Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Article IndexSW: During the years that Masters and Johnson worked together, they had sex with each other in a clinical, mechanical way. Masters was married at the time and had two young children; Johnson was a divorcee with two small kids. Masters eventually divorced his wife, Libby, and married Johnson, and they stayed together for 22 years until they divorced. Do you think that they compromised the sexual research they did or crossed an ethical line by having sex with each while doing this work?
PS: I found the story of their sexual relationship rather sad. I was sorry to find out how loveless it was. It wasn't even clear that it was passionate, although perhaps it was upon occasion. Certainly Masters' own restricted range of emotions affected the first book- later books took individual emotions more into account. But the sexual response cycle is quite stilted and unattached to human emotion, fears, background issues, etc. Sexual skill is left out of the equation, oddly enough, in the first book. "The Pleasure Bond" — one of their last books-does a better job, but no better I think than many of the successors.
I don't think any ethics were violated vis à vis the research by their relationship, although the fact that Johnson was subservient to him in many ways inhibited some true collegial contributions. However, given her lack of professional training, I think this would have been the case even if they weren't having a relationship. Whatever ethical violations happened were purely the business of Master's wife and family, who certainly were betrayed.
SW: Masters and Johnson's work lauded "female sexual prowess." Maier says that their research about women's sexual response was "a remarkable achievement unlike anything medical science had ever seen in this realm." Do you get the impression that most women today are away of their power and prowess?
PS: Actually I think a lot of women were somewhat oppressed by the idea of multiple orgasms when the book first came out. Overall, I think the idea that women were the superior sexual athletes was good for women's egos and a reestablishment of their sexual pride. But I think the focus on multiple orgasms had its positive and negative aspects.
SW: Although Masters and Johnson's research is based on viewing about 10,000 orgasms in their laboratory, the word "orgasm" itself is sometimes not used in school sex education programs. How would you try to persuade a balky school board, a cautious administrator, or a worried health teacher to include a discussion of orgasm in middle and high school classes?
PS: Knowledge demands the full cycle and propensities of a given phenomenon, and if it isn't included, it is misleading and bad science education. Furthermore, many young women do not know if they have had an orgasm or not, which means, of course, that they have not had one. Teachers help create this profoundly confusing situation by not offering full information on the human sexual response cycle.
SW: How would you help parents of preteens and teens talk to their kids about orgasms, and is it important for them to do so? Any tips for shy, tongue-tied parents?
PS: This is tough for most parents. They can talk anatomy, but not pleasure. I would counsel them to get a good book and go to Guttmacher [http://www.guttmacher.org/], Planned Parenthood [http://ppfa.org], SIECUS [http://www.siecus.org/], Sex, Etc. [http://sexetc.org], Go Ask Alice [http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu], among other websites, and take a look at available books, pamphlets, etc.
Give the book to your child — at least by age 12 or 13, but preferably a lot earlier — and have them read it. Tell them you will be happy to answer any questions, clarify the book, or, for that matter, read it with them. Get a book that talks about orgasm frankly. This doesn't require a parent to be a gifted sex educator, just a discussant with their child about important topics.
SW: What is the connection between sex research and sex education, and why is one important to the other? Do you think that better school sex education programs would reduce some of the problems that are observed by sex therapists?
PS: There are a lot of myths and surmise about sexual functioning. Without sex research, sex educators would unknowingly be passing on a lot of them. Of course, sometimes the research gets it wrong, and then new research comes along and corrects the situation. That's why sex research has to be ongoing-and, of course, sex changes as the culture changes and personal circumstances of life change. For example, late marriage versus early marriage, recessional times versus flush economies, new technologies of birth control or pleasure, etc.
Certainly better sex education would help reduce sexual problems. A few examples: helping students feel good about carrying and using condoms, helping students recognize sexual abuse or misinformation and dismissing it early in life rather than having it control their sexual response and feelings.
SW: Maier quotes William Masters as saying, "The truth about sex is often unpalatable to many, including those in academia and the healing arts." You work in academia. Do you observe changes in the last decade that show that this is no longer true?
PS: It is better than it was, but people are still squeamish about sexuality and academics are not different. I do think, however, there is more respect for sexuality research in academe than there was in Masters and Johnson's time...and part of that has been due to the AIDS crisis, where sexuality information was desperately needed and ultimately funded.
SW: Who is building on Masters and Johnson's important legacy?
PS: There are a lot of good people doing sex research all around the world. In fact, the globalization and collaboration of an international group of colleagues is a major advance in the sexual research field. Sandy Lieblum [http://www.sandraleiblum.com/] and Ray Rosen, who did great clinical work at Robert Wood Johnson Hospital and Rutgers, would be on my A-list. Sandy has done some fascinating work on spontaneous sexual desire in women. There are many other clinically based researchers out there whose names I could add.
Certainly one of the great additions-too long in coming, I might add-has been the work of minority researchers, so that now specific clinical advice for gays, lesbians, Chicanos, various Hispanic groups, Asians and African Americans, and other ethnic and racial groups will get treatment specific to their own cultural backgrounds and needs. This has been sorely needed for way too long a time!
Susie Wilson, former executive coordinator of the Network for Family Life Education at Rutgers University's Center for Applied and Professional Psychology (now renamed Answer), is a national leader in the fight for effective sexuality and HIV/AIDS education and for prevention of adolescent pregnancy. She can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
