocrinology at the
turn of the century fueled this belief. Hormones, and their relationship
to certain sexual characteristics, had just been discovered, and many
physicians were hoping that questions about sexual "problems" such
as homosexuality would be answered by research on the sex glands
(Hall, 1979). When discovered, the chemicals extracted from the
ovaries and the testes had been labelled "female" and "male" sex hor?
mones, reflecting the underlying ideological hope that research would
explicate essential gender differences. The gender distinction inherent
in the names was blurred by later research that revealed the presence
of both hormones in men and women yet the labels stuck. These
alike,
interpretations were directly used by some scientists in the 1920s to
imply that gender differences, and by extension, women's
"inferiority" were biologically based and inborn, and to attack
feminists' claims for equal rights (Hall, 1976).
In these decades, the contours of the sex/gender system were very
different than the nineteenth century. Social and economic changes
which helped effect shifts in marital ideology and gender roles in the
wake of World War I form the cultural
backdrop for the emergent
scientific study of sex.
Increasingly, women were moving into the
cities, living on their own, and working in the public sector. Having
achieved a sense of independence in college or in jobs, women were less
content to settle for the exclusivity of wife/mother roles (Filene, 1974).
Socio-sexual mores for women were changing rapidly in the 1920s.
Public smoking vied with sexual adventure as the epitome of female
licentiousness. An official of the National Reform Bureau noted that
smoking "is the beginning of the end" and in a prophetic, pre-Kinsey
remark, commented "virtually all the male vices will be feminine vices,
too" (Filene, 1974). Much later, Kinsey would document that the
public anxiety about loosening sexual morality was, in fact, reality-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GENDER IDEOLOGY 13

based. The generation of women born in the first decade of the twen?
tieth century showed twice the incidence of premarital intercourse
than those born earlier. And increasingly, these women were having
sex with men other than their intended husbands.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, then, traditional sexual morality

was increasingly at variance with people's actual behavior. Discussion
of sexual matters was becoming more acceptable, and, in the style with
which popular magazines make global pronouncements, Fortune pro-
claimed, "Sex is no longer news" (Ware, 1982). The era marked move?
ment toward what historians Estelle Freedman and John D'Emilio
(1988) describe as sexual liberalism?the emphasis on erotic pleasure
as an integral part of personal and marital satisfaction and a change in
the belief that sex is inevitably oriented toward reproduction. Hetero?
sexual relations outside marriage became more normative, amidst

popular cries that the family was in peril and home life was disinte-

grating.
Yet changes in sexual ideology were merely one arena of the more
widespread shift in gender roles. As the Victorian socio-sexual boun?
daries of separate spheres blurred, it was becoming increasingly
problematic to define what it meant to be a man and what it meant to
be a woman. A popular poll in the Ladies Home Journal in the mid-'30s
reflected the ambivalence about traditional conceptions of both men's
and women's roles. Sixty percent of the women polled objected to the
word "obey" in the marriage ceremony, 75% believed that men and
women should make decisions together, and 80% believed an un-

employed husband should perform household duties. Yet 60% of the

women added that they would lose respect for their husband if they
earned more than he did, and 90% stated that women should quit their
jobs if their husband demanded it (Filene, 1974). The tension between
traditional demands and an emerging order were palpable.
Gender instability was exacerbated by World War II. Women were
propelled even more dramatically out of traditional roles by the
demands of the war mobilization. And, since definitions of appropriate
gender roles are inextricably related, historians have noted how the in?
creasing liberation of women
precipitated a crisis of masculinity
among men (Perrot, 1987). Gender insecurity during the war led to an
idealization of images of women and the family that were invoked with
a vengeance in the post-war era. Heavy-handed propaganda called for
the reinstitution of gender polarities along traditionally conservative
lines. The celebration of heterosexuality and marriage led to the baby-
boom of 1946-64. Yet one can discern the signs of intense cultural

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 IRVINE

anxiety about sex, gender, and marriage in this period. The witchhunts
of the early '50s directed against communists and homosexuals spoke
to a pervasive fear of Otherness. The crisis of gender was reflected in
fears that our men weren't man enough and our women were too
strong and overbearing. As critic Michael Bronski (1987) has ob?
served, films like "The Incredible Shrinking Man" and "The Fifty
Foot Tall Woman" capture the gender anxiety of the era.
It was in this rapidly changing political, social, and economic land?
scape that Kinsey pubiished his work, which was the first to address
the relationship between male and female sexuality in such a highly
visible and empirical fashion. And it is in this context that one must
understand his approach to questions of sexual and gender difference.
In a striking divergence from nineteenth century scientific research,
the Kinsey reports shifted the balance to state that women and men
were more alike than dissimilar. In Sexual Behavior in the Human
Female (1953) he noted:
More than a score of the elements which have been recognized in the
physiology of sexual response have been discussed in the present
chapter. Females and males do not differ in regard to any of these basic
elements. Because of differences in anatomy, the processes in the two
sexes may differ in details . .. but the physiologic bases of these several
events are essentially identical. (p. 640)
It was a radical departure from the nineteenth century sexual science
that considered women biologically different from men in every way.
And Kinsey alluded to this earlier canon when he wrote, "In spite of
the widespread and oft-repeated emphasis on the supposed differences
between female and male sexuality, we fail to find any anatomic or
physiologic basis for such differences" (Kinsey et al., 1953, p. 641).
This assertion was largely limited to biological comparisons, for,
based on data that he interpreted to suggest women's lesser interest in
pornography, voyeurism, writing graffiti in bathrooms, and indulging
in cross-dressing, the researcher suggested that women seemed to
differ from men in their
capacity to respond to psychological stimula?
tion. Yet it was not
the suggestion of sexual differences between
women and men that was startling, but his conclusions, after a pain-
stakingly thorough review of the empirical data, that men and women
were essentially the same.
The shiftin emphasis to sexual similarity cannot be attributed
simply to progress and refinements in scientific methodology, for, as
we have seen, interpretation of scientific data is sculpted by social and
political influences. Whereas the ideology of differences upheld the
nineteenth century order of separate gender spheres, modern

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GENDER IDEOLOGY 15

sexology's emphasis on sexual

similarity bespoke a new strategy
prompted by rapid changes in sexuality and gender. Kinsey addressed
this cultural confusion by offering the hope of scientific solutions to
the crises of heterosexuality and marriage. He hoped his data would
help men and women understand each other and thus improve both the
marriage contract and the marriage bed. And this new reconciliation
and renegotiation of gender would be based on similarities, not dif?
ferences. He wrote, "... males would be bettefr prepared to understand
females, and females to understand males, if they realized that they
are alike in their basic anatomy and physiology" (Kinsey et al., 1953,
p. 641).
Pragmatically, Kinsey believed that to save marriages, a shift to
emphasizing gender similarities was essential. He noted the increasing
divorce rate with alarm, and he focussed on women as a causal factor.
He recognized that fundamental conceptualizations about marriage
were changing due to "... the emergence of the female as a significant
force in the political, industrial, and intellectual life of our Western
culture" (Kinsey et al., 1953, p. 347). He believed marriages were
evolving out of the male-dominated structure in which gender differ?
ences were emphasized and glorified and instead they were changing
into more equal partnerships between men and women. Kinsey
believed, then, that highlighting the similarities between men and
women would foster
understanding rather than divisiveness, and
hence promote harmony between the genders. He attempted to under?
mine traditional conceptions of mysterious, irreconcilable sex differ?
ences. A focus on similarities was more congruent with the newer com-
panionate marriage of partnership between men and women. It also
reflected an unstated cultural assumption that understanding, accep?
tance, and equality are possible only among people who are biologi?
cally similar.
Kinsey also focussed on the importance of good sex for better mar?
riages. While noting that
a good sex life was not the primary variable
in maintaining a marriage, he frequently warned "... the female's
failure to respond to orgasm in her sexual relationship is, nonetheless,
one of the most frequent sources of dissatisfaction in marriage, and it
is not infrequently the source of other types of conflict which may lead
to a dissolution of a marriage" (Kinsey et al., 1953, p. 358). According
to his data, sexual
factors accounted for as many as three quarters of
the divorces in his sample. Kinsey believed science was the answer to
this social problem. He thought freer discussion of sex prompted by
scientific sex research and marriage manuals had led to the greater fre-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16 IRVINE

quency of female orgasm during the early decades of the 1900s. One of
his rationales for conducting research was his concern that many mar?
riage manuals of the day were inaccurate about sexual practice. He
hoped that an increase in scientific data would filter down to improve
the sex lives of the general public via clinicians and better marriage
manuals. He reassured skeptics who worried that sex research might
undermine marriage:
There are some who have feared that a scientific approach to the prob?
lems of sex might threaten the existence of the marital institution. There
are some who advocate the perpetuation of our ignorance because they
fear that science will undermine the mystical concepts that they have
substituted for reality. But there appear to be more persons who believe
that an extension of our knowledge may contribute to the establishment
of better marriages. (Kinsey et al., 1953, p. 13)

Kinsey hoped, then, that greater marital harmony would be facili-

tated by educating the public about how similar women and men truly
are. And sexology could achieve greater credibility if it were able to
solve major social problems such as faltering marriages.
The paradoxes implicit in Kinsey's emphasis on sexual similarities
reveal the ultimate shortcomings of this position in modern sexology.
On the one hand, his claim that women and men were essentially alike
challenged the belief in women's sexual apathy and passivity. The
shift away from nineteenth century ideas of immutable difference
allowed Kinsey to stress nature of female sex?
the active and diverse
uality, an idea that was shocking to many when the female volume was
pubiished in the early 1950s (Irvine, 1990). Yet the transformative
potential of the ideology of similarity in modern sexology is under?
mined by several factors. First, the focus on bio-physiology reduces
sexuality to simply physical expression. Male and female sexual
behavior could be considered equal if they are documented as anatomi-
cally the same. In addition, this emphasis fails to account for social
differences. It is clear that one's
sexuality is not comprised of mere
physiological changes in heart rate and blood pressure, but is shaped
by prior experiences, cultural expectations, and social structure.
Sexual socialization is typically very different for women than for men,
yet these important distinctions tend to be dismissed in an ideology of
similarity grounded in biological functioning. Finally, the potentially
progressive gesture of emphasizing sexual similarities is diminished
by a dangerously narrow scope. Kinsey, for example, hoped to save
marriages through better sexual relationships that would result from
the understanding of male and female anatomical similarities. Aside
from its naivete, this idea is clearly much more limited and conser-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GENDER IDEOLOGY 17

vative than a critique of

marriage that challenged economic in?
equalities, disparities in domestic and childrearing responsibilities,
and sexual violence. As in much of modern sexological thought, his
emphasis was on finding solutions to problems that are often social
and political in nature by focussing on the individual level.
Into the mid-twentieth century, research and
therapy concerning
sexual issues proceeded quietly by generally isolated professionals
with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. Several decades after the
Kinsey reports, the ideology of gender similarity was fully consoli-
dated within sexology by the highly publicized work of Masters and
Johnson. Familiar themes reemerged: the emphasis on sameness as a
strategy to promote heterosexual relationships and marriage and thus
enhance the perceived value and effectiveness of modern sexual
science. And again, the focus was on biological comparisons.
With the publication of Human Sexual Response in 1966, Masters
and Johnson became the first sexologists to publically admit to con-
ducting laboratory investigations of the physiology of sex. Based on
the data from 10,000+ orgasms by volunteers in their St. Louis lab,
the researchers developed the hallmark of HSR, the sexual response
cycle. In this schema, four stages comprise distinct phases the human
body undergoes during sexual activity, each one embodying discrete
physiological changes. The excitement phase is the body's first
response to sexual stimulation, such as vaginal lubrication, erection,
swelling of the clitoris and rises in heart rate and blood pressure. The
plateau phase is essentially a heightening of these responses. The
orgasmic phase represents the release of the body from heightened
myotonia and vasocongestion. The final stage, resolution, is the rapid
or gradual disappearance of the changes begun in stage one.
The concept of the sexual response cycle allowedMasters and
Johnson to advance their ideology of sexual similarity. They stress
that anatomically, men and women are essentially the same. In the
first chapter of HSR (1966) they state:
. .. again and again, attention will be drawn to direct parallels in human
sexual response that exist to a degree never previously appreciated.
Attempts to answer the challenge inherent in the question, "What do
men and women do in response to effective sexual stimulation?", have
emphasized the similarities, not the differences, in the anatomy and
physiology of human sexual response. (p. 8; emphasis in original)
It is clear in their delineation of the four-stage sexual response cycle
that Masters and Johnson interpreted their data selectively, for they
found so many physiological differences between men and women that
their decision to emphasize similarities was clearly ideological. There

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18 IRVINE

are, of course, in the physical

similarities sexual responses of men and
women. There are parallels in the timing of muscular contractions dur?
ing orgasm, with both vaginal and penile contractions at 0.8 second
intervals. The rectal sphincter muscles in both women and men con?
tract at 0.8 second intervals as well. And, more generally, both men
and women experience some of the basic responses of muscle tension
and increased heart rate and bloodpressure. Anything closer than a
cursory glance at HSR, however, reveals many descriptions of dis?
crepancies between male and female bodily responses sandwiched be?
tween Masters and Johnson's insistence on their similarities. In fact,
we find one of the major differences explained to us in the very first
pages of HSR. Having explained the four-stage response model,
Masters and Johnson write:
Only one sexual response pattern has been diagrammed for the human
male. . . . Comparably, three different sexual response patterns have
been diagrammed for the human female.... There is a great variation in
both the intensity and the duration of female orgasmic experience, while
the male tends to follow standard patterns of ejaculatory reaction with
less variation. (Masters & Johnson, 1964, pp. 4-6)

Or, as they later say, "... the male orgasm is more a-rose-is-a-rose-is-a-
rose sort of thing. Now a thing of beauty is a joy forever, but it is still a
rose. The female goes all the way from poppies to orchids" (Hall, 1969,
p. 46). In addition, they conclude decisively that women do not
ejaculate and they describe other major differences in
orgasmic
response as well, for example the capacity of women but not men to
have multiple orgasms.
Despite the quite extensive list of sexual differences between men
and women, Masters and Johnson's insistence on the similarities was
supported by compelling social changes. They recognized the pre-
carious nature of relationships between men and women, as public
anxiety about marriage, gender, and sexuality continued to grow in
the 1960s. By the early part of the decade, the divorce rate had begun
to rise more rapidly, age at marriage rose, and the birthrate dropped
(Cherlin, 1981, p. 44)?all developments which traditionally prompt
fears about the demise of the family. A disdainful article on the sexual
revolution in Time in 1964 played on these concerns: "... the dominant
fact about sexual mores in the U.S. remains the fragility of American
marriage. The institution
has never been easily sustained." And
Masters and Johnson
darkly warned that "... the greatest single
cause for family-unit destruction and divorce in this country is a
fundamental sexual inadequacy within the marital unit" (Masters &
Johnson, 1966, p. vi). Like Kinsey, they hoped to bolster their profes-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GENDER IDEOLOGY 19

sional authority by addressing cultural fears about

marriage and
gender roles. And so, in their 1975 homage to monogamy and mar?
riage, The Pleasure Bond, the sex researchers sought potential recon?
ciliation between couples by asserting:
It's popular, I know, to point out the differences between men and
women, but I have to tell you that from the beginning of our work, what
has impressed us most have been the similarities between the sexes. Not
only physically but emotionally?and we're talking specifically about
sexual functioning. Men and women are incredibly and constantly
similar. (Masters, Johnson, & Levin, 1975, pp. 37-38)
Thus, Masters and Johnson revealed the profound hope that sexual
conflict would dissipate with a recognition of similarity. It was a

response, perhaps a simplistic overreaction, to nineteenth century em?

phasis on difference, when men and women were portrayed as ineluct-
ably distinct and
operating in separate socio-sexual spheres. The
ideology of similarity was viewed as necessary in a sex/gender system
which, through myriad social changes, particularly feminist organ?
izing, was becoming more egalitarian.
It is important to recognize, however, the extent to which Masters
and Johnson's discourse on sexuality, gender, similarity and dif?
ference, is grounded in the physical body. Their research reflects their
adherence to the biomedical model and the primacy of physiology in

understanding human sexuality. They are sexual essentialists extra-

ordinaire, and they base their idea of "naturalness" on biological

response. In their early physiological research, they compared the

genders and declared sameness based on such narrow factors as heart

rates and orgasmic contractions. They afford anatomic considerations,
then, an importance in understanding human sexuality that is much

greater than, for example, social norms.

It was from this that, in 1964, they embarked
vantage point on
similar research into homosexuality. Their initial goal had simply been
to study and report on the physiological sexual response of lesbians
and gay men. They added additional research components in light of
the lack of extensive physiological findings (Playboy, 1979, p. 104). In
Homosexuality in Perspective, pubiished in 1979, Masters and
Johnson wrote, "Is there a fundamental difference in sexual

physiology if the respondents are homosexually rather than hetero-

sexually oriented? Based upon more than four years of intensive obser?
vation of hundreds of completed sexual response cycles in homosexual
men and women in response to a multiplicity of sexual stimulative

techniques, the answer is an unequivocal no" (Masters & Johnson,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 IRVINE

1979, p. 124,
emphasis in original). This finding, by itself, prompted
some yawns within sexology. After publication, sex therapist Helen
Singer Kaplan responded that any medical person would have known
that there would be no physiological differences and added, "Nobody
would have thought penises would react any differently?the penis
doesn't know what brand of sex it's having" (Newsweek, 1979). For
Masters and Johnson, however, the book's central point was the
absence of any difference between gay people and heterosexuals in the
physiological processes of lubrication, erection, ejaculation and
orgasm (Time, 1979, p. 78).
This ideology of sexual similarity, so pivotal in modern sexology,
reveals some of the central tensions within the field regarding both
professional and political strategy. Many sexologists have supported
liberal causes such as sexual liberation and equal rights for women.
Yet simultaneously, they have moved to secure widespread public
acceptance and cultural legitimacy, which frequently calls for support
of traditional sexual and
gender arrangements. This portrait of
already conflicting endeavors becomes even more complicated by the
intricate internal contradictions within theoretical arguments for dif?
ference or similarity. Thus it is impossible to simplysay that sex?
ologists have been progressive or reactionary depending on whether
they have argued for gender difference or similarity. Rather, there are
advantages and limitations to each assertion.
In terms of sexual politics, the shift in sexological interpretation
from difference to sameness would seem to signify a clear departure
from nineteenth century gender ideology. Yet as we have seen, the
transformation was supported by broader social changes. It was hard?
ly a radical gesture for sexologists to claim sex/gender similarity at an
historical moment when it seemed as though such an assertion would
both bolster traditional marital relationships and heighten the
credibility of the emergent sexual science. In short, by the middle of
the twentieth century, it was to sexology's professional advantage to
argue that men and women were similar.
Yet self-interest does not negate that, by asserting the sameness of
women and men, modern sexual scientists clearly broke from the tradi?
tion of earlier researchers such as Havelock Ellis, whose insistence on
differences was resonant with culturally repressive gender relations.
And, in fact, in a culture in which difference signifies inequality, the
contemporary emphasis on sexual similarities offers a clear challenge
to the notion that female sexuality is an inferior version of the male's.
Sexologists' emphases on sex/gender similarities would seem to offer

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GENDER IDEOLOGY 21

scientific legitimation for political

organizing. For example, when
Masters and Johnson's findings were popularized, their focus on
sexual similarities could be read as a blow to the double-standard, and
the data were used by feminists to argue for sexual autonomy and free?
dom (Irvine, 1990).
Many contemporary sexologists believe that an ancillary effect of
the ideology of similarity will be an erosion of discrimination. For
example, Time magazine reported that Masters and Johnson believed
that their documentation of "nearly identical response vectors" would
gradually lead to "more public acceptance of homosexuality" (Time,
p. 78). In Homosexuality in Perspective the researchers wrote, "Now
that it has been established that homosexual men and women are not
physiologically different, it is also reasonable to speculate that in the
near future, a significant measure of the current onus of public oppro-
brium will be eased from the men and women with homosexual prefer?
ence" (Masters & Johnson, 1979, p. 227). Similarly, most sexologists
assume that the similarities in sexual functioning between men and
women should foster harmony and mutuality that extends beyond the
bedroom.
This analysis, however, highlights a significant shortcoming of
sexologists' ideology of similarity, in that it reveals an important con-
gruence with that of nineteenth century difference theorists. For, as in
Ellis' perspective, anatomy dictates social relations. The premise of
sexual scientists that hostility and discrimination will disappear once
physiological sameness is demonstrated reveals their commitment to
the biomedical model and the concomitant insistence
sexuality that
and gender are rooted in "nature." This sexual essentialism not only
locates the totality of sexual expression in the body, but equates sex?
uality with physiological processes. Modern sexual scientists have
simply inverted Ellis' logic that different sexual anatomy should give
rise to a separate and unequal social structure. Now, instead, whatever
is physiologically similar is considered the same and therefore equal.
Misunderstandings or anger between men and women should vanish
once they understand that their bodies respond similarly to orgasm;
homophobia will cease once heterosexuals recognize that gay people
are not physiologically different. The tenaciously held strategy is that
sexuality will be accepted and different gender and sexual lifestyles
will be acceptable not because of social change and political struggle,
but through the accrual of data by which sexual science proves either
that they are physically the same or that differences are "natural." Or,
as sexologist Richard Green suggests, "Groups that have been dis-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 IRVINE

criminated against can receive special legal protection if the trait for
which they are stigmatized is an immutable one (such as race)" (Green,
1989).
The radical potential of the contemporary emphasis on similarity is
diminished by the reduction of sexuality to biology, and the conflation
of sameness with equality. So too, it is limited by a denial of social in-
equities, for sexologists advance their claim of similarities in the
absence of any broader critique of male dominance and of hetero-
sexism. The assertion, then, that men and women are similar, while
ignoring the effects of sex and gender oppression, results in an
analysis that fails to account for the special circumstances?the differ?
ences?women face in a male-dominated society. Women cannot be
considered social or sexual equals simply through a recognition that
their bodies progress through the same sexual response cycle as men.
Rather, it is crucial to recognize that sexual behavior proceeds in
markedly disparate cultural circumstances where male sexuality is
encouraged and idealized while women's is denigrated and under?
mined.
Finally, the sexological discourse on similarity fails to account for
power differences in society. In sexologists' view, discrimination will
whither away once sameness can be documented. Yet socio-sexual
hierarchies exist not simply through ignorance or misunderstandings,
but rather are enforced because it is to the benefit of those who, by
virtue of their gender or preferred sexual behavior, reside at the top.
Thus, power and privilege are important factors to consider in
assessing similarity or difference.
Ignoring power issues in the focus on similarities can lead to a false
equivalence or inexact parallels, such as the one based on William
Masters' study of male victims of sexual assault. The entire study was
based on eleven men seen in the 1960s and Masters acknowledged that
"we haven't seen anything in the '70s." Yet he concludes that the
nature of sexual assault is "identical" for both women and men (Sarrel
& Masters, 1982; Masters, 1982). The claim that victimization is
gender-neutral conflates the experiences of women and men in an in?
accurate and unhelpful way. While these researchers could find only a
handful of men who had been sexually abused, thousands of women are
assaulted every day. Thus, women live with a daily threat of sexual
violence that magnifies the actual experience of assault. The assertion
that men suffer the same consequences ignores the very substantial
power differential between men and women, as well as differences in
the meaning, consequences, and the extent of sexual violence against

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GENDER IDEOLOGY 23

women. In this context, the emphasis on sameness was an attempt to

legitimize the existence of sexual abuse of men?a problem about
which many are skeptical. In reality, however, the claim of similarity
oversimplified and distorted the complexities of sexual violence.
Within sexual science, analyses of gender differences and
similarities carry political implications far beyond individual sexolo?
gists' conscious intents. Since the Kinsey era, the shift to emphasize
similarity has had important advantages in the challenge to women's
inferiority. Yet, instead of challenging discrimination, sexual scien?
tists may ultimately uphold the sex/gender hierarchy by unqualifiedly
advancing the ideology of similarity. The assumption that equality is
achieved only when people are physically the same implicitly accepts a
social structure and cultural norms by which difference warrants
discrimination. Difference, after all, is only problematic in a culture in
which it results in inequality. Further, an essentialist perspective that
enforces a view of sexuality reduced simply to individual physiology
allows little or no consideration in research or clinical practice of very
real differences in
socio-political influences, such as power and
privilege. Sexologists, who aspire to improve gender relations, will not
simply erase the very real differences for men and women in sexual
experiences and socialization the weight of data that suggests
through
congruence in anatomic functioning. Yet the alternative is not analysis
that simplistically and inaccurately highlights difference. The
challenge for sexual scientists is the development of research and
clinicalpractice that can account for the nuances of both differences
and similarities in sexual and gender relations.

References

Bronski, M. (1987). Personal Conversation.

Chauncey, G. (1983). From sexual inversion to homosexuality: The changing medical
conceptualization of female deviance. Salmagundi 58-59, 114-146
Cherlin, A. (1981). Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Degler, C. (1974). What ought to be and what was: Women's sexuality in the nine?
teenth century. American Historical Review, 79, 1467-1490.
D'Emilio, J., & Freedman, E. (1988). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality in
America. New York: Harper and Row.
Filene, P. (1974). Him/her/self: Sex roles in modern America. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, Jovanovich.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 IRVINE

Green, R. (1989). Navigating the Straits of Oedipus. New York Times Book Review,
Dec. 11, 1989.
Hall, D. L. (1976). The Social Implications ofthe Scientific Study ofSex. Barnard Con?
ference, 1976.
Hall, D. L. (1979). Biology, sex hormones, and sexism in the 1920s. In Women and
philosophy: Toward a theory of liberation, C. Gould & M. Wartofsky (Eds.). New
York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Hall, M. H. (1969). A conversation with Masters and Johnson. Medical Aspects of
Human Sexuality, 3, 43-55.
How Gay is Gay? Time, April 23, 1979.
Irvine, J. (1990). Disorders of Desire: Sex and Gender in Modern American Sexology.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kinsey, A. C, Pomeroy, Wm Martin, C, & Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual behavior in the
human female. New York: Pocket Books.
Leach, W. (1980). True love and perfect union: The feminist reform of sex and society.
New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Masters, W. (1982). Clinical management of men raped by women. Conference of the
American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists.
Masters, W., & Johnson, V. (1966). Human sexual response. New York: Bantam
Books.
Masters, W., & Johnson, V. (1979). Homosexuality in perspective. New York: Bantam
Books.
Masters, W., Johnson, V., & Levin, R. (1975). The pleasure bond. New York: Bantam
Books.
Perrot, M. The new Eve and the old Adam: Changes in French women's condition
at the turn of the century. In Behind the lines: Gender and the two world wars,
M. R. Higonnet, J. Jenson, S. Michel, & M. Weitz (Eds.). New Haven: Yale Univer?
sity Press, 1987.
Playboy interview: Masters and Johnson. (1979). Playboy, 26, 87-121.
Robinson, P. (1976). The Modernization of Sex. New York: Harper.
Russett, C. E. (1989). Sexual Science: The Victorian Construction of Womanhood.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sarrel, P., & Masters, W. (1982). Sexual molestation of men by women. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 2, 117-131.
Sex and the homosexual. Newsweek, April 30, 1979.
Smith-Rosenberg, C. (1985). The new woman as androgyne: Social disorder and gender
crisis, 1870-1936. In Disorderly conduct: Visions of gender in victorian America, by
C. Smith-Rosenberg (Ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Snitow, A. (1989). Pages from a gender diary: Basic divisions in feminism. Dissent,
Spring, 205-224.
Ware, S. (1982). Holding their own: American women in the 1930s. Boston: Twayne
Publishers.
Weeks, J. (1981). Sex, politics and society: The regulation of sexuality since 1800. New
York: Longman.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:34:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions