Have Psychologists Ignored Human Sexuality?

Reviewing Teela Sanders' Paying for Pleasure: Men Who Buy Sex, Barry McCarthy and Maria Thestrup note,

Traditionally, issues involving human sexuality have not received a high priority in psychological theory, research, or clinical practice. Perhaps because sexuality is such a complex, value-laden area (particularly in relation to sexual trauma, sexual orientation, abortion, and extramarital involvement), psychology researchers have often left the field of human sexuality to other disciplines. From our perspective, this is a major mistake. The paradox of sexuality is that healthy sexuality contributes a small positive role in individual and relational well-being, but dysfunctional, conflictual sexuality—and particularly sexual avoidance—can play an inordinately powerful negative role in subverting individual and couple satisfaction and stability…

Have psychologists ignored human sexuality, or do McCarthy and Thestrup overstate their case?

Read the Review

A Sociological/Anthropological Approach to Men Who Buy Sex
By Barry McCarthy [and] Maria Thestrup
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2009 Vol 54(11)

Comments

[Russell Eisenman]

WHY PSYCHOLOGISTS IGNORE HUMAN SEXUALITY
by Russell Eisenman

Psychologists have too often ignored human sexuality, as McCarthy and Thrstrup (2009) claim. I will point out some reasons why shortly. Human sexuality is such a major part of the life of humans that it should be one of the most studied areas, but psychologists (and other researchers) are human, and will be affected by history, culture, and the present mores regarding sex. Thus, they may be disinclined to study an area that seems "dirty" or "risque."

LOTS OF RESEARCH ON SEX

However, it should be mentioned that there is a lot of research on human sexuality, much more than one might think from reading McCarthy and Thestrup (2009). Perhaps many do not come across it, as much of it appears in specialized sex journals, or in Evolutionary Psychology theory and research (where human mating and sexuality is a major area). If one is not familiar with these areas, one would miss some really good sex research.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCES

I will present some personal problems in doing sex research. But, first, let me mention why it may be difficult to do sex reserarch.

We are all influenced by the Puritanical history of how sex was viewed, as well as any other taboos on sex. So, it may not be easy to become a researcher of human sexuality. That is because there is so much in the history and culture that is negative about sex. Just last night I saw a program on the National Georgraphic television channel about swinging (temporary mate swapping). That channel, along with the Discovery channel and the History channel often present very educational, informative programs. But, this program was, in my opinion, biased against swinging. I have known swingers who do not have the negative experiences that the program seemed to say was likely for all swingers. Thus, even an educational television program could not help but be negative about sex when it is not conventional and monagamous.

Now to my personal experiences. Mostly, researching human sexuality has been great, since I study something I am very interested in, and I believe the findings have social value. But, there have been some roadblocks along the way.

MY PENIS SIZE STUDY

I did a study on women's preference for long or wide penises (Eisenman, 2001). This is clearly an area worthy of investigation. Comedians talk about it a lot, but researchers seldom study it. Why? Perhaps my experiences have something to say about that. First, I had a hard time getting it published. I just found an old letter of rejection in which the journal refused to send out my manuscript for review. The editor said the topic did not fit the journal, which is not true. Second, a high-level administator at my school here sent me an e-mail asking me where I had done the study and if I had received Internal Review Board (ISB) approval. No one gets an e-mail like that. I later learned that someone at a Health Sciences Center in the University of Texas System had writen her, with negativity about my study. Third, when I tried to get an internal, three-year grant renewed, which gave me a course reduction each semester, it was turned down, with hostility. There had been a sexual harassment case here, and so now sex research was under suspicion. Another high level administrator asked me, in an annoyed tone of voice "How does asking a girl about her sex life contribute to science?"

By the way, there was another negative effect from my penis size study, according to a new faculty member. She had done sex research at another university and was talking about publishing it, but an administrator told her "You cannot publish sex research done at another school. Someone else did that, and embarassed the university." This administator was referring to my penis size study.

I GOT TENURE ANYWAY

Lest you think my university is totally backward with regard to human sexuality research, I should point out that I got tenure, in part due to three human sexuality studies I published (Eisenman & Dantzker, 2006; Eisenman, Dantzker, & Ellis, 2004; Negy & Eisenman, 2005). And, I and others in psychology still do sex research. So, it is not always negative.

THERAPY AND THEORY

McCarthy, B. & Thestrup, M. (2009) also say there is not enough about human sexuality in therapy and theory. They are correct, in my opinion. Why? In 1972-73 I was a visiting professor during my sabbatical year at University of California at Santa Cruz. Another visiting professor that year was Rollo May. He pointed out to us that therapists are the new cops of society, enforcing laws and mores via therapy. If that is right, or even partly right, then many therapists (and theorists) are just being "good" members of society and enforcing the conventional rules. This enforcement comes via arguing for conventional behavior or ignoring sex altogether, as something too evil to talk about.

CONCLUSION

I believe there are many researchers, therapists, and theorists who are more creative, and present informed, intelligent views about human sexuality. But, there are probably too many researchers, therapists, and theorists who either avoid human sexuality as much as possible, or advocate conventional conformity.

REFERENCES

Eisenman, R. (2001). Penis size: Survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction. BMC Women's Health, 1, Article 1. Retrived on May 25, 2009 from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/1/1

Eisenman, R. & Dantzker, M. L. (2006). Gender and ethnic differences in sexual attitudes at a Hispanic-serving university. Journal of General Psychology, 133, 153-162.

Eisenman, R., Dantzker, M. L., & Ellis, L. (2004). Self Ratings of Dependency/Addiction Regarding Drugs, Sex, Love, and Food: Male and Female College Students. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 11,115-127.

McCarthy, B. & Thestrup, M. (2009). Review of A Sociological/Anthropological Approach to Men Who Buy Sex. PsycCRITIQUES, Vol 54(11)

Negy, C. & Eisenman, R. (2005). A comparison of African American and White college students’ affective and attitudinal reactions to lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: An exploratory study. Journal of Sex Research. 2005, 42, 291-298.

Russell Eisenman, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University of Texas-Pan American
Edinburg, TX 78539-2999

E-mail: eisenman@utpa.edu

[Maria Kaiser]

You might find some comfort in that some Psychologists will be meeting at the NYC Human Sexuality Conference August 15-16, 2009 to discuss Human Sexuality.

[Maria Kaiser]

The conference website is: http://www.conference00.com just in case you wanna check it out.