There is an interactive link between culture and science, such that the frameworks adopted by science reflect cultural frameworks and the resultant findings of science are frequently the basis for bolstering those very frameworks. Four of these interlocking themes pervade the understanding of sexuality: sexual disorders as properties of individuals; sex as an energy system, manifested in normal and abnormal levels; progress through science; and a preoccupation with gender relations (Boyle, 1994). Part of what happens is that professionals construct public understanding by providing a language by which to organize thought and to communicate. The legitimated knowledge of science further defines what is normal and abnormal, what is appropriate and inappropriate (Boyle, 1994).
The construction of what is normal, typical, and therefore to be expected can be seen in observations regarding sexual permissiveness in men and cautiousness among women. Relative permissiveness in men has long been interpreted in terms of normal energy in men, whereas cautiousness among women has been viewed as part of normal femininity. The early work of Kinsey, initially viewed as quite daring and liberal, sanctioned these gender patterns as normal. For example, Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) described the lack of sexual activity in some men as abnormal. These “pruderies,” as the authors called them, are most apparent in those who are “dull sexually as well as mentally” (p. 206). They further differentiated male and female arousal, noting that “younger females and, for that matter, a certain portion of the older and married female population, may engage in such specifically sexual activities as petting and even intercourse, without discernible erotic reaction” (p. 157).
These frameworks, which often reflect political structures of power and privilege associated with gender and are not specific to sexuality at all, become internalized as part of the implicit expectations individuals hold about how they should feel. Therefore, even sexual experience and identity that are typically viewed as most private, internal, and individual can be developed, evoked, and sustained by a cultural and political context.
In the next chapter, Mary Beth Oliver and Janet Hyde discuss their meta-analysis of the research on sexuality from the 1960s through the 1980s. The study illustrates how culture and science influence the views of even those who would be impacted most by the biases that are created. Consistent with Oliver and Hyde’s predictions regarding the major theoretical perspectives on gender differences in sexuality, men had a greater number of sexual partners and more permissive attitudes toward casual sex than women. Remarkably they found little support for the sexual double standard, the idea that female premarital sexual activity is less acceptable than male premarital sexual activity. The support that was found was on the part of women. Women showed a higher level of acceptance for the sexual double standard than did men themselves.
Psychology as a discipline has the responsibility to recognize the misunderstandings of popular culture, to provide alternative visions for those who will follow, and to create a better world for both men and women to live in. Awareness of the issues raised in this chapter is of vital importance in understanding our past and creating our future. If reality is truly malleable and constructed, then we have the opportunity to contribute to the molding and creation of a fair and tolerant one.
We are hopeful about the possibility of expanding the scope of theory and research on sexuality, and the deconstruction of sexual myth. Nonsexist guidelines to research are a good place to begin (McHugh, Koeste, & Frieze, 1986). First, McHugh, Koeste, and Frieze suggest avoiding excessive confidence in traditional methods. This involves identifying underlying values, such as the pre-experimental belief in differential permissiveness. Alternative methods should also be used when possible. Few empirical researchers offer qualitative findings in tandem with quantitative ones. Second, explanatory models should be used with care. Special care must be taken to avoid unsubstantiated causal relationships between biology and behavior. Third, bias in interpretations should be avoided. The context of research should be examined, including the influences of researchers, confederates, and unbalanced sexual composition of groups. One particularly relevant suggestion concerns the nature of topics researched. Sexual permissiveness may be an important topic for men, but a more appropriate focus for women may be a discourse of desire.
We argue, along with other authors in this volume, that sexuality is a dynamic phenomenon that emerges in context. The context includes the relative status and power of the interacting individuals, implicit expectations held by individuals about what they should feel, rewards and costs associated with particular behaviors, and the social structure that may facilitate or depress certain features of sexual identity and experience. The focus on neuroanatomy, hormone physiology, and natural selection that has characterized much of the scholarly literature on human sexuality simply is inadequate to capture the intricacy of sexuality.