Research is hard. Sex research is even harder. The first and most obvious challenge is the taboo that sex still carries in most of the world. After doing this work for over 10 years, I have seen firsthand the different ways in which it makes people uncomfortable. Sex is fascinating and important, but many people do not seem to want to talk about it openly. Although attitudes are changing (especially in younger generations), people almost never bring up their last sexual partner as casually as they might bring up their last meal. Once I get past the initial squeamishness of talking about sex, I have noticed two particular trends in how sex research provokes discomfort in the United States. One seems to be ideologically aligned with Republican views, while the other seems to be ideologically aligned with the views of Democrats.
Anyone engaged in sex research is no stranger to the discomfort of Republicans. Social conservatives have long assailed sex researchers for a wide range of reasons. In the US, they have complained that federal funding for research on sexual orientation, HIV/AIDS prevention, or sexual health education is wasteful. They have objected to the study of sex outside the mainstream LGBT community in subcultures like BDSM or polyamory, suggesting that such research will normalize “sexual deviancy.” Although the specific targets of their scorn have varied, social conservatives generally disapprove of sex research because it often tries to understand sex outside of the conventional framework with which they are comfortable: monogamous, heterosexual, matrimonial activity.
Antagonism from American Democrats is probably less familiar. After all, most sex research is ideologically aligned with this political camp. Social liberals in this country tend to think highly of the LGBT community, support subcultures such as BDSM and polyamory, and reject heteronormative ideals. But there have been examples of pushback for decades. Since the 1990s, scientists have studied the genetics of sexual orientation, and some Democrats have protested this research. They argue that the discovery of a gay gene (more likely a set of genes that might contribute to sexual orientation) could be used by homophobic parents to abort or genetically modify children who would have been gay.
More recently, some on the left have fiercely condemned research that implicates sex in the developmental trajectory of some transgender women. They are concerned that research suggesting sexual motivations for some trans women will undo years of hard work that advanced their acceptance in society. This acceptance is in part due to the now-widespread belief that transgender people are “born in the wrong body.” With good reason, social liberals in the United States worry that straying from this dominant narrative will be damaging—remember that sex is still taboo, and social conservatives will not hesitate to find reasons to disapprove of LGBT people and to deny them rights. A conservative outlet misappropriated the evidence that some trans women are sexually motivated to argue that they are really just straight men with a mental illness, who pose a danger to cisgender women and should not be allowed in women’s bathrooms.
I have waded into this political minefield with my own sex research, and I am learning to appreciate the implications for myself and the communities I study. In 2019, I published a study on the sexuality of furries, who are fans of cartoon animal characters like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse. Furries form a talented and creative community, which has produced some impressive art, media and stories featuring cartoon animal characters of their own design. Even though big furry conventions like Anthrocon receive the most attention in the media, furries are more often found socialising on the Internet. Many create animated animal versions of themselves called fursonas, and some wear mascot-like cartoon animal costumes called fursuits. Because furries have been portrayed as sexually motivated in the media and popular culture, they are frequently and unfairly ridiculed on the Internet as an example of sexual deviancy. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising that there is intense controversy about just how many are motivated by sex, and the extent to which sex plays a role in being a furry.
My study became the target of moral outrage from Republicans because it found that many (but not all) furries reported some sexual motivation and sexual attraction to cartoon animals, with many also sexually fantasising about being one themselves. These results were unfortunately heralded by a socially conservative licensed therapist as an example of how furries will reveal their “deviant side” (evidently by having it normalized in my research) and prey on children. His concerns, although completely unfounded and untethered from any actual data from the study, are worrying because they add to the pervasive stigma that furries already face.
At the other end of the political spectrum, my research has been criticized by some social liberal members of the furry community for legitimising the harmful notion that furries are “sexually deviant.” There is understandable concern among furries, as there is among transgender people, that society will be less accepting of them if some are found to be sexually motivated. And it is true that my study did find that many furries expressed sexual motivation and sexual attraction to cartoon animals. But sexual motivation and attraction to animated animals do not imply that there is anything wrong with those furries or that they are any less deserving of acceptance.
Rather than pretending these sexually motivated furries do not exist, or shaming them into non-existence, why not work together to dismantle the taboos that prevent them from being fully accepted in the furry community and in society at large? Sexually motivated and non-sexually motivated furries should work together—not against one another—to promote acceptance and understanding. Sex researchers and non-sex researchers should similarly work together and with furries toward the same goal. In that spirit, I am collaborating with furries and fandom researchers at FurScience in an effort to better understand the role and the importance of sex in this community.
We have a long way to go as sex researchers. Not only must we overcome the general reservations that most people feel about sex, but we must also overcome trends of discomfort that are specific to both Republicans and Democrats. I find it easy to persist in the face of the political right and their condemnation of sex research as having little importance or promoting “sexual deviancy.” Most sex researchers do not see sexual diversity as sexual deviancy. Instead, we value differences of sexual expression in all its forms, as long as they are healthy and between consensual adults, and believe they deserve greater appreciation in society.
I find it far more difficult to navigate the concerns from the political left, especially in light of the very real impact that sex research can have on less mainstream groups, whether they are members of the LGBT or furry community. I certainly do not want my research to be misused for attack and ridicule. Importantly, I have no lofty goal of either normalizing “sexual deviancy” to upset Republicans, or pathologizing the groups I study to upset Democrats. Instead, my aim is to understand what is true about the diversity of human sexuality, with the hopes that such diversity will be better accepted in society. We should work to end the discomfort with sex, not to end sex research. That way, no matter our political ideology, we can celebrate sexual diversity rather than deny it.
This piece is published as part of a partnership between Areo and the publication Queer Majority. You can find the original source here.
Visit https://www.queermajority.com.
Please, please, please stop being prudes! What you are studying and talking about is not “Sex”, not “Sexuality” but Eroticism and Erotic preference and Erotic proclivity and Erotic desire. Stop Bowdlerizing your glossary! Sex is a binary. Eroticism is a multidimensional continuum. Silly people who are too prudish to say “erotic” have trotted out “gender” as a way to allude to the elaborate variety of erotic preferences, proclivities and desires without embarrassing themselves and in the process have generated a huge semantic quarrel which need never have happened.
[…] Source link […]
I’m sorry for those who think I’m exaggerating but honestly I fear what will be the next sexual “mode” that will be normalized in the near future. Okay, people have the right to live their sex lives, but more and more I ask myself: Is it not pushing this “diversity” too much? Will there be a limit in the future?
“Ahh…but you are a religious reactionary with prejudices and moral panic” they might say. Could it be that all concern with the direction things are taking is prejudice and hatred? Is no conservative concern legitimate?