You would have thought that rising levels of sexually transmitted infections would convince us of the need for good sex advice -- from someone who can help us negotiate and enjoy safer sex, cope with relationships, and debunk the many myths about sex. Sex education shouldn't begin and end at school, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are not just for teenagers.
Qualified sex advisers do exist, but as an adult you are much more likely to hear from the less-qualified "sexpert" -- a media creation usually presented as a schoolmistress, seductress, pseudo-scientist, or combination of all three. Of course, there's nothing wrong with any of the above -- you can be sexy and give good advice -- but many of the nation's sex advisers just aren't up to the job.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
British Men's magazine Zoo recently launched a sex supplement with glamour model "Dr" Jodie Marsh at the helm. "No seven years at medical college for our resident sexpert," read the introduction.
"Jodie got her expertise burning the midnight oil at the University of Dirty Sex."
Jodie concurred: "I haven't exactly got a degree in psychology, but I just love sex, don't I?"
To me, this is like someone announcing, "I'm a lawyer! I don't have any legal qualifications, but I never miss an episode of Judge John Deed!"
I'm a psychologist specializing in sex research. I have a doctorate in pornography (yes, a real degree), in which I evaluated sex studies on explicit materials. Over the past 13 years I've carried out research on sexual functioning, and on street prostitution. I train health professionals, and provide sex information through two advice columns and a radio phone-in. But I avoid using the title "sexpert": it lumps me in with everyone else, qualified or not, and I want people to trust me. Nor can we dismiss Marsh's column as a predictable lad's-mag stunt; women's magazines and self-help publishing are just as rife with underqualified sexperts.
Right now, we desperately need access to good advice about sex and sexual health. Apart from the increase in STIs and teenage pregnancy in the UK, we are facing a global HIV/Aids pandemic. Levels of sexual dissatisfaction are high, expectations are unrealistic and pharmaceutical companies are exploiting our anxieties about sexual functioning. Too often, sex advisers or columnists will assume that people over 25 aren't at risk from STIs (they are) and are in monogamous relationships; condoms and safer sex just don't come up.
What do come up, again and again, are the same tired myths about sex and sexuality (see side panel). They get repeated because they sound credible (though they aren't), and because many consumer magazines cannibalize features from one another. There comes a point at which the ideas are repeated so often they start to sound true, which is probably why a senior magazine executive recently told me, "There's nothing new in sex."
Women tend to contact me with questions about body image and self-confidence; they worry about getting or keeping a partner; they worry that if they're not "good in bed" they will be rejected. Guys are concerned about penis size, shape, length, ejaculation, and how long they ought to last. Both genders, gay or straight, worry about having arguments, and what to do if you go off sex, particularly in a long-term relationship.
A good sex expert can answer these questions, and hopefully make people feel more sexually confident. But a lot of sexperts don't.
Instead, they reinforce the idea that women should use sex to keep a partner interested, or that sex for women is more about pleasing someone else than pleasing themselves. The emotional and communicative aspects are sidelined. Men come under pressure to last for as long as humanly possible -- which actually increases their chance of having sexual problems.
There are countless examples of the wrong advice being given. Women go off sex because they're tired, because they have relationship problems, a new baby or because they have never learned what works for them. But instead of being given advice which might help solve these issues, they get referred to a testosterone patch they won't need and which hasn't yet been invented.
There is no recognized qualification in the field, which means anyone can set themselves up as an expert. There are many highly qualified people based within academia or health care, but they tend not to appear on television or to write bestsellers, and so don't have quite the same profile. The reason? Their work is evaluated on grants obtained to fund research, and through publishing papers in journals based on that research; writing a popular sex book is seen as a distraction and is discouraged.
But even if they were tempted, they often feel there's little point in talking to journalists. Why bother when someone with no training gets the same billing?
Sexperts are, for the most part, fairly conventional. On the occasions when I have tried to provide alternative information that breaks this mold, it has caused problems. One journalist asked me if the hardest thing about marriage was accepting that you would be having sex with one person for the rest of your life. I suggested that people who were genuinely worried about this had choices, such as sharing fantasies, looking at erotica, watching other couples have sex, even having sex with other couples.
"Eeeew, that's disgusting!" she said. "I'm talking about normal relationships."
Another example: many men find it difficult to keep an erection with a condom on and so go without, putting their partners at risk from disease. But when I suggested to a men's magazine editor that one solution was to masturbate with a condom on, he nearly fell out of his chair and told me this was "far too rude."
What can we expect from an expert in sex? Pretty much what we'd demand from anyone claiming expertise in any other area of health.
They should have professional or extensive personal experience in the world of sex, a link to a professional body, and they should network with colleagues. They should be aware of developments in sex, have supervision where appropriate, and continually seek professional development.
They also need to tailor their advice to suit different ages, sexualities, ethnic or religious groups, as well as people with different sexual, physical or mental-health needs. They don't need to be academics, but they do need to know their limits. We don't call someone who claims to know something about the heart a "cardiologist" -- so why accept second best from sex?
Petra Boynton is a lecturer in international health services research at University College, London. She is not a sexpert.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS