When science is “inappropriate”: Understanding and navigating participant recruitment in sex research in a society still uncomfortable with the word “breast”

In December 2018, the Queen’s Sexual Health Research Lab (SexLab) published a blog post highlighting certain problems encountered with online participant recruitment. The situation is yet to be resolved, as social media platforms continue to remove posts containing “inappropriate” words such as “sex”, thus preventing even the name of our lab and the link to our website from being posted. Pushing past these barriers requires a better understanding of the legislation regarding censorship of this nature, as well as the policies that these businesses have in place. This knowledge may inform progressive action as well as provide other options for online recruitment.  

Though it may seem that social media platforms are to blame for these censorship extremes, the problem may be grounded deeper in federal contracts. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has the freedoms of "opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982). However, many popular social media platforms, such as Facebook and (its subsidiary) Instagram are American companies, and American policy is slightly different. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression from government restrictions (Volokh, 2017). Further, some laws prevent private business from restricting the speech of others. For example, employment laws restrict employers from preventing discussions amongst employees concerning salaries or the organization of labor unions (Volokh, 2017).

In terms of sexual content, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution offers less ‘protection’ against categories such as obscenity and child pornography. This means that expression of this type would not be protected in judgment by the United States Supreme Court (Stone & Volokh, 2017). Deciding if an act of speech or expression is ‘obscene’ (and thus unprotected) is based on the Miller test, also known as the three-prong obscenity test. According to this test, all of the following must be satisfied in order for a ruling of “obscenity”: 1) the work involves or encourages excessive interest in sexual matters, 2) the work is clearly offensive in describing sexual conduct, and 3) the work does not contain “literary, artistic, political or scientific value” (Volokh, 2008). This test is problematic for many reasons, including the ambiguity of what is meant by “offensive”; this can lead to subjective, biased decision-making on behalf of the court. Further, there may be differences across jurisdictions in what is seen as “legally obscene” (Axelrod-Contrada, 2007).

With the US Constitution and the Miller test in mind, one may wonder how online pornographic networks are able to operate and avoid legal reprimand. An important distinction to be aware of is that although Internet pornography is not “protected” by the First amendment, the federal government it still prevented from censoring it (Vance, 2013). In other words, while a federal lawsuit could be filed against a website like Pornhub, the American government would not be able to shut down the website or prevent certain pictures or video from being published. Thus, the present situation with excessive censorship online is not due to legislation, and instead based on the beliefs of each individual business. Furthermore, while Pornhub welcomes posts containing nudity, platforms such as Facebook have contrasting beliefs about expression, and censor our content as a result.

While benefits of constraints on free expression include limiting harassment, problems ensue when businesses amplify these constraints as part of their policies. The scale of the problem can be outlined using Facebook as an example. Facebook’s Community Standards act as a major barrier to online recruitment for sex research, as they delete and flag our research-related posts under the policy of “Sexual Solicitation”. Although this policy aims to limit the threat of sexual violence and exploitation by restricting “sexually explicit language” (“Objectionable Content,” 2019), this incorrectly targets sex research labs and sexual health organizations. Sex research labs, including our own, have had posts advertising for studies removed by Facebook simply for including words such as “sex”, “genital”, “prostate”, and even “breast cancer”.

Similar trajectories play out on other public online platforms. Instagram (owned by Facebook) has virtually identical policies, though the focus of their “sexually explicit” content policy seems to be more relating to nudity (“Community Guidelines,” 2019). Twitter and Reddit are more liberal platforms in terms of their sexual content policies. Twitter’s “Sensitive Media Policy” allows the posting of “adult content” under the tenet that “[p]eople use Twitter to show what’s happening in the world” (“Sensitive Media Policy,” 2019). Thus, as long as you mark your account as “sensitive”, tweets are able to include sexual content including nudity. Reddit has a similar policy such that a wide range of “explicit” content can be posted, as long as it is labelled as ‘NSFW’ (Not Safe For Work) (“Reddit Content Policy,” 2019). Yet despite this, all of these social media platforms have removed posts from our lab regardless of what is stated in their policies.

The previous SexLab blog post on censorship mentioned that solving the social media problem involves destigmatizing sex in society and creating a “culture of acceptance” of sex and related conversations. Although these practices can be promoted by sex research, one must consider the intended timeline of change. It has been nearly one year since publication of that blog post, and little change can be noted regarding experiences with censorship in social media. In fact, the situation may even be regressing; just this week, Facebook announced that they will be strictly monitoring emojis that may be “implicitly or indirectly” sexual, including peaches and eggplants (Cuthbertson, 2019)!

While waiting for the world to change, we reached out to other sex research labs with hopes of discovering different ways of bypassing these tight social media restrictions. Unfortunately, substituting “inappropriate” words for “nice” words remains the only present strategy: one lab focusing on couples and sexual health wrote back that successful posting to Facebook and Google only came about when replacing the word “sex” with “intimacy”. A note on this word replacement from us sex researchers though: although these words can be related together in theme, they do not mean exactly the same thing. Likewise, a lab focusing on orgasm research must replace the word “genitals” with “private body parts”, and feels that this is “ridiculous”.

It does seem ridiculous, doesn’t it? Words related to sex are not always obscene or used with malicious intent, but social media restrictions would have you think so. However, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter state that exceptions to their policies exist if the content has a medical or educational purpose (“Community Guidelines,” 2019; “Objectionable Content,” 2019; “Sensitive Media Policy,” 2019). Perhaps the censorship problem can then be attributed to a current lack of a ‘contact-person’ to whom we could explain the lack of malicious intent (and presence of medical purpose) in our “sexually explicit” advertisements. Could these multi-billion-dollar companies not afford to hire individuals to fill these roles? This may be a point of attack! 

Indeed, positive change to Facebook censorship policy has historically come about from the rallying together of large numbers of people in opposition. For example, protests began in 2008 in reaction to Facebook flagging and removing images of women breastfeeding (Ibrahim, 2010). The protests included 11,000 women changing their profile pictures for one day to images of them breastfeeding, and a group rallying at Facebook’s headquarters in Palo Alto. Their efforts were successful, as Facebook now permits posting of most breastfeeding images (Ibrahim, 2010). What if sex researchers worldwide were to ban together to help stamp out these critical recruitment obstacles? 

From a legal angle, there are no grounds for taking Facebook to court for their censorship, as its policies align with the Miller test component of the United States Constitution. As mentioned earlier, the Miller test for labelling speech and expression as ‘obscene’ involves subjective decision making by the legislative body. Thus, perhaps this portion of the Constitution needs revisiting! That said, the United States Constitution is quite resistant to change, as seen with other controversial matters, such as resistance against developing gun control policies. Nevertheless, there is also evidence that change is possible. The most recent amendment, which regulates the timeline of changes to congress members’ salaries, was ratified in May 1992 (“27th Amendment,” 2019). Interestingly, this amendment has been attributed to a paper written by a college student (Bomboy, 2019)! Furthermore, perhaps we can tackle censorship by reconsidering the Constitution at the level of the Miller test: with the grey area around what exactly is ‘obscene’, we could request for a higher degree of specificity in their measure of what is considered ‘offensive’, of ‘scientific value’, or of ‘excessive interest in sexual matters”.  

Lastly, an entirely different idea may be to try using platforms that are directly related to sex, such as Tinder, Grindr, or Pornhub. It is unlikely that SexLab content would be flagged here for being “too sexy”! In addition, advertising through these platforms would maintain the benefit of reaching large audiences. Unfortunately, when we are unable to reach larger populations, sex researchers run into trouble. People who participate in sex research are already a small proportion of the general population, and they differ from those who would not participate. Without any advertising through these main social media platforms, we would presumably be getting an even smaller and less representative sample of the population. 

These barriers to sex research recruitment compromise people’s psychological and physiological health outcomes, as advancements in sexual health through research becomes slowed. Thus, not only is this issue of importance to researchers interested in studying these topics, but also the general public, and the health and well-being of society. It is time that sex researchers ban together to stand up against artificial intelligence labelling our scientific endeavors as “inappropriate”!

Fortunately, now that we are equipped with awareness of these businesses policies and constitutions, novel solutions can begin to be uncovered. The next step may be to affect change through lobbying individual businesses (such as Facebook) or the US Constitution. We can also begin to discuss new strategies, including seeking other online platforms. Let us know your thoughts by responding to our Twitter post!

Cynthia Sedlezky

3rd Year BSc Psychology, Queen’s University

References

27th Amendment. (2019). Retrieved October 24, 2019, from National Constitution Centre website: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xxvii

Axelrod-Contrada, J. (2007). Reno V. ACLU: Internet Censorship. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=fCBedGMyadkC

Bomboy, S. (2019, May 7). How a C-grade college term paper led to a constitutional amendment. National Constitution Centre. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-a-c-grade-college-term-paper-led-to-a-constitutional-amendment

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. , (1982).

Community Guidelines. (2019). Retrieved October 31, 2019, from Instagram website: https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119

Cuthbertson, A. (2019). Facebook and Instagram Censor “Sexual” Emoji and Stop Links to Private Pornography Sites. Independent.

Guillory, J., Wiant, K. F., Farrelly, M., Fiacco, L., Alam, I., Hoffman, L., … Alexander, T. N. (2018). Recruiting Hard-to-Reach Populations for Survey Research: Using Facebook and Instagram Advertisements and In-Person Intercept in LGBT Bars and Nightclubs to Recruit LGBT Young Adults. J Med Internet Res, 20(6), e197. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9461

Ibrahim, Y. (2010). The Breastfeeding Controversy and Facebook. International Journal of E-Politics, 1(2), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/jep.2010040102

Objectionable Content. (2019). Retrieved October 30, 2019, from Facebook website: https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content

Reddit Content Policy. (2019). Retrieved November 1, 2019, from Reddit website: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

Sensitive Media Policy. (2019).

Silvestre, A. J., Hylton, J. B., Johnson, L. M., Houston, C., Witt, M., Jacobson, L., & Ostrow, D. (2006). Recruiting Minority Men Who Have Sex With Men for HIV Research: Results From a 4-City Campaign. American Journal of Public Health, 96(6), 1020–1027. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.072801

Stone, G. R., & Volokh, E. (2017). Interactive Constitution: The meaning of free speech.

Vance, L. M. (2013, December 20). Pornography and the First Amendment. The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Volokh, E. (2008). The First Amendment and related statutes: problems, cases and policy arguments. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=akNDAQAAIAAJ

Volokh, E. (2017). First Amendment United States Constitution. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica.

“Back Door” Shenanigans: Yes, this blog is on anal intercourse (finally!)

What a journey our attitude towards anal intercourse has had over the last few years. From twerking, to Kim Kardashian's epic glistening behind on the cover of Paper Magazine, to 2014 being named the “Year of the Booty” all things ass-related have taken on a mainstream edge. Once considered hardcore taboo, anal intercourse now appears to be a popular, even commonplace, act in the heterosexual bedroom. In fact, 36% of women and 44% of men aged 25-44 in the US have had heterosexual anal intercourse (HAI) at least once (Chandra, Mosher, Copen, & Sionean, 2011). Is this new? No. HAI has been in vogue since at least the Age of Antiquity dating back to the Ancient Greeks (McBridge & Fortenberry, 2010). But, research on HAI typically uses self-report measures, like questionnaires, so it’s hard to determine if the frequency of anal intercourse is actually increasing, or if respondents are simply more comfortable admitting they’ve had it over the years (Reynolds, Fisher, & Rogala, 2015).

Just so that we’re all on the same page, anal intercourse has been defined as a partnered sexual act involving the insertion and thrusting of one partner’s penis into the anus of the other (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, 2009). Anal play, though, includes anything from finger or sex toy insertion into, or oral sex on, the butt. So what’s the big deal going down about asses then? Well, for starters, there’s a large crack in the research. The majority of research is devoted to gay men, thus largely ignoring heterosexual women’s (and men’s) experiences (Fahs, Swank & Clevenger, 2014). Further, sexual risk-taking, increased risk of anal cancer among women, contraction of HIV, and low rates of condom use have been the focus of the anal intercourse literature, leaving connections between anal intercourse, power and pleasure largely neglected (Benson, Gilmore, Micks, McCoy, & Prager, 2019). So, by framing anal intercourse as just a health concern, we really don’t know much about whether heterosexual women (or men) derive pleasure from anal intercourse—or really anything about their experience with it (Benson et al., 2019). In the end then, more facts are crucial for heterosexual women to determine if they want to give their man the green light to their backdoor. 

A recent groundbreaking study by Benson et al. (2019) sought to address this gap in the HAI literature and found that the majority of women had a negative first experience with anal intercourse due to physical pain and/or feeling coerced. This finding appears to be consistent with previous findings, as women tend to have significantly less positive attitudes toward anal intercourse compared to men. In fact, 60% of young heterosexual men reported that they liked past experiences of anal intercourse but only 13% of heterosexual women had the same response (Fahs, Swank, & Clevenger, 2014). When asked why women engaged in HAI, minor motivators such as pregnancy prevention, maintaining perceived virginity status for religious reasons, and avoiding vaginal intercourse during menstruation were common. However, the researchers found that primary motivator behind women engaging in HAI was *cue the drum roll* to please their partner (Benson et al., 2019).

Cultural norms and media appear to be the primary culprits of this unfortunate reality. Cultural beliefs about gender and heterosexuality typically frame men as sexually assertive and women as sexually passive. Accordingly, sexuality scripts often place men in the directive role of initiating and determining the nature of the sexual interaction while women are expected to submit to men’s wishes (Fahs et al., 2014). Men’s pleasure is central in terms of our cultural understanding of sex (Murphy, 2017). Speaking of, there is a social norm called “rape culture,” wherein men coerce, convince, and pester women into various sex acts (Murphy, 2017). And, not only is this the norm, but men are often lauded when they succeed at this “game” as “players” (Murphy, 2017). Feminists argue that getting a woman to engage in anal intercourse is something men brag to their friends about; and not just because they enjoy the experience, physically, but because they know women don’t want to do it, that it is uncomfortable or even painful for women, and that it equates to a show of power (Murphy, 2017). In a recent GQ article (2017) in which men were asked why they sought anal intercourse, the majority said it was because it was “a harder-to-reach goal than old-fashioned intercourse” and the “ultimate final barrier” (Rubin, 2007). For other men, the appeal of anal penetration is less about the novelty and more about the psychology. For example, a respondent in the GQ interview said, "For most of my friends, it's sort of a domination thing…it’s basically getting someone in a position where they're most vulnerable” (Rubin, 2007). Thus, from the minimal research we have, it appears that anal intercourse is a complex negotiation that involves gendered understandings of pleasure as well as power (McBridge & Fortenberry, 2010). 

Ass-backwardly, another motivator of anal intercourse is that it increases relationship intimacy, which explains why the majority of anal intercourse occurs in monogamous relationships rather than with casual partners (McBridge & Fortenberry, 2010). When reviewing online blogs about anal intercourse, writers focused on the importance of cooperation and communication among partners. Anal intercourse was seen as something that had to be worked toward by both partners for it to be mutually pleasurable (McBridge & Fortenberry, 2010). Those who practice anal intercourse also said it required more planning than vaginal intercourse, including proper preparation and the building of trust with their partner (McBridge & Fortenberry, 2010). These bloggers are not wrong. The anus is not as flexible as a vagina - it’s tight, and its thin tissues can be easily damaged (Engle, 2018). So, feeling relaxed, working up to anal intercourse through inserting fingers and butt plugs first, leaving time for foreplay, using protection, and lots of lube as well as going slowly are essential for safe and enjoyable anal intercourse. Indeed, with proper preparation, a pro-anal mindset among both partners, and a strong relationship dynamic, anal intercourse can be pleasurable for both parties with the dual benefit of broadening a couple’s sexual repertoire and keeping the spiciness in the bedroom alive.

All in all, although there is a dearth of research on the health implications of HAI, there is an even greater paucity of research on anal intercourse and women’s sexual satisfaction. In order for women, and people in general, to avoid anal intercourse when they don't want to have it, and to have good anal intercourse when they do, we have to provide clear-cut, pleasure-based intercourse education in schools and at home. It would also be nice if media gave anal intercourse/play a more realistic tone as well; right now, it is simply sensationalized by media. Just because media are all about anal intercourse/play or just because we know how to do butt stuff safely now doesn’t mean anal intercourse/play is a given when you hook up. Anal intercourse is an area of sexual exploration where consent is also essential; so much can go wrong, and research shows that many heterosexual women feel coerced into doing it. Without comprehensive research and education, people will likely engage in anal intercourse in ways that can lead to pain, feeling coerced, and perhaps feelings of inequality within a partnership (even if brief). Let’s foster a generation of sexually mature and self-aware adults who have the freedom to explore their own sexuality and make informed choices. Without such awareness, it’s better for people to be safe than sorry and keep their backdoor shut.

Kaitlin Derbyshire

4th Year BAH Psychology, Queen’s University

 References

Benson, L.S., Gilmore, K., Micks, E., McCoy, E.L., & Prager, S.W. (2019). Perceptions of Anal Intercourse Among Heterosexual Women: A Pilot Qualitative Study. Sexual Medicine. 7(2): 198-206.

Chandra, A., Mosher, W., Copen, C., & Sionean, C. (2011). Sexual behavior, sexual, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006-2008 national survey of family growth. National health statistics reports, 1(36).

Engle, G. (2018, May). Anal Sex: What you need to know. Retrieved from https://www.teenvogue.com/story/anal-sex-what-you-need-to-know

Engle, G. (2017, August). How the normalization of anal sex has shifted the conversation about consent. Retrieved from https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/a5489/rise-in-anal-sex-statistics/

Fahs, B., Swank, E., & Clevenger, L. (2014). Troubling Anal Sex: Gender, Power, and Sexual Compliance in Heterosexual Experiences of Anal Intercourse. Gender Issues, 32(1): 19-38.

McBridge, K.R., & Fortenberry, J.D. (2010). Heterosexual anal sexuality and anal sex behaviors: a review. The Journal of Sex Research, 47(2): 123-136.

Murphy, M. (2017, July). No, Teen Vogue, the backlash to your anal sex article was not rooted in homophobia. Retrieved from https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/07/20/no-teen-vogue-backlash-anal-sex-article-not-rooted-homophobia/

Reynolds, G., Fisher, D., & Rogala, B. (2015). Why Women Engage in Anal Intercourse: Results from a Qualitative Study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(4): 983-95.

Rubin, P. (2007, July). Is anal sex the new deal breaker? Details. Retrieved from http://          www.details.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-other-releases/200707/anal-sex-new-deal-breaker