Duke University's sex toy research sets off bad vibrations

November 8, 2:01 PMPhiladelphia Catholic ExaminerDonna Conaway

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Philadelphia Catholic Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

A recent news article on a study involving sex toys appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer and is making the rounds of blogs everywhere.

A behavioral economist and student health workers have been conducting a study at Duke University where female students are being asked to "view sex toys and engage in sexually explicit conversation with other female Duke students."

As a recruitment incentive, advertisements were posted around the campus promising participants a gift bag and substantial discounts should they care to purchase the products being used in the study.

Unsurprisingly, the study is full.

Also unsurprisingly, the ads were met with concern on the part of Father Joe Vetter, who is the Director of the Duke Catholic Center, and he voiced his objections to Professor of Behavioral Economics, Dan Ariely.

Even less surprising is the fact that Father Vetter is now taking a beating on the internet for having the audacity to raise any objection at all.  Using the standard knee-jerk responses, bloggers have labeled Vetter as an out-of-touch anachronism who simply does not understand modern sexual attitudes.

But before examining Father Joe's remarks, is anyone buying that this is even a legitimate study?  Because while the focus is currently on the alleged repressed sexual attitudes of Catholics, no one appears to be critically evaluating the original issue, which is what is the purpose of this particular study?

Presumably, results will shed light on whether using sex toys is an effective alternative to engaging in high risk sexual behaviors and promiscuity.  Women, once empowered with the knowledge and tools to pleasure themselves, will find they don't need to hook up with the first available frat brother - theoretically.  It's all very scientific.

Or is it?  Using information readily available on the hundreds of websites touting sex toy parties as a great career opportunity for women (especially those stay-at-home moms), it appears there are a lot of similarities between your typical sex toy party and the Duke study.

Duke study:  Subjects are female students, who must be age 18 or older.
Average party:  Ladies, you must be at least 18 to host a party.

Duke study: Subjects will participate in hour long "Tupperware-style parties" featuring sex toys.  These "parties" will take place in the lab and in groups of 7-8 women at a time so they can discuss the products amongst themselves.
Average party:  You should invite at least 8-10 of your women friends.  Hostesses should encourage their guests to talk openly about the products.

Duke study:  A few months later, participants will complete a second questionnaire.
Average party:   Don't forget to follow-up to make sure your customers are satisfied!

Duke study: Participants receive a gift bag and product discounts.
Average party: Send your guests home with a gift bag. Hostesses are eligible to receive thousands of dollars worth of merchandise.

Duke study: Use of sex toys will reduce the incidence of high risk sexual behavior and sexual promiscuity.
Average party: A oft-mentioned benefit of holding a sex toy party is to spice up the marital bed before anyone reaches for a different spice rack (i.e., reduces adulterous promiscuity and the risk of bringing something contagious home to your spouse). 

Couldn't Duke researchers have just cut to the chase and solicited the help of a sex toy party hostess?  Surely there are one or more women on campus already hosting such parties.  They can't all be selling Avon. 

There are other questions worth asking as well, such as what study is being done on the sexual attitudes and behaviors of the men on campus?  What is their responsibility in reducing sexual promiscuity and high risk sexual behaviors?  And, what steps are researchers taking to avoid falling into the trap of following the stereotypical premise that sexually active college men are sexually virile, but sexually active college women are sexually promiscuous?

Now for Father Vetter's remarks....

Vetter shares the concern of Duke researchers that high risk sexual behaviors and promiscuity should be reduced, so the goal is not in dispute; rather, the argument is over how to effectively achieve that goal.

As noted earlier, Catholics are dualists - there is both body and spirit, and both body and spirit need to be nurtured and fed (including during sex) to become a whole, healthy human being.    Doing anything less de-humanizes an individual and reduces sex to a one-dimensional act of physical gratification.  

As Father Vetter points out, college students are still in a developmental phase, and part of this development is learning how to form and maintain intimate relationships.   The early infatuations and crushes experienced in high school hopefully are giving way to more reasoned and mature connections based on mutual trust and respect.  Even if marriage is not in the near future, learning how to lay the foundation of a stable partnership is critical to having a successful marriage no matter how much later in life one chooses to enter into it. 

Therefore, Father Vetter's concern that "I don't think it's a good developmental practice to just tell somebody to just sit around and masturbate. I don't think that promotes relationships." is neither prudish nor repressive.  Focusing on how to give oneself sexual gratification without giving consideration to how to give of oneself to another ignores the spiritual and relational dimensions, and from a Catholic view, this is the very definition of repression. 

As far as female sexuality is concerned, it's a little shocking to think there's anyone left who doesn't yet understand that women a) talk to each other about sex; b) enjoy sex; and c) have some clue about what makes them feel good.  This should not be news to anyone at this point, nor should it require a study. Ever since the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Female published in 1953, women have been increasingly open about their sexual needs and desires.

What is less well known, less studied, and less acknowledged is that genuine sexual maturity is best achieved within the parameters of a genuinely mature relationship.  As one builds an emotional intimacy with their partner, they also build a sexual intimacy.  A 2007 survey of married Catholics conducted by Georgetown University found that two-thirds or more married Catholics discussed intimacy and sexuality with their prospective spouses before marriage indicating that Catholic couples are apparently quite open to discussing sex with their partners. 

If Duke researchers are genuinely interested in looking for ways to encourage responsible sexual behavior among their students, and are not merely interested in having a group of young co-eds come to their lab to handle neon colored vibrators of various sizes and wattage while listening to their sexually explicit discussions, they might do well to listen to Father Vetter.