![\"\"](\"http:\/\/urban-plains.com\/2016\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Kinsey-header-1124x731.jpg\")
Photo by Emily VanSchmus<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/b>Kinsey Institute researchers are working to change the complicated relationship between science and sex<\/span><\/h5>\nWords by Molly Longman<\/span><\/i><\/p>\nWhen Oakland, California-based author Mary Roach released her book about science and sex, <\/span>Bonk<\/span><\/i><\/a>, in 2008, readers and reviewers honed in on one chapter in particular: the section in which she recounted<\/span> having sex<\/span><\/a> with her husband alongside a London physician holding an ultrasound wand\u2014all in the name of research.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cThat was by far the most talked about part of the book in interviews and in reviews,\u201d Roach said. \u201cIt was funny and captured people\u2019s imagination because they think about themselves doing that, and they think, \u2018My God. How awkward.\u2019 So it\u2019s not in a judgmental way, but people always make comments about it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nWhy was Roach in this uncomfortable, well, position? It all started with wanting to observe a sex study in action\u2014when privacy laws wouldn\u2019t allow for it, she did what any sensible researcher might do. She ponied up and did it herself. She agreed to allow a researcher capture three-dimensional moving picture ultrasound footage of her and her spouse in the act. <\/span><\/p>\nRoach said this single chapter of <\/span>Bonk<\/span><\/i> \u201cgained a life of its own\u201d in part because the act of sex has become more acceptable than the act of researching it. It\u2019s juicier. It\u2019s more subjective. It\u2019s more lucrative. While we fund Hollywood and Playboy magazine, putting money toward the science behind sex, sexuality, and gender is tricker.<\/span><\/p>\nWe promote and consume sex everyday\u2014whether we\u2019re watching <\/span>Game of Thrones<\/span><\/a>, fast-forwarding through <\/span>Bud Light <\/span><\/a>commercials or boning-up on <\/span>political candidates<\/span><\/a> (pun intended). But if you want to get serious about sex and study, say, naughty habits of the retirement home set, then that\u2019s a tougher sell. There\u2019s a lack of funding and support for sex and sexuality research, in part because we\u2019re more comfortable with talking about sex than digging into the science behind it. Just ask an expert. <\/span><\/p>\nGrab Them by the Perception<\/h6>\n
For someone who \u201cjust fell into\u201d sex and sexuality research, Dr. Justin Garcia is extremely well-published. As the <\/span>associate director for research and education<\/span><\/a> at the <\/span>Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction<\/span> on Indiana University\u2019s campus in Bloomington, he\u2019s had the opportunity to research a diverse array of topics. From hook-up culture to casual sex to \u201cIndividual differences in women\u2019s salivary testosterone and estradiol following sexual activity in a non-laboratory setting,\u201d he\u2019s covered a lot of ground in his five years at Kinsey.<\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/urban-plains.com\/2016\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/morrison-hall-400x300.jpg\")
The Kinsey Institute has a home in Morrison Hall at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. Photo by Molly Longman.<\/p><\/div>\n
When you hear about modern hook-up culture out in the wild, you\u2019re likely to hear the words \u201cNetflix and chill\u201d rather than \u201cpair bonding\u201d and \u201cecology of monogamy.\u201d But Garcia is straight science. He takes his work seriously and sticks to the facts\u2014even if his sentences are often followed by a good-natured chuckle.<\/p>\n
And though the Kinsey Institute has allowed him to cover a versatile purview, Garcia believes there\u2019s still a <\/span>stigma<\/span><\/a> surrounding research explicitly about sex.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cI think sex is changing\u2014the role of sexuality and the way we think about it is changing\u2014but there\u2019s still a lot about it that\u2019s taboo,\u201d he says. \u201cA lot about it that titillates people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nRoach speculates that this taboo may be, in part, a product of assumptions about people who dedicate their lives to investigating the scientific nature of sex. <\/span><\/p>\n\u201cWith research, people assume, \u2018Oh you went into this field. You must be obsessed with it,\u2019\u201d Roach said. <\/span><\/p>\nThat perception is only magnified when you\u2019re dealing with a sexy topic like, well, sex. If a researcher chooses to study ecology, entomology or enzymes, that doesn\u2019t seem as odd or obsessive. But people\u2019s eyebrows go up when you talk about sex, Roach says.<\/span><\/p>\nAt times [sex is] paradoxical because it\u2019s a part of so many people\u2019s lives. These are aspects so central to the human condition and to our health and happiness and well being\u2014but they are things that are still often shrouded in mystery.\u201d<\/p>\n
-Dr. Justin Garcia<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\u201cThey\u2019re kind of trying to look askance at you,\u201d she said. \u201cThey\u2019re assuming someone\u2019s a sexual person, rather than someone who finds the topic interesting. It\u2019s part of how our culture deals with or doesn\u2019t deal with sex.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\nAnd many people don\u2019t deal with sex at all. A <\/span>2009 Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP)<\/span><\/a> poll of 304 U.S. healthcare providers found that half of all healthcare providers said sexuality was the least commonly discussed health topic with female patients. The providers discussed sexual health issues with only 39 percent of their female patients. And the <\/span>Association of Reproductive Health Professionals<\/span><\/a> suggested that \u201cpersonal embarrassment or discomfort of talking about sex\u201d was one of the major reasons why.<\/span><\/p>\nAnd Garcia says the varying scope of ideological attitudes and comfort levels with the topic of sexuality presents a barrier in his research as well. Americans have a tendency to criminalize sex, treating it like it\u2019s something to be feared\u2014something to be shamed.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cSome people are more permissive about even talking about sexuality than others,\u201d Garcia said. \u201cSome people feel that sexuality is an issue of science. Some people feel it\u2019s an issue of morality.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nThe Bank Behind the Bonk<\/h6>\n
Ideology isn\u2019t the only barrier for sex research. Funding can present a problem too\u2014even at a well established institute like Kinsey. <\/span><\/p>\nWhile other scientific fields receive a bulk of their funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, much of Kinsey\u2019s funding comes from corporate or private donors.<\/span><\/p>\nThough <\/span>NIH grants<\/span><\/a> fund some of their research, it\u2019s just as likely that a Kinsey study will be funded by the <\/span>K-Y Brand Touch Initiative<\/span><\/i> (you may know them from the legendary <\/span>jet-ski lube<\/span><\/a> commercials), Plan B or Match.com.<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cWe\u2019re probably a little uncommon in the amount of industry and corporate funding we\u2019ve had, but we\u2019ve done it in order to survive\u2014how do you fund sex research?\u201d Garcia said. \u201cYou have to be kind of creative and flexible in the ways you get funding. The NSF and NIH don\u2019t tend to fund a lot on human sexual behavior or human sexuality unless it ties to health.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nFederal funding has been historically hard to come by in the world of sex research. In the early 2000s, former <\/span>Kinsey Institute psychologist Dr. Erick Janssen discovered that his $464,000 of NIH funding was being threatened by a few members of Congress, according to the <\/span>American Psychological Association<\/span><\/a>. Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) was working to eliminate Janssen\u2019s funding, which supported a study investigating how negative emotional states could combine with sexual arousal to make some folks more prone to taking dangerous sexual risks than others, as part of an appropriations bill amendment. <\/span><\/p>\nAnd Garcia says this isn\u2019t uncommon. <\/span><\/p>\n\u201cPeople are often a bit shy about sexuality and sex research,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s not been well-funded by federal sources with the exception of work on HIV and AIDS. So then it becomes a question: Do we have to turn everything we do into research about HIV and AIDS or other sexually transmitted infections? Well, no. There\u2019s a whole heck of a lot about sexuality that doesn\u2019t have to do with STIs, but that work has to be funded.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nWhat We Don\u2019t Know<\/h6>\n
When Oakland, California-based author Mary Roach released her book about science and sex, <\/span>Bonk<\/span><\/i><\/a>, in 2008, readers and reviewers honed in on one chapter in particular: the section in which she recounted<\/span> having sex<\/span><\/a> with her husband alongside a London physician holding an ultrasound wand\u2014all in the name of research.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThat was by far the most talked about part of the book in interviews and in reviews,\u201d Roach said. \u201cIt was funny and captured people\u2019s imagination because they think about themselves doing that, and they think, \u2018My God. How awkward.\u2019 So it\u2019s not in a judgmental way, but people always make comments about it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Why was Roach in this uncomfortable, well, position? It all started with wanting to observe a sex study in action\u2014when privacy laws wouldn\u2019t allow for it, she did what any sensible researcher might do. She ponied up and did it herself. She agreed to allow a researcher capture three-dimensional moving picture ultrasound footage of her and her spouse in the act. <\/span><\/p>\n Roach said this single chapter of <\/span>Bonk<\/span><\/i> \u201cgained a life of its own\u201d in part because the act of sex has become more acceptable than the act of researching it. It\u2019s juicier. It\u2019s more subjective. It\u2019s more lucrative. While we fund Hollywood and Playboy magazine, putting money toward the science behind sex, sexuality, and gender is tricker.<\/span><\/p>\n We promote and consume sex everyday\u2014whether we\u2019re watching <\/span>Game of Thrones<\/span><\/a>, fast-forwarding through <\/span>Bud Light <\/span><\/a>commercials or boning-up on <\/span>political candidates<\/span><\/a> (pun intended). But if you want to get serious about sex and study, say, naughty habits of the retirement home set, then that\u2019s a tougher sell. There\u2019s a lack of funding and support for sex and sexuality research, in part because we\u2019re more comfortable with talking about sex than digging into the science behind it. Just ask an expert. <\/span><\/p>\n For someone who \u201cjust fell into\u201d sex and sexuality research, Dr. Justin Garcia is extremely well-published. As the <\/span>associate director for research and education<\/span><\/a> at the <\/span>Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction<\/span> on Indiana University\u2019s campus in Bloomington, he\u2019s had the opportunity to research a diverse array of topics. From hook-up culture to casual sex to \u201cIndividual differences in women\u2019s salivary testosterone and estradiol following sexual activity in a non-laboratory setting,\u201d he\u2019s covered a lot of ground in his five years at Kinsey.<\/span><\/p>\n The Kinsey Institute has a home in Morrison Hall at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. Photo by Molly Longman.<\/p><\/div>\n When you hear about modern hook-up culture out in the wild, you\u2019re likely to hear the words \u201cNetflix and chill\u201d rather than \u201cpair bonding\u201d and \u201cecology of monogamy.\u201d But Garcia is straight science. He takes his work seriously and sticks to the facts\u2014even if his sentences are often followed by a good-natured chuckle.<\/p>\n And though the Kinsey Institute has allowed him to cover a versatile purview, Garcia believes there\u2019s still a <\/span>stigma<\/span><\/a> surrounding research explicitly about sex.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI think sex is changing\u2014the role of sexuality and the way we think about it is changing\u2014but there\u2019s still a lot about it that\u2019s taboo,\u201d he says. \u201cA lot about it that titillates people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Roach speculates that this taboo may be, in part, a product of assumptions about people who dedicate their lives to investigating the scientific nature of sex. <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWith research, people assume, \u2018Oh you went into this field. You must be obsessed with it,\u2019\u201d Roach said. <\/span><\/p>\n That perception is only magnified when you\u2019re dealing with a sexy topic like, well, sex. If a researcher chooses to study ecology, entomology or enzymes, that doesn\u2019t seem as odd or obsessive. But people\u2019s eyebrows go up when you talk about sex, Roach says.<\/span><\/p>\n At times [sex is] paradoxical because it\u2019s a part of so many people\u2019s lives. These are aspects so central to the human condition and to our health and happiness and well being\u2014but they are things that are still often shrouded in mystery.\u201d<\/p>\n -Dr. Justin Garcia<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n \u201cThey\u2019re kind of trying to look askance at you,\u201d she said. \u201cThey\u2019re assuming someone\u2019s a sexual person, rather than someone who finds the topic interesting. It\u2019s part of how our culture deals with or doesn\u2019t deal with sex.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n And many people don\u2019t deal with sex at all. A <\/span>2009 Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP)<\/span><\/a> poll of 304 U.S. healthcare providers found that half of all healthcare providers said sexuality was the least commonly discussed health topic with female patients. The providers discussed sexual health issues with only 39 percent of their female patients. And the <\/span>Association of Reproductive Health Professionals<\/span><\/a> suggested that \u201cpersonal embarrassment or discomfort of talking about sex\u201d was one of the major reasons why.<\/span><\/p>\n And Garcia says the varying scope of ideological attitudes and comfort levels with the topic of sexuality presents a barrier in his research as well. Americans have a tendency to criminalize sex, treating it like it\u2019s something to be feared\u2014something to be shamed.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cSome people are more permissive about even talking about sexuality than others,\u201d Garcia said. \u201cSome people feel that sexuality is an issue of science. Some people feel it\u2019s an issue of morality.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Ideology isn\u2019t the only barrier for sex research. Funding can present a problem too\u2014even at a well established institute like Kinsey. <\/span><\/p>\n While other scientific fields receive a bulk of their funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, much of Kinsey\u2019s funding comes from corporate or private donors.<\/span><\/p>\n Though <\/span>NIH grants<\/span><\/a> fund some of their research, it\u2019s just as likely that a Kinsey study will be funded by the <\/span>K-Y Brand Touch Initiative<\/span><\/i> (you may know them from the legendary <\/span>jet-ski lube<\/span><\/a> commercials), Plan B or Match.com.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re probably a little uncommon in the amount of industry and corporate funding we\u2019ve had, but we\u2019ve done it in order to survive\u2014how do you fund sex research?\u201d Garcia said. \u201cYou have to be kind of creative and flexible in the ways you get funding. The NSF and NIH don\u2019t tend to fund a lot on human sexual behavior or human sexuality unless it ties to health.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Federal funding has been historically hard to come by in the world of sex research. In the early 2000s, former <\/span>Kinsey Institute psychologist Dr. Erick Janssen discovered that his $464,000 of NIH funding was being threatened by a few members of Congress, according to the <\/span>American Psychological Association<\/span><\/a>. Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) was working to eliminate Janssen\u2019s funding, which supported a study investigating how negative emotional states could combine with sexual arousal to make some folks more prone to taking dangerous sexual risks than others, as part of an appropriations bill amendment. <\/span><\/p>\n And Garcia says this isn\u2019t uncommon. <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cPeople are often a bit shy about sexuality and sex research,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s not been well-funded by federal sources with the exception of work on HIV and AIDS. So then it becomes a question: Do we have to turn everything we do into research about HIV and AIDS or other sexually transmitted infections? Well, no. There\u2019s a whole heck of a lot about sexuality that doesn\u2019t have to do with STIs, but that work has to be funded.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nGrab Them by the Perception<\/h6>\n
The Bank Behind the Bonk<\/h6>\n
What We Don\u2019t Know<\/h6>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/urban-plains.com\/2016\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/1-6-1124x779.jpg\")