Cross-posted from The Neuroethics Blog (Emory University Center for Ethics)
A number of potentially problematic themes run throughout public discussions about sexuality in this country. One such potentially problematic theme revolves around innate sex/gender differences in sexuality. I see stories in the media almost every week about how men and women are almost diametric opposites when it comes to sexuality as a result of evolutionary pressures. In these articles, which are often reporting on scientific studies, the men are invariably sex-hungry and desperate to procreate with any available woman, while the women are invariably choosy and determined to find a “good provider” (for examples, see here, here, and here). I suspect these articles (and the studies they draw from) suffer from confirmation bias, developing elaborate evolutionary rationales to justify what seem like outdated stereotypes.
Another such theme revolves around the determinative role of hormones in sexual desire and activity. In a fascinating (although now somewhat out-of-date) study, sociologist Amy Schalet interviewed parents in the U.S. and the Netherlands about adolescent sexuality. She found that American parents were much more likely than Dutch parents to view adolescent sexuality as driven by hormones. In addition (perhaps as a result) American parents, unlike Dutch parents, viewed adolescent desire as potentially dangerous, and they were more likely to adopt an attitude of willful ignorance about the sexual activity engaged in by their children.
Read the rest of this entry »
Cross-posted with permission by the Kinsey Institute.
Photo: anemoneprojectors
A recent episode of the TV series House, M.D. created quite a stir in the asexual blogosphere. The show, for those of you who don’t know, chronicles the adventures of the irascible diagnostician Dr. House as he solves medical mysteries.
[Spoiler alert] The episode of interest (“Better Half” which aired on 1/23/2012) features a husband and wife who both identify as asexual at the start of the show. The wife consults House’s friend and colleague, Wilson, for a minor medical complaint. Upon learning about the couple, House sets out to prove that the wife’s asexuality is caused by a medical condition. He lures her husband into the hospital and performs a number of tests on him, eventually discovering that he has a brain tumor which is affecting his libido. When Wilson tells the couple about House’s finding, the wife admits that she had been pretending to be asexual in order to remain with her spouse.
Read the rest of this entry »
In April of 2011, I presented my paper on “sex for health” at the Medicalization of Sex Conference at Simon Fraiser University in Vancouver. Afterward, I was interviewed by Meghan Murphy for The F Word media collective, a feminist media collective based in Vancouver. They produce a weekly syndicated radio show and blog. My interview was included in the first part of their documentary series on the medicalization of sex, which is available online for listening!
Here is a description of the first part of the documentary from the F Word and rabble.ca: “In this first part of a documentary series on the medicalization of sex, your host Meghan Murphy explores the way in which sex has been positioned in popular culture, in medical discourse and in the news media, as something that is not simply healthy at times, but as necessary in the maintenance of good health. How does this kind of discourse impact the way in which women view their own sexuality? How does it play into compulsory sexuality? Is sex necessarily ‘healthy’? This episode includes an edited version of a talk by Judy Segal, recorded at The Medicalization of Sex conference in Vancouver, B.C. on April 29, 2011 called: The (Re)Sexualization of the Medical as well as an interview with Kristina Gupta, who presented a paper at the conference entitled: Sex for Health: Representations of Sex as a Health-Promoting Activity. Referenced several times during this documentary is Thea Cacchioni’s paper: Heterosexuality and ‘the Labour of Love’: A Contribution to Recent Debates on Female Sexual Dysfunction and her concept of ‘sex work.’”
Here is the syllabus for Feminism, Sexuality, and Neuroethics. We have 18 students in the class; about half of the students are Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies majors or minors and about half of the students are Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology (NBB) majors or minors. So far, the class is going very well. I look forward to reporting more as the semester progresses.
February 7th, 2012 in
Teaching |
No Comments
I’m happy to say that I have been awarded one of the 2012 Kinsey Institute Student Research Grants. I will be using the grant to conduct more interviews with people who identify as asexual. I look forward to reporting on the results of this research!
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/newsletter/win2012/KIgrants2012.html
Cross-posted from The Neuroethics Blog (Center for Ethics, Neuroethics Program at Emory University)
Simon Baron-Cohen’s book,
The Essential Difference: The Truth About The Male And Female Brain (2003), is almost a decade old now, but his thesis keeps popping up in various places. For example, in a recent (and truly delightful) book on neuroscience and religion,
Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not (2011),
Robert McCauley uses Baron-Cohen’s work to suggest that researchers looking for “hyper-empathetic” subjects might want to check out the local convent.
Baron-Cohen’s main argument is that, on average, men and women have different cognitive strengths and weaknesses: men are more adept at “systematizing” and less adept at “empathizing,” while women are more adept at “empathizing” and less adept at “systematizing.” He goes on to argue that people with autism have “hyper-male” brains (in other words, they are especially good at systemizing and particularly poor at empathizing). According to Baron-Cohen, these differences in cognitive abilities are likely to be the result of genetic differences (both in the case of men and women and in the case of people with autism and people without autism).
Read the rest of this entry »
photo by Ann Douglas
I am currently working with a collaborator on an article reviewing contemporary sex advice literature. As a result, I have been reading a LOT of sex manuals. They range from the thoughtful, interesting, and potentially helpful to the narrow-minded, prescriptive, and possibly iatrogenic.
I found one manual particularly upsetting: The Sex Starved Marriage (2003) by Michele Weiner-Davis. Below please find my (somewhat) parodic inversion of her message:
Read the rest of this entry »
I am happy to report that my friend and colleague, Cyd Cipolla, and I have receieved a grant from the Neuroethics Program at the Emory Center for Ethics to teach a class in the spring on “Feminism, Sexuality, and Neuroethics.”
We are very excited about this opportunity, and I look forward to reporting on our experiences with this course.
Here is our course description:
Neuroethics is an emerging field that considers the interaction between neuroscience, behavioral biology and society. Major questions of concern within neuroethics include: How do scientific discoveries impact society? How can scientific researchers more fully understand the ethical implications of their work? The intersection of feminist science studies with the field of Neuroethics produces new ways to ask these questions, considering, for example, not only how science impacts society, but how scientific research is shaped by cultural assumptions. Ultimately, students in this class will combine the critical thinking skills from both of these fields to answer the question: How can we all be responsible consumers and/or producers of neuroscientific knowledge?
Students in this class will learn the major topics and themes within the field of Neuroethics through critically examining historical and contemporary scientific research on sexuality and the brain. Each unit of the class focuses on a different area within the field of scientific research on sexuality and the brain. Students will read the significant scientific study or studies on the topic alongside reports about the study in mainstream news media outlets, and then follow this by reading critiques of the work from both inside and outside the scientific community.
For example, one unit focuses on neuroscience and homosexuality. We will begin by reading Simon LeVay’s 1991 Science article, “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men” alongside articles written about the study in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Newsweek. We will then read a selection of responses to LeVay’s study both from others in his field, for example, the comment “Is Homosexuality Biological” by Marcia Barinaga that ran in Science, and from other disciplines, such as Peter Hegarty’s 1997 article, “Materializing the Hypothalamus” published in Feminism and Psychology.
This class is open to students in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. No previous experience with neuroscience research or sexuality research is required.
November 8th, 2011 in
Teaching |
No Comments
To oversimplify, these folks believe that social behavior is “mediated” by neuropetides such as oxytocin and vasopressin (translation and, again, oversimplification: the more oxytocin/vasopressin receptors you have in your brain, the more “social” you will be). One of the key architects of this idea is Larry Young, who has become famous for his research with voles. Basically, some species of voles are “monogamous” and some species of voles are “promiscuous.” The male voles from monogamous species have more (or a different pattern of) vasopressin receptors than the male voles from promiscuous species. By giving a male vole from a promiscuous species the same pattern of vasopressin receptors as a male from a monogamous species (through fancy genetic manipulation), you can turn this vole from a promiscuous critter to a monogamous critter. Voilà! (See an article about this research from Emory).
Read the rest of this entry »
For the past year I have worked for the Emory Career Center reviewing personal statements and statements of purpose. Emory students applying for graduate programs can submit their personal statements to the Career Center for review and they come to me – it’s a great job. I get to read about the experiences and hopes of Emory students and I get to work with them to shape how they are presenting themselves to admissions committees.
I thought I would provide a few tips based on what I have learned over the past year. David Rubin, my predecessor in this position, created an excellent tip sheet, which is available on the Career Center website, so some of this post draws from his work.
Of course, there are differences between medical schools, law schools, business schools, and PhD programs in terms of what they are looking for. In future posts, I will provide some specific advice for each type of statement. Here are my top four tips for all personal statements/statements of purpose:
Read the rest of this entry »
June 17th, 2011 in
Teaching |
No Comments
A number of potentially problematic themes run throughout public discussions about sexuality in this country. One such potentially problematic theme revolves around innate sex/gender differences in sexuality. I see stories in the media almost every week about how men and women are almost diametric opposites when it comes to sexuality as a result of evolutionary pressures. In these articles, which are often reporting on scientific studies, the men are invariably sex-hungry and desperate to procreate with any available woman, while the women are invariably choosy and determined to find a “good provider” (for examples, see here, here, and here). I suspect these articles (and the studies they draw from) suffer from confirmation bias, developing elaborate evolutionary rationales to justify what seem like outdated stereotypes.
