Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
12
This and many other administrative practices illustrate that decisions regarding
sexual issues are still often made more on the basis of moral views or the principle
of I personally feel that than on the basis of scientic knowledge and relevant
research ndings. Although the nature of sexuality is otherwise mostly private and
intimate, the regulations and norms that govern it are public. All kinds of prejudices
and ideological attempts to manipulate other peoples views and lives still inuence
the way sexuality is regulated. In our society, sexuality is still a public battleeld.
13
14
15
16
Usually, folk traditions have been allowed into the public sphere disinfected of sex.
In pre-19th century literature, sexuality was addressed only in religious and legal
writings, and characterized by strict admonitions regarding whoring and depravity, incest and various unnatural acts. Until the 1960s, the educated classes were
either silent about sex, or at most only ventured to make sexual allusions. Sexual
guide books certainly discussed sex, but mostly in a tone of caution, giving rise to
unfounded fears regarding, for example, the alleged dangers of masturbation.
In took until the 1960s for writers to dare to tackle the subject of sex in the same
vein that people themselves had long spoken of it. Gradually, translations of erotic
novels began to be available. Slowly, the written word was released from the ban
on pornographic content. Illustrated pornography, on the other hand, continued to
be rather strictly regulated until the mid-1980s. In the early years of the 21st century,
standard pornography ofcially became a legal form of inspirational bedroom material. Yet, to this day, we continue to prefer roundabout wordings when discussing
sex. Frank talk about sex is often seen as low-brow and uncivilized.
The culture of sexuality evolves driven by the public discourse concerning it.
Whenever new information about sexuality surfaces, or when certain manifestations
of sexuality begin to be viewed with greater tolerance, people re-evaluate their own
relationship to these issues and sometimes also revamp their own sex lives.
Public discourse denes acceptable forms of sexuality and delivers disapproval for
unacceptable forms, as well as for deeds that have been deemed illegal. In the
West, an individuals right to sexual self-determination now represents an important
sexual standard, as long as it doesnt conict with someone elses right to sexual selfdetermination. In our culture, sexual interaction occurs as the outcome of a negotiation
between two individuals; society is generally unwilling to interfere with these mutual
understandings and agreements. The lines are mostly drawn on a just-in-case basis,
not because there is any persuasive evidence of the postulated harms.
The exceptions to the principle of sexual self-determination mainly have to do with
children, certain individuals who are in treatment, and some commercial manifestations of sex. The mere fact of mutual desire does not necessarily confer acceptability
on all forms of sex. The exceptions are justied with the necessity of protecting
people who are seen as weaker, from experiences that might harm them.
Naturally, culture also shapes the ideals related to sexual interaction itself. Examples that
emerged in the 1920s introduced the ideal of both sexual partners reaching climax simultaneously and the duty of the man to stimulate his female partner. Fifty years ago, people
were being warned of the dangers of masturbation and of nymphomaniac women. It was
also said that women got turned on slowly and viewed sex more negatively than men.
Some of the old claims have been called in question as new information has come to
light; in particular, attitudes regarding masturbation have shifted from admonishments
17
18
19
Albert Kinsey became famous in the United States in the 1950s with his sex studies.
His perspective was still elementally founded in 19th century versions of the theory
of evolution; his research methods removed sex from its social, psychological and
cultural contexts and focused instead on the frequency, incidence and methods of
sexual release related to sexual experience.
Kinsey and Freud shared a belief in the biological roots of behaviour (albeit employing
largely different versions of biology) and both maintained a connection to the role
of what was natural in determining the meaning of sexuality. For Freud, natural
meant the biological necessity to procreate, and for Kinsey, natural was the variation
that was found in evolution. For both, nature was at the centre of their argumentation,
which made their work and viewpoints acceptable in the public eye. The cost was that
both men interpreted sexuality through a narrow, biological perspective.
In the pioneering laboratory studies of Masters and Johnson, nature continued to
play a prominent role. They proposed in their studies on sexual dysfunction that if
inhibitions and conscious control mechanisms could be diminished, natural biological
reexes would set in and wake up sexual function. The idea was well suited to 1960s
public opinion and the views expressed in the media at the time.
In the early 20th century, both the medical establishment and the church sought to nd
justications for marital sex. Sex drive was viewed as something natural, an innate
human characteristic. It was not acceptable to articially compromise or arouse the
sex drive, for example through the use of pornography. The idea of naturalness has
since remained unveried in studies in the eld. Sex drive has been something to
control either for our own good, to protect us, or to liberate us so that we can better
actualize ourselves. Both conservative and liberal politicians have used these ideas
for their own dicrete ends.
In the 1950s and 1960s, researchers combined, for example, Herbert Blumers symbolic interactionism with ethnographic research methods in order to study issues such
as homosexuality, prostitution, nudism, striptease, and premarital sexual activity. In
other words, scientists were still looking at special issues within the area of sexuality,
not the larger general questions and problems of sexuality in individuals and couples.
Studies from this period conclude that social factors not only shape sexuality but
that it is the social that produces the sexual.
A particularly strong argument against the instinct-oriented viewpoint came in the
1960s from William Simon and John Gagnon, who crafted counter-arguments to
the idea of sexuality being biologically determined. Their research also challenged
Freuds biologically founded basic therapeutic views (as well as those of Wilhelm
Reich and Herbert Marcuse). Simon and Gagnon were critical of the idea that sex
was in effect repressed energy that contained potential that could be used toward
revolutionary and various other ends. They proposed that sex plays an important
20
role in human relationships, because society has acknowledged and created that
importance not because of some compelling urge that derives from the biological
origins of sex. According to them, it was thanks to all the restrictions and prohibitions
that sex was so intense, so passionate and so special.
According to Simon and Gagnon, sex was not rooted in biology. Sexuality emerged
and took shape through complex social negotiations and denitions. The researchers
questioned the idea that sexuality was merely a characteristic of individuals. For
them, sexuality was dynamic and connected to social interaction it was in fact
born in the interaction between people.
Simon and Gagnon saw human beings as acting out, in essence performing their
sexual lives. They did not see a drive or instinct at work, but a kind of script that
people applied in the different situations that emerged in connection with sex. A
script consisted of internalized and typically repetitive models for interaction to be
used in sex. Instead of sex representing a kind of uncontrollable energy, it consisted
instead of actions that were regulated by social rules. The later theory of social
constructionism was also founded on this idea.
The concept of sexual scripts or interaction models came out of the multi-disciplinary
tradition that had preceded it. The thinking included symbolic interactionism, meaning that the self is created in the process of social interaction and reciprocal communication. Another role model was dramaturgy, rendering stories into practically
applicable methods. Behind the idea of sexual scripts were also the systems of symbols in Kenneth Burkes theoretical discussions as well as the Freudian perspective.
Simon and Gagnon liked to use the language of dramaturgy to describe the stage
on which sexuality was played out. For example, they viewed sexual foreplay as a
type of drama that contained different rituals where one participant must respond to
a move initiated by the other in a way required by the script.
Often, participants involved in sexual interaction do not share a common drama or
script. The result may be discord. A particular gesture or move can be interpreted as
twisted de Sade or soft, romantic Love Story. If one partner misreads a gesture
by the other by using the wrong script, this may complicate the couples interaction.
Most mistaken interpretations are made at the early stages of a relationship. In some
cases, mistaken assumptions may even lead to accusations of sexual harassment.
Throughout history, and to the present day, sexual research has been conducted in
unusually difcult circumstances. It has not been very highly valued in scientic
circles, and the eld suffers from a lack of specialized funding sources. Researchers
who undertake sexual studies and evaluate their ndings often face prejudice and
opposition. Frequently, the resistance is oriented in moral condemnation, but there
are also those who disagree with sex research because of what they perceive as its
excessive invasion into private life.
21
The basic tenet of sex research is that no moral condemnation should be directed at
any sexual matter that a subject or interviewee brings up. In the course of history,
some of the issues that have arisen would have constituted illegal acts. For the interviewees, bringing them up may be a freeing experience. The objective is to discover
what people do in their sex lives, not to tell them what they should do. This neutral
approach has received criticism particularly in the United States, when studying
young people. Similarly, there have been attempts to limit funding only to subjects
that involve the negative consequences of sexual behaviour.
Human sexual responses have been studied relatively widely in laboratory settings,
where peoples physiological and genital reactions have been measured as they receive various types of visual or auditory sexual stimulation. Such research has greatly
increased our understanding of sexual responses and related sexual dysfunctions. The
studies have also produced new knowledge about the subjective and physiological
changes that have to do with functional and dysfunctional responses, as well as the
effects of various medications and hormones on sexual arousal.
In Kinseys research sex was mostly addressed in the context of marriage. Other
sexual experiences paid homage to marriage through terminology: they were premarital and extra-marital relationships. During the 1970s, research into sexual
behaviour began to nally dislodge from marriage, and reproductive health and
contraception emerged as important issues. Homosexuality, anal sex and oral sex,
on the other hand, still received scant attention.
In the era of AIDS, starting in the 1980s, homosexuality and anal intercourse became particularly visible topics. Studies began to look beyond marriage, paying more
attention to the particular type and character of sexual partners and relationships.
The focus was now on the different types of partners people had and on the various
sexual expressions they used. Instead of the earlier moral condemnation, relationships began to be seen as health risks. Future research may be increasingly engaged
in trying to dene what constitutes sexual experience. For the majority, it will likely
still be sexual intercourse.
Research on the subject sexual arousal has earned special antagonism. Many would
like to think of sexual arousal in an idealized way, as a spontaneous expression
of romance, love and intimacy. A topic like that is not seen as suited to scientic
analysis. Arousal may not comfortably t in with our idea of human dignity. For
individual people, though, sexual arousal is a feeling that lifts them up, away from
everyday life, makes sex something special, and leads to unique pleasure as well as
the ensuing feelings of relaxation and wellbeing.
22
23
David Buss has crafted a slightly more complex theory of evolution in his sexual
strategies theory. It is used to examine various strategies that particularly humans
employ in short-term or long-term dating relationships. According to the theory, the
strategies for short-term relationships are more common among men than women.
Couple formation, again, is critical from the standpoint of reproduction and continuation of the species.
The preferences that have to do with peoples attraction to one another are intended
to maximize an individuals reproductive success and tness. According to the theory, physical attractiveness, along with youth, is a key clue for men as to a womans
fertility. Women, on the other hand, usually seek a long-time partner who is willing
and able to provide them with the resources they need to care and rear children. In
the course of a short-term relationship, women are able to assess the presence of
these characteristics in a man.
Evolutionary psychology has been much criticized for the assumption that it makes
regarding the unchanging customs of couple formation. The critics have documented the
changes that have occurred in terms of mate selection, marriage and behaviour outside
marriage. The theory of social constructionism, on the other hand, has been criticized
for assigning too-passive a role to individuals in relation to their environment.
Attempts to unite biological and social effects into a single theory have been resulted
in social interaction theories. One example is the two-component theory of love
and attraction. It posits that passionate love is born when two conditions are met
simultaneously: a) A person is in an intense state of arousal and b) the individual
connects the cognitive concept of love with the strong emotions he or she is presently feeling. In other words, for the physiological state (arousal) to lead to action,
a positive cognitive interpretation is needed to make sexual action both permissible
and desirable in the given set of circumstances.
In the bio-cultural view of sexuality, sexual desire is an essential product of evolution.
The expression of sexual desire, however, is channelled through memories, situational
factors and a cultural understanding of sexuality. This is how we learn, for example,
which partners are suitable and which are dangerous. Although sexual desire may be
biological in origin, its expression is strongly socially conditioned and constructed. In
this theory, sexuality is, as a matter of fact, a somatic response created by culture.
Parker and Easton present that, according to the theory of the social construction of
knowledge, sexual activity, the associated identities, sexual communities, as well as
erotic interests can be socially constructed. This model arises from the conception
that sexual activity has varied social and subjective meanings depending on the
cultural context in which they take place. Cultural and historical factors inuence
these meanings. From a critical standpoint, authorities produce and disseminate
conceptions of sexuality that benet their own positions of power.
24
25
trends since the 1970s up to the present. Some survey questions that map out sexual
behaviour in youth yield data all the way from the 1940s, a wealth of knowledge
that is unique even worldwide.
The rst study in what is today called the FINSEX study was undertaken in 1971
by Kai Sievers, Osmo Koskelainen and Kimmo Leppo. They published the studys
central ndings in 1974 in a book on the sexual lives of Finns (Suomalaisten sukupuolielm, in Finnish). Worldwide, it was only the second study on sexuality that
was genuinely representative of the population of an entire country. The researchers
also achieved an astonishing and still-standing world record in their response rate,
thanks in part to formal home visits by nurses and midwives.
The 1970s study functioned as an inspiration and valuable source of information
when designing the larger FINSEX study in the early 1990s. At that time, together
with Elina Haavio-Mannila, I launched and implemented a research initiative at the
Department of Public Health of the University of Helsinki, with funding from the
Academy of Finland. The initiative incorporated a representative population survey
on sexuality conducted in 1992, a study examining changes in the medias treatment
of sexual matters from the early 1960s to the 1990s, and a project to compile Finns
sexual autobiographies which was implemented as a writing contest. The 1992
population survey was designed so that its central ndings were comparable to the
data in the earlier study from 1971.
When, in 1998, I transferred from the University if Helsinki to the Population Research
Institute of Vestliitto (Family Federation of Finland), I had just received new funding
from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to conduct a new population survey
on sexuality. I implemented the survey with my long-time collaborator Elina HaavioMannila. The new data was gathered primarily in 1999. Again, the survey was designed
to be as comparable as possible with previous studies. The limited funding precluded
the possibility of using home visits by Statistics Finland interviewers to compile the
data, as was done in 1992. Thus, the survey was carried out as a mailed survey, which
reduced the studys response rate in comparison with the earlier studies.
In 2007, I was again granted funding by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health
to conduct a new sexual survey at the Population Research Institute of Vestliitto.
This time I compiled the data on my own, with support from Statistics Finland and
its researchers Pivi Hokka and Outi Stenbck. The data gathering methodology
was the same as in 1999, making it easier to compare the two most recent data sets.
Compared with 1971 and 1992, the response rate was again so much lower that the
comparability of the results has had to be analyzed very carefully.
26
Authors
Ages 1854
Ages 1874
Ages 1881
Ages 1874
2,152
2,250
1,496
2,590
91.4
75.9
45.8
43.4
Each surveys sample was drawn from the Central Population Register, so that all
Finns have had an equal opportunity to be selected into the sample.
The generational perspective has been of paramount importance at all stages of FINSEX. This book continues the same practice, which has been found to work well.
The studys respondents are organized into three age cohorts that are compared to
one another as well as to earlier studies:
Young adult age group
Middle-aged age group
Older adult age group
Ages 1834
Ages 3554
Ages 5574
The impact of the lower response rates in the 1999 and 2007 studies on comparability
with the 1971 and 1992 surveys has been evaluated particularly by analyzing the ways
in which people in a particular birth cohort have responded to the same questions
concerning their own youth. The data collected in 1971 and 1992 can be viewed as
representative because of high response rates. Possible differences in these ndings
in 1999 and 2007 thus manifest the selection of respondents on the basis of certain
characteristics being studied.
One example is the reported age at which respondents said they rst began to have
sexual intercourse. People born in certain years may have reported in the 1971 and
1992 surveys that they began to have sexual intercourse at the average age of, say,
nineteen. This result can be considered quite reliable and representative because of
the studies high response rates. The representativeness and comparability of the
later studies can be assessed by verifying whether respondents who were born in
the same years also reported beginning to have sexual intercourse at approximately
nineteen years of age. If this is the case, there is no reason to assume that respondents
have been particularly selected with regard to this particular issue at least. Similar
comparisons have been done for many other research questions as well, some which
ask about the respondents entire life span.
The selection of respondents in 1999 and 2007 occurred in a very similar fashion,
largely as a result of the same data gathering method (Statistics Finland mailed survey)
and the same response rate. The representativeness and comparability of the data
in relation to 1971 and 1992 data remained quite good, except in the case of male
27
respondents over the age of 55. Men in the older age group who were respondents
in 1999 and 2007 reported experiencing sexual initiation later, on average, when
compared with what their age cohort in earlier studies had reported, and they also
represented the sexually monogamous relationship category. They had married their
rst sexual partner at rates that slightly exceeded that of other respondents, and had
had fewer sexual partners in their lifetime, as well as a lower prevalence of parallel
relationships. In terms of these issues, the 1999 and 2007 ndings provide a slight
underestimation of men above the age of 55, compared with the entire age cohort
of people over 55 years of age.
Otherwise, the responses of men and women of different age groups were rather consistent with the results for men and women of the same birth year cohorts in earlier
population surveys. The willingness to respond to questions probing sexuality did
not vary greatly, then, on the basis of peoples life situation or sexual interests.
In addition to the date from the FINSEX project, this book also compares data to
population surveys conducted in eight different European countries, originally carried
out for the purpose of exploring sexuality from the viewpoint of HIV prevention.
These EU-funded NEM surveys are known by the full name of New Encounter
Module for following-up HIV/AIDS prevention in general population surveys. The
entire initiative was coordinated by Michel Hubert in Brussels. FINSEX study was a
collaborative Finnish survey to the NEM surveys, and therefore it is possible to adopt
some data from these surveys for comparison. The surveys are described below:
Table 2. NEM surveys in 8 European contries.
Country
Norway
United Kingdom
France
Portugal
Switzerland
Spain
Italy
Greece
Year
1997
1998
1998
1999
1997
2001
1998
1998
Respondents
3,723
2,935
1,614
1,000
2,777
2,935
2,603
2,000
The aim of the NEM studies has been to compile representative population data from
each participating country. The methods for obtaining the sample and gathering the data
varied from country to country. In most countries, there was no available central population register, like there is in Finland. Therefore, in many countries the sample were
selected from phone books and the surveys were conducted by telephone. As a result
of the differences in samples and data gathering, comparing the results of the different
countries is not entirely without problems. The results are also nearly ten years older than
28
those in the 2007 FINSEX study. There have, however, been no subsequent collaborative
sexual surveys to produce more up-to-date, comparable European sex survey data.
Since the European surveys were mainly focused on HIV prevention, their data on
sexuality is signicantly more limited than in the FINSEX study. The NEM surveys
inquired into respondents latest sexual partner and intercourse with that partner in
great detail. Some of the survey questions, however, were presented in the same way
as in the FINSEX study, and for those items are comparable to the Finnish study.
The comparable items concern attitudes toward sex, age of sexual initiation, sexual
intercourse partners, frequency of sexual intercourse, and paid sex. The comparable
age group is 1849-year-olds in each country.
The results from the Finnish and the European population sex surveys are complemented throughout this books chapters with previous qualitative research ndings
from the FINSEX studies as well as international research and literature in the eld.
A list of references can be found at the end of the book. Together, these sources of
information offer a rich and multifaceted picture of Finnish sexuality and the manner
in which it has evolved from a European and international perspective.
The studys ndings will be viewed through several different theoretical frameworks
on sexuality, discussed earlier in this chapter. They offer examples of the multitude
of ways in which differences in sexual behaviour have been explained thus far. As
the author, I take no stand within this book as to which theory best explains human
sexual behaviour. The decision-making and responses that are involved in sexual
situations are complex processes that have to do with a particular persons history,
the interaction between partners, the social environment as well as cultural traditions.
No one theory can simultaneously address and comprehensively explain all of these
levels, but different theories do provide a framework for the research ndings and
make them more interesting to analyze.