If you had to pick someone, or a group of people, to represent how you feel about sex, why you want sex, and why you have sex, who would that person or group of people be? Would they look like you? Sound like you? Would they know more about you than you know yourself?
These are the questions I’m trying to focus on to deal with the annoyance and sense of depressing déjà vu I’m feeling as I read the press release for a new book by Cindy Meston and David Buss:
Through the voices of real women, Meston and Buss reveal the motivations that guide women’s sexual decisions and explain the deep-seated psychology and biology that often unwittingly drive women’s desires—sometimes in pursuit of health or pleasure, or sometimes for darker, disturbing reasons that a woman may not fully recognize.
You may remember Meston and Buss from the over-hyped, mis-represented and scientifically self-congratulatory research paper Why Humans Have Sex (a study which relied solely on college students from UT Austin who were mostly young and mostly white).
To be fair I haven’t read this book yet so I don’t know how their methodologies or analyses may have changed. But what I’ve seen so far doesn’t give me hope. What’s with this "darker, disturbing" stuff in the release? Should we be afraid of the true sexual motivations of half of humanity? Are we meant to think that Drs. Meston and Buss know something about women that no one else knows? I think the answer to both of these questions is yes. Unfortunately it’s a wrong answer.
Which is not to say that we don’t have much to fear. I can’t speak to the book itself, but based on the UK coverage here are just a few of my educated guesses as to what we can expect from the coverage we’re about to be blanketed in:
Privileging the voices of one group of women. We’re clearly meant to think that these “real women” represent all women. But who are they (and they’re real as opposed to what, made of rubber)? In order for us to care about this book and buy it, the publishers and authors need us to care about these women and believe that their answers can teach us something about ourselves. Why would we ever be foolish enough to believe something like that?
Confuse want and have. We’re told the book is about why women have sex. Isn’t one of the reasons some women have sex (as opposed to want it) is because they are forced to? Is this dealt with in the book? And if it is (which I suspect it isn’t) will the media take this opportunity to give some coverage to that issue? Probably not. After all, who wants to talk about power, social meanings and sexual consent when we can pretend to be de-coding our secret-sexual-want programming. How about using this book as an opportunity to talk about all the actual reasons women have sex instead of making women feel good (or relieved, or powerless) by telling them they’re robots?
Ignore the inconsistencies and highlight the gender differences. In their first study and the coverage of it, the researchers talked a lot about the similarities between men’s and women’s ratings of the reasons they have sex. In this study they seem to be highlighting the differences. Why is this? And what does this say about the data itself?
Scratch the surface. If the fawning coverage of their research paper is any indication of what’s to come, don’t expect anyone to ask what other researchers have to say about the Meston/Buss approach. Don’t expect anyone to wonder aloud if these findings amount to anything other than a anecdotal bundle of sound bytes, and don’t expect any editors to decide to use the release of this book as an opportunity to create more complicated coverage about sexual desire and motivation.
If I seem overly down about this, I have reason. I genuinely care about what people think and feel about sex. And I am so deeply indebted to researchers, artists, and regular folks who are gutsy enough to say something honest about sexuality. So when I read this closer from the book’s press release I feel like not saying something is unethical:
Why Women Have Sex stands as the richest and deepest psychological understanding of female sexuality yet achieved and promises to inform every woman’s (and her partner’s) awareness of her relationship to sex and her sexuality.
Whoever these 1,000 or so women who spoke to the authors are, I don’t think any of us should be willing to let them speak for us. I don’t think we should tolerate the blogs, newspapers and magazine articles, radio shows, and TV segments that are about to tell us what we really think and want (and why).
So, to bring it back to the question at hand; who should we trust to speak for us, sexually? Well, I can think of many people who have richer and deeper things to say about sexuality than Meston and Buss, but the obvious answer, one I hope we can all agree with, is: ourselves.
| | Twitter | Newsletter Signup | Sexuality Forum | |
Ricci Levy of Woodhull Freedom Foundation, without question! She shares my dedication to individual self-determination
I’d agree that ourselves is who knows us best. Writing “Why Humans Have Sex” probably was wrong way to go, being that women have hormonal changes which bring on those desires when their hormones go in right direction. Men’s aren’t quite so dramaticly felt. I’d also agree that with 100s of possible careers to choose, odds of any single person choosing and knowing as much as these authors are near nul. Result is, as humans we don’t think and act(as said) “analytical” about it as these authors believe. While there’s some science regarding hormonal cycle, we don’t desire to know that, especially on topic which we primarily view and think of as enjoyment.
Cory, I love your article. It is both educational, informative, sensitive and insightful. However I would suggest that you read Buss’s book “Evolution of Desire”. It explains that although you are asking from a personal point of view as to why women have sex Buss explains why women have sex from a purely evolutionary stand point. It is a fascinating read. As a woman it helped me to better understand my self.
A hearty “Amen” from Missouri, Cory. I resent so-called studies that purport to “speak” for me or anybody else based on — well, actually based on any sample whatever. I am an individual (gay) man and I make up my own mind, and believe sex is good and healthful. “Dark” motivations sure sounds like a selling-point,though. There is a whole mega-industry of Killing Pleasure which perhaps points back to a Puritan heritage. But I would have thought we’d got over that by now.
@Angela
Actually that’s the first thing I read by Buss. And while I didn’t get into it in this post, my problem is in large part with the way evolutionary psychology gets played out in research and practice. I worry that most people don’t realize that everything in Buss’ book is hypothesis, not fact. I worry that most people don’t know the difference between correlation and causality. Why would they? We aren’t taught it in school and we certainly aren’t enlightened by a mainstream media hungry for sound bytes. It’s not that I think his work is without merit, it’s just that I feel like it’s so horribly misrepresented in the media and we are the ones that suffer for it.
@Cory, I can not argue with any of what you said. My point is that if you have questions about the evolutionary mechanisms at work that underly why men and women have sex and why they choose to mate with who they do then Buss’s work provides provocative answers to those questions. I understand your point that Buss’s work is just hypnosis but would also like to add that there have been many studies done in regards to evolutionary psychology and mating and none that I am aware of have refuted Buss’s claims
I would also like to say that when talking about any sciences that involve humans we can only make generalizations based on averages.And If I understand you correctly that is exactly your concern. Your fear that generalizations can result in stereo typing is valid.
Sorry, but as a professional writer, can I just say that I am so, so sick of seeing the disclaimer, “Well, I haven’t actually READ the book, but…”?
Cory, saying everything in his book is a hypothesis is sort of like creationists saying evolution is a theory, not a fact. Evolutionary biology and psychology are well established, although research is still going on, and they’re meant to deal with generalities, not the quirks of individuals, as beautiful and fascinating as they are.
I completely agree with you about the media misrepresenting science in sound bites, though. The actual studies aren’t usually as over-generalized as the media makes them sound.
@Jeremy. Thanks for this, and you’re absolutely right. I’m over generalizing. It’s just that I find that examples like this are so heinous, and I feel like the researchers should take some responsibility for how their work is presented. I get frustrated, and make comments that are absolutely too broad. I really appreciate you chiming in on this point. What I’ve yet to do personally is figure out what in evolutionary psychology I think is valuable, I need to give that more serious thought and then include that in any critique.