Psyc350 p5ip human sexuality presentation

  • 100 views
Uploaded on

Sample Power Point for a Human Sexuality class in my Bachelor of Science Psychology: Organizational Behavior degree program

Sample Power Point for a Human Sexuality class in my Bachelor of Science Psychology: Organizational Behavior degree program

More in: Science
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
100
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Human sexuality- how does one define it? What is gender and sexual identity; what are the foundations of human attraction and sexual orientation (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014)? What differences do gender, sexual identity, human attraction and sexual orientation make in the everyday life of each human being (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014)? These are fundamental questions that are often taken for granted and yet they shape who people are and how they express themselves sexually in thinking and behavior (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). In the following presentation will be discussed the history of human sexual diversity in the workplace; biases and prejudices as they exist; information from research; the key factors in human sexuality; how human sexuality is portrayed in the media in Western and Eastern culture; and conclude with the results of a focus group on the views on human sexual diversity here at Jung's International Consulting Group (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).
  • Today we live in a globalized world that is highly diversified in terms of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, political ideology, and socioeconomic status (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Depending on where in the world one lives; culture and society may be more or less open and accepting of individual differences regarding human sexuality (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). In the United States almost as many women make up the workforce as men but this was not always the case; and even today there is a tendency for women to earn less than male counterparts in the same job (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). In some parts of the world today women are limited in their educational opportunities and are not permitted to work outside of the home (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). To understand today's world of human sexuality diversity in workplaces; even on a global scale; it is helpful to examine the history of human sexuality in western culture; to see where we have been and how far we have come in such a relatively short period of time; but first what is human sexuality and how much does it matter (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014)?According to Rathus, Nevid and Fichner-Rathus, human sexuality can be defined as "the ways in which we experience and express ourselves as sexual beings" (p. 4). It can also be defined as a combination of physiological processes (biological, anatomically functional); sociological influences; psychological processes and individual differences in three key areas: gender identity, sexual orientation and sexual behavior (Colorado Technical University, 2011). But what does this really mean? It means that we form part of our individual identities around our physical bodies (CTU, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner, 2014). We learn about and are influenced by sociological environments and culturally given expectations of gender roles; and form our gender identities based on what feels right for us in terms of personal context (CTU, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner, 2014). We also determine our sexual preferences based on who we are attracted to and we behave sexually in ways that are consistent with our sexual orientation and concept of gender; which may or may not be consistent with our sexual anatomy (CTU, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner, 2014). Gender identity refers to an identification process having to do with social and cultural ideas regarding expectations for male and female behaviors and conformity to male and female roles (masculinity and femininity) (Cerankowski & Milks, 2010; Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). Many men and women identify with and express varying degrees of masculinity and femininity within socially accepted parameters; consistent with their sexual anatomy (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Other individuals may identify with the gender opposite of their sexual anatomy (transgender) and feel as though they were born into the wrong physical sex (Cerankowski & Milks, 2010; Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). They may behave and express themselves in ways that are more consistent with the gender roles and expectations of the opposite physical sex (Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). This can differ from sexual identity; or orientation; heterosexual males may have male sexual anatomy; be attracted to females; and still identity as female in terms of gender identity (Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). Heterosexual females may have female sexual anatomy; be attracted to males and still identify as male in terms of gender identity (Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). Likewise homosexual males are anatomically male; identify gender-wise as male and be oriented toward partnering with other homosexual males (Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). Homosexual females are anatomically female; identify as female gender-wise and are oriented toward partnering with other homosexual females (Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). Bisexual males and females may identify gender-wise with their physical sex (or the opposite sex) but their sexual identity is bisexual (or pansexual; or multisexual) and they are attracted sexually to both males and females (Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Asexual males and females can identify gender-wise with their physical sex; with the opposite sex; be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual but lack a sense of physical attraction to others (Cerankowski & Milks, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).Key to understanding sexual preference or orientation is in understanding that human attraction plays a deciding role in erotic or sexual interest and also in the development of attachment to others (Cerankowski & Milks, 2010; Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). Heterosexual men and women can engage in same-sex sexual encounters but they tend to become more physically aroused by; interested in and emotionally attached to opposite-sex partners (Cerankowski & Milks, 2010; Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). Likewise homosexual men and women can engage in opposite-sex sexual encounters but they tend to be more physically aroused by, interested in and emotionally attached to same-sex partners (Cerankowski & Milks, 2010; Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). Bisexually oriented (also pansexual and omnisexual individuals; the terms are primarily political and ideological) people can become physically aroused, interested in and emotionally attached to either other women or men (Cerankowski & Milks, 2010; Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011). Asexual individuals do not tend to fantasize about sex nor do they tend to desire sex; nor do they experience a sense of distress about the lack of sexual or romantic interest (Cerankowski & Milks, 2010). Sexual behaviors are differentiated with regard to sexual orientation based on preferences for sexual interest and emotional attachment but the emphasis is on emotional attachment formation (Cerankowski & Milks, 2010; Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; McKenzie, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Russock, 2011).
  • Interest in the subject of human sexuality could be argued to be as old as the human race itself; with philosophers and theologians speculating on the nature of human sexuality as far back as the earliest recorded histories of both Western and Eastern cultures (Bullough, 1994; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). These speculations have been recorded in art, religious writing, throughout the history of medicine; even including manuals such as the Kama Sutra that describe and offer advice on love-making techniques (Bullough, 1994; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). However serious scientific inquiries into the subject have often been hampered by superstition, myth, religious doctrine; political ideology; societal and cultural taboo; and the limitations of scientific technology throughout most of human history (Bullough, 1994; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Nonetheless the history of human sexuality has had its pioneers in nearly every age; from Ancient Greece and Rome through the early part of the 21st century; from early studies of human anatomy to literary works that challenged the prevailing status quo for women and homosexuals (Bullough, 1994; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).Over the course of the last 75 years there have been a number of researchers and published works as well as the founding of scientific journals; social justice movements; and conferences worldwide devoted to the subject of human sexuality (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Likewise there have been significant advances in medicine; such as the birth control pill (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Cultural changes such as the sex revolution of the 1960's; social justice movements that have sought equal rights for women and gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual people; and the removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the American Psychological Association from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) in 1973 (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). There have also been cultural impacts from the discovery of HIV/AIDs; and generated world-wide interest in the subject of human sexuality that have influenced cross-cultural studies and conferences (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). It could be argued that the feminist and LGBT rights movements have both fueled the interest of researchers as well as pushed researchers to view the subject outside of the boundaries of previously conceived religious, social and political ideologies; however it has also been true that the researchers and the research have provided the evidence used to question biases and lend legitimacy to the view that civil rights (and human rights) should be extended in equal measure to women and LGBT people as well as men (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).
  • The field of human sexuality has drawn from many other fields including philosophy, anthropology, medicine, psychiatry, psychology, biology and the neurosciences (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Likewise each of these fields have been dominated by and had to overcome socially institutionalized taboo and biases regarding women and homosexuality that were and still are influenced by religious and political ideologies to such an extent they still often color social perceptions in the form of sexual myths and gender expectations, roles and stereotypes (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). The field of human sexuality has always been conflict ridden; researchers have as a consequence often had to face social and political repercussions on account of their work (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). The three most influential researchers therefore are those whose research challenged the prevailing views of sex as a taboo subject; demystified human female sexuality and challenged (and subsequently reversed) the view of homosexuality and gender differences as mentally disordered; bringing each into the domain of public dialogue (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). These researchers are Alfred C. Kinsey and colleagues; William H. Masters and Virginia Johnson; and John Money (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).
  • Alfred C. Kinsey and colleagues: began his research into the subject of human sexuality in 1938 at Indiana University; he was initially a zoologist and began his work while attempting to teach courses in marriage (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Kinsey began collecting data from students and soon came under the criticism of a fellow professor at the University which resulted in a decision between continuing to teach on the subject of marriage; or to continue his research into the subject without teaching on the subject of marriage; he chose to continue his research (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Kinsey received research grants to further his research and developed an interview method as well as a means of protecting participant anonymity; methods that were continued by his colleagues after his death (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). He founded the Institute for Sex Research which continues to this day as the Kinsey Institute. Between Kinsey and his colleagues the research resulted in the publishing of the following works: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948); Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953); the latter was so controversial as to cause Kinsey to lose his research funding; he found private sources of funding and continued (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). His colleagues went on to publish Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types (1965); and Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality (1973) (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).Kinsey is important because of how he went about compiling information on human sexuality; drawing from multiple disciplines as well as the interview process; and his steadfast refusal to cater to religious or political biases on the subject of human sexuality (Bullough, 1994 Haeberle, 2013). He challenged predecessors and contemporaries alike any time he perceived of a too subjective view or biases he considered unscientific (religious; moral; political) and he was careful to not engage in subjectivity with his research findings (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013). Kinsey maintained a very strict adherence to the scientific method; scientific principles; and objective analysis and allowed his research to speak for itself (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013). Between himself and colleagues (Wardell Pomeroy; Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard) the Kinsey Institute collected extensive interview data from 18,000 individuals (Bullough, 1994; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). The use of a 7 point continuum scale measuring heterosexual to homosexual activity and his emphasis on sexual outlet (orgasm) as a defining feature of sexuality effectively undermined traditional views; furthermore a legal battle with U.S. Customs over sexual material content (resolved after Kinsey's death) protected scientists and scholars from censorship (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). William H. Masters and Virginia Johnson: William H. Masters was a gynecologist who began studying human sexuality in 1954; and he felt that his research required a female perspective; hence the addition of Virginia Johnson to his research team (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). While Kinsey and his researchers were scientists; Masters and Johnson were seeking a more practical view; a means of treating sexual dysfunction in patients and therefore sought to measure physiological response and not just in the genitalia regions but also in other areas of the body and brain (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Courtesy of advances in technology; Masters and Johnson were able to more effectively determine anatomic and physiological responses in the female body that had previously not been observable and put to rest a few theoretical arguments as a result; including the source of vaginal lubrication secretions (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Masters and Johnson described four phases of sexual intercourse as: excitement, plateau, orgasm and resolution; and gave detailed descriptions of physiological changes in both men and women during each of these phases (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). In addition to these contributions to the field; Masters and Johnson also contributed findings about sexuality regarding sexuality and the aging process; determining that even as hormonal changes occur as men and women age; sexual behaviors can continue into the latter years of the human life cycle (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). An important finding was that consistent opportunity for sexual intercourse in earlier years contributes to continued sexual intercourse in the latter years (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). They were also able to distinguish and describe sexual positions that were most beneficial to sexual satisfaction for men and women as well as determine the most beneficial position for procreation (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Masters and Johnson also devised methods of therapy for the treatment of sexual dysfunction in married couples; effectively founding the concept of sex therapy (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). This proved to further undermine psychiatry and psychoanalysis in the treatment of sexual dysfunction; provided a broader base of professionals interested in the field of treating sexual dysfunction in marriage and contributing to sex education; and provided a broader audience for human sexuality scientific journals which in turn meant more research being conducted in this field (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). John Money: John Money was a psychologist from New Zealand who had come to the United States to pursue graduate studies (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). He became interested in intersexuality and wrote a doctoral dissertation on hermaphrodites; and this led him to making distinctions in terminology between gender and sexual anatomy (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Money considered that sexual identity referred to external genitalia; hormones; and genetic sex while gender referred to gender identity and role and included somatic and behavioral criteria; masculine or feminine thinking and behavior in accordance with social expectations (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). This led to further expansion of the human sexuality field; as sex became a matter more for biology and gender elements a matter for biology, behavior and social science study (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Money also differentiated the terms gender identity and gender role to reflect the origin of perception; he identified gender identity as a matter of self-perception in relation to the concept of femininity and masculinity; he identified gender role as reflecting the perceptions of others regarding femininity and masculinity in terms of expectations (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Much of the field of gender studies within human sexuality owes itself to the work of John Money who began studying hermaphrodites but also progressed into research involving the endocrine system and its effects on sexual anatomy (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). As his research work progressed in such anomalies; he was able to study larger representational groups of individuals with rarer disorders who would have likely gone unnoticed or ignored and thus unreported (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). In this way he was in a position to observe differences between physical sex; gender identity formation and sexual orientation as he observed individuals who had been misidentified as either male or female due to external genitalia being characteristic of either male or female while internal genitalia suggested the opposite (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Likewise he was in a well-placed position to observe differences that were due to hormonal abnormalities that seemed to lead to feminization or masculinization in males and females respectively (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Money was also able to observe gender and sex incongruities in individuals who were born with both male and female internal and external genitalia over time as parents chose the sex identification of infants and subsequent differences in how these children later developed gender identities incongruent with their chosen sex (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). How Studies and Opinions Have Changed Over TimeStudies and opinions have changed over time primarily by undermining many of the previously conceived notions of sex as being related strictly to the presence of male or female genitalia; the idea that males are physically and intellectually superior to females; and that incongruities between sex; gender identity and role; and sexual orientation is deviant or disordered (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Studies and opinions have broadened the nature and vocations of researchers in the field and curtailed some biases and prejudices in our society and to some extent minimized the ever-present influences of religious and political ideologies that would (and still do) argue that women should be considered the lesser sex and that homosexuals should again be criminalized and considered mentally disordered (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Over time inquiries into human sexuality which were the territory of theologians, philosophers and medical doctors and often colored by biases and prejudices as well as fears of negative impacts on the family and society at large have been expanded to encompass many other disciplines of science and the life sciences (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). The rigorous application of the scientific method as well as technology have helped change the audience to whom information on human sexuality is disseminated; from scholars and professionals to interested public consumers and changed the way many people perceive of sexual diversity (Bullough, 1994; Haeberle, 2013; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).
  • The key factors in individual human sexuality are genetics, biology, social, motivational, and behavioral; these factors each interact within individuals in varying degrees (Colorado Technical University, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). As a result it is often very difficult to separate one key factor from the rest especially in research studies that involve human sexuality (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, Wheelwright, Farrell, Martin, Green, Di Ceglie, & Baron-Cohen, 2012; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2012). It is difficult to examine one key factor exclusively because other key factors tend to serve as variables in research studies; often when it comes to analysis of research results (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2012). While research usually involves first an exploration and then a process of testing and re-testing of pass/fail style hypotheses; these variables often must be considered in terms of the results because there is a limitation in knowledge regarding nature and nurture (how much of each key factor is nature; is nurture; and at which point do they overlap and becomes both) (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2012).Important concepts to the genetic factor: Important concepts in genetics and human sexuality involve primarily prenatal development; the study of chromosomes and how chromosomal pairings from each parent affect hormones and fetal development and also contribute to the proverbial blueprint of later development of secondary sex characteristics in adolescence by way of hormones (CTU, 2011; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Each human parent contributes one chromosome to an offspring in the genetic material (egg and sperm); each chromosome will genetically determine the further development of sex (anatomic) characteristics of the offspring (CTU, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Females always contribute an X chromosome; males can contribute either an X or Y chromosome; if the male contributes an X chromosome the offspring will develop anatomically female characteristics and if a Y chromosome; will develop anatomically male characteristics (CTU, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Usually these chromosomes will then determine the dominance of sex hormone development and production both in the prenatal stage as well as later in the puberty stage; however it is also true that an additional chromosome may be added to an offspring resulting in Down's syndrome; other chromosomal abnormalities may result in the development of intersex sexual anatomy (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Likewise varying levels of sex hormones during fetal development in the mother and offspring may be linked to gender incongruence and even sexual orientation development (Jones, et al, 2007). Research in genetics and the contribution of genetics to human sexuality is still ongoing; research has progressed to a point where predictions about anatomical sex can be made based on amount of sex hormones present in amniotic fluids; and conditions such as Down's syndrome can be detected much earlier (Jones, et al, 2012; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Prospective parents can now choose the anatomical sex of their children in a few different ways including in vitro methods where chromosome pairs are identified prior to uterine implantation (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Likewise the study of genetics is clarifying the role chromosomes play in the development and production of sex hormones in women and in embryos; and also how variation in levels of hormones such as fetal testosterone may influence conditions such as Autism, Autism Spectrum conditions; Gender Identity disorder and even sexual orientation (CTU, 2011; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). In fact studies of Autism and its spectrum conditions has led researchers to noticing the condition seems to resemble extreme masculinity traits in genetic males (more often diagnosed with this condition); and also higher masculinity in cognition and behavior in genetic females with this condition (less often diagnosed) (Jones, et al, 2012). This in turn has led to a comparison study of individuals with Autism spectrum conditions; transgender incongruence and normative controls which have found strong correlations between Autism spectrum conditions and Gender Identity Disorder in female-to-male transsexuals (Jones, et al, 2012).Important concepts to the biological factor: Like genetics important concepts in biology are associated with the study of sex hormones; further development of sex hormone producing organs; production and influencing factors on physical anatomy; gender identity and sexual orientation particularly through adolescence but also adulthood and later adulthood (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; CTU, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2012; Saewyc, 2011). Important concepts in biology include the study of heterosexuality and nonheterosexuality; level of interest in sex; frequency of sexual behavior; gender identity and sexual orientation; age of individuals and variation of sex hormone levels (estrogen and testosterone) (CTU, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Biology also studies the relationships between stress, anxiety and depression; resilience; and the physical and psychological processes of the body; including neurochemistry and mental disorder (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; CTU, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). Research in biology has contributed a great deal into our knowledge of human sexuality in various stages of life; particularly in the area of fertility and contraception; but also normative sexual behaviors in childhood; adolescence; early middle and later adulthood (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; CTU, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Research in biology has also contributed to our knowledge of the effects of stress on sexual interest and frequency; differences in gender related attitudes and misconceptions about human sexuality; and the effects of socially related stressors on psychological processes regarding sexual behavior and motivation; gender identity incongruence and sexual orientation (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; CTU, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011).Important concepts to the social factor: Important concepts associated with the social factor in human sexuality are social expectations; particularly of roles to be adhered to by males and females; acceptable sexual practices and behaviors; sexual taboos; myths and misconceptions; and their effects on the perception of oneself and of others (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; CTU, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). The social factor explores the way social perception can affect the perception of others as sexual beings and also how one perceives of him or herself as it relates to human sexuality (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; CTU, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). For instance the social perception that women are less prone to think about or enjoy sex as often or as much as men has often led to stigmatization of women who are perceived to have a higher sex drives than average and can cause lowered self-esteem in women who engage in sex frequently with many different partners (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Social perception regarding the sexualisation of young girls and women is one area full of controversy and conflict; between perceptions of objectification of girls and women; immorality (promotion and double-standards) and female sexual empowerment (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007). Social perceptions that cause stigmatization of nonheterosexual motivation and behavior (or nonconformity to gender role expectations) can cause anxiety and depression in individuals who are stigmatized and likewise negatively impact self-esteem and self-worth (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). Social perceptions regarding the length and width a male's penis can also effect levels of confidence, self-esteem and self-worth in males; and affect perceptions of desirability and even power in both men and women (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).Important concepts to the motivational factor: Important concepts associated with the motivational factor are physiological responses involving hormones; cognition regarding stimuli; attraction, the learning process and hedonism (CTU, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Research into the motivational factors of human sexuality involves both biology and genetics as well as social and behavioral factors; specifically in the way these factors interact and produce myriad individual differences in human sexuality (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; CTU, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Likewise research into the motivational factor explores the potential variables that may account for individual differences in human sexuality; such as gender identity incongruence and sexual orientation particularly when social perceptions may be hostile to such differences (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; CTU, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). For instance social factors tended to agree that women were subordinate to men; their sole purpose was for procreation; education of women was dangerous to their femininity and physical constitution and initial research in various disciplines did not initially dispute these claims (many supported them) (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Likewise same-sex sexual preferences and gender incongruence was considered immoral, amoral, abnormal, deviant and mentally disordered; research into the motivational factors of human sexuality disputed, disproved and exposed research biases on both counts and inspired improvements in research across all disciplines (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). Important concepts to the behavioral factor: Important concepts associated with the behavioral factor are sexual behaviors (and cognitive processes that underlie them) that involve procreation and (or) pursuit of pleasure (CTU, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). To some degree one could argue that what researchers know about all of the factors of human sexuality; it owes primarily to the interest in; controversies that have surrounded; and subsequent (serious and scientific) research into the study of human sexual behavior (Kinsey, Masters and Johnson) (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Two of the most important concepts regarding human sexual behavior were feminism and queer studies which evolved into concurrent scientific disciplines that were and still are highly influential in the changing of public and individual perceptions regarding women and nonheterosexuals; the promotion of unbiased research and social justice for women and other minorities (Barker & Duschinsky, 2012; Bolton & Sareen, 2011; Gerouki, 2010; Hodgins, Brown & Carter, 2007; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). Research into human sexual behavior has also generated a great deal of interest in cultural and social aspects of human sexual behavior; as well as the impacts of religious beliefs and educational attainment on sexual behavior (Gerouki, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).Impact on the development of individual human sexuality: Genetic and biological factors impact human sexual development in individuals in terms of physical anatomy and physiology; chromosomes; hormones; how each shapes and directs the development of both an individual's body and brain (CTU, 2011; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). Likewise these factors can interact with and directly influence behavioral and motivational factors in the expression of individual human sexuality; whether one is genetically male, female or intersex; whether one is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual (CTU, 2011; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). Likewise; gender expectations and roles are largely considered to be an external influence passed by acculturation; that may or may not be congruent with genetic and biological anatomy; but there is mounting evidence that sexual orientation and even gender identity may be at least in part influenced by genetic and biological factors (Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). Social factors can tend to influence how individuals perceive of their own sexuality and also how they perceive of the sexuality of other individuals around them; research studies show that individuals can make choices regarding sexual behaviors; partners; sexual practices and perhaps choose how much they will or will not conform to social gender roles and expectations (CTU, 2011; Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). However research studies also suggest that gender identity and sexual orientation are not quite so fluid; these too are influenced by genetics, biology, motivational and behavioral factors and thus social factors will continue to fail in producing human sexuality conformity (Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011). Furthermore each individual develops through variations in each of these factors producing yet more individual differences (Jones, et al, 2012; Peplau, 2003; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saewyc, 2011).
  • Human sexuality is influenced by culture through the social, motivational and behavioral key factors primarily; as culture is often influenced by state conditions, religion, socioeconomic class, and level of education (at least in the west cultures) (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). The cultural influences of human sexuality can also influence and be influenced by the media; particularly in how it portrays masculine and feminine ideals (and stereotypes) within a culture; be determined by control of the media and whether there is representation in media key positions with regard to women; and also depending on state controlled dissemination of information regarding sexuality (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). Likewise the cultural context of human sexuality is influenced by the institution of marriage and the family (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). The cultural context of human sexuality in terms of the media affects men, women and children, if and how they may be portrayed as sex objects; and can influence choices on how one behaves in sexual situations particularly in the absence of realistic information regarding sex and sexual behavior (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). Cultural context can also vary widely even within specific nations; and media can influence the perceptions of individuals in one culture about individuals in another; including as it regards human sexuality (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). Human Sexuality as Portrayed in the Media of Various CulturesIn general human sexuality is portrayed in the media of various cultures in the following ways: as stereotypical ideals of masculine and feminine roles and expectations, as stereotypical fantasized sex objects; or in the case of news media reflect cultural attitudes that reflect a culture's perception of human sexuality; gender roles and expectations (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). In many different cultures women (and very often young women and men as well) are portrayed in a highly sexualized and stereotypical fashion (fantasy); and to some extent this can influence perception, motivation and behavior between individuals of both sexes and at different ages (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). Individuals can be influenced regarding how they perceive of themselves and others; their own sexuality in either positive or negative ways; how they perceive of sexual situations and appropriate behaviors; and be given mixed messages about sexuality; appropriate dress and behavior in terms of the culture's more realistic attitudes and assumptions (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). In the case of the news media human sexuality can often be portrayed by news commentators and choice of who is interviewed; which can reflect how a culture perceives of men and women in terms of credibility (very often men are portrayed as more authoritative; intelligent, credible; women as more superficial; unintelligent; and not to be taken too seriously) (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). If sexual minorities such as LGBT are portrayed at all; it is usually infrequent; often portrayed in stereotypical fashion; and tend to be less than positive (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011).Human sexuality and sexual diversity in western culture media (the United States of America): In the U.S. as well as other western cultures women (as well as men) are often portrayed as sex objects (Gruber & Grube, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014) . Media portrayals have become a little more varied than in previous years in terms of age race and body type as well as level of competence and expertise for women; but the prevailing portrayal is one of female attractiveness and heterosexuality (Gruber & Grube, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Older women are often portrayed as family oriented to some degree; sexuality can be more muted (at least compared to young women) and there can be more emphasis on morality and ethics. Young women are often depicted as very attractive and sexualized; less moralistic and with varying degrees of intelligence and competence (depending on the type of media) (Gruber & Grube, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Women also tend to be portrayed as being in some form of oppositional role to males (violence, submission, humiliation); often relying on other males as allies or protectors; and also often in competition with other females for males (Gruber & Grube, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Men are usually depicted as attractive, powerful, successful, authoritative and competent regardless of age; usually very masculine regardless of sexual orientation (but not always; it often depends on the media format) (Gruber & Grube, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). They are often portrayed as ruthless, antisocial, and violent or as protective; and also as wise and kindly father-figures or mentors (to both male and female characters) and predominantly heteronormative (Gruber & Grube, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Interestingly males can be portrayed differently in terms of socioeconomic class; with working class males portrayed as foolish and even unattractive (usually in middle age) or highly attractive, highly masculinized and ambitious men (usually young). Gay and lesbian portrayals are less frequent but there is a presence (and it is growing); while transgender male-to-female portrays can be either positive or very negative when they appear; female-to-male portrayals are virtually nonexistent. Media portrayal of sexuality regardless of gender and orientation does not tend to address contraception or avoidance of sexually transmitted infection often cited as a problem due to the media influence on adolescent demographics (Gruber & Grube, 2010; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Human sexuality and diversity in Middle Eastern culture media (general): it is difficult to say with any realistic sense how media in the Middle East depicts human sexuality and diversity due to language barriers that prevent easy identification of nation within the media; and because there are wide variations in terms of political control of the media in Middle East nations and also relating to influence and control of Islam over Middle East cultures (as well as differences in influence between traditional Muslim practices and Sharia law practices) (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). In many Middle East countries the media is strictly controlled by the state and heavily influenced by religion as are the cultures in general (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). Education (or rather lack thereof) is a major social problem especially regarding pregnancy, family planning and avoidance of STIs; such education is difficult to disseminate to the public due to sexuality being a cultural taboo subject; lack of literacy as well as religious and governmental prohibitions (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). Likewise religious and cultural taboos and governmental prohibition make it difficult for researchers to gain adequate statistics for Middle East populations in general and in virtually all topic aspects relating to human sexuality and diversity (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). Interestingly the media is considered a potentially viable tool in these countries for increasing knowledge of sexuality, reproduction and public health and media workers are being trained on how to deal with religious institutions and government agencies in an effort to increase public awareness of at least STIs (Saleh, 2011; 2012). According to various resources women are depicted in Middle Eastern media; often in very stereotypical, very negative ways; described as subordinate to male masculinity; they are according to Seleh treated with "condemnation, trivialization and omission" by the media (para. 6). Men on the other hand are portrayed as highly masculine across all Middle East cultures and while same-sex practices between males is frowned upon or ignored (depending on time period, nation and class it could be ignored or prosecuted as even an executable offense) it is considered to be less offensive depending on the sexual role in the sex act (Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011). In short receiving penetration is considered passive and feminine (and the role is stigmatized) while giving penetration is seen as active and masculine therefore is more acceptable (Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011). It should be noted that in Iran human sexuality has become associated with political dissent for both males and females; sexual motivations and behaviors displaying sexuality; partaking in premarital sex and even same-sex coupling is a means of protest against the repressive Government (Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011). It should also be noted that while same-sex acts are not at all unknown in Islamic nations; same-sex orientation identity formation is very new (an openly gay community in Istanbul developed in the 1990s); is contingent on individual choice to reject the stigma associated with the passive role by both partners; and contingent with avoiding family (Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011).Western and Middle Eastern cultures: similarities and differences: it is tempting to think of Western culture as more advanced than Middle Eastern culture or of Middle Eastern culture as influenced by a more extreme religion than that of Western cultures in the past; especially on the subject of human sexuality and diversity (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). This would be an ethnocentric and biased view; and would tend to dismiss elements of difference in historical development of each of these cultures and their influencing religions (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). There are similarities and differences; in both cultures there is an emphasis on gender roles and expectations as masculine or feminine; deviation from the gender norms have varied to some extent and reactions to the gender norms have resulted in stigmatization (and worse depending on place and time) (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). Women have always been victimized in terms of violence; in all cultures; throughout human history; and usually as a result of perceptions of power; Western cultural statistics are high for sexual harassment and even higher for abuse, rape and murder (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). While statistics are difficult to come by in Middle Eastern countries; it would be difficult to estimate if the prevalence is higher or about the same (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). Both cultures tend to place a higher value on masculinity; regardless of sex and orientation; while femininity in both cultures tends to at the very least be trivialized, dismissed and sometimes omitted; it may be more subtle in the United States than in Saudi Arabia or Iran but it is present (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; National Organization for Women, 2012; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). This is not only reflected by media portrayals; it is also reflected in several aspects of U.S. society such as politics, business, education and socioeconomic status and in all of the Civil Rights and Equality movements (Almosaed, 2004; NOW, 2012; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). It is reflected in the pattern of legal battles and judicial rulings that have been ongoing while a Constitutional amendment that could potentially grant full equality to women and sexual minorities has been effectively stalemated for ninety years (NOW, 2012; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Arguably it could be said that the rights women in the United States enjoy today (as well as those that protect racial minorities) were won mostly because they were joined by heterosexual males in the fights (Almosaed, 2004; CTU, 2012; Gutierrez, 2012; Landry, 2011; NOW, 2012; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011). This pattern can be seen even in the Middle Eastern countries where women have been fairly silenced politically; and what battles there have been; have been aided and abetted by males (Almosaed, 2004; Landry, 2011; NOW, 2012; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014; Saleh, 2011; 2012; Ulusoy, Swigart & Erdemir, 2011).
  • Recently a focus group consisting of employees from Jung's International Consulting Group were asked to give their views about human sexuality and sexual diversity in their workplaces. Fifteen employees were invited to the focus group; ten attended the focus group and were asked six questions. Of the attendees; sexual orientation, marital status differences and sex and gender identification were not disclosed as part of the interviews and diversity ranged between sex; gender identification; sexual orientation and marital status. The questions asked of focus group members are: What are the attitudes and practices in your workplace regarding sexual diversity? 2. Are you aware of sexually diverse coworkers in your workplace? 3. How do you perceive they are treated within the workplace by other coworkers? 4. How do you think they would prefer to be treated within the workplace? 5. How would you prefer to be treated by coworkers regarding sexual diversity? 6. What do you think could be done to promote better treatment of sexually diverse people in your workplace? The responses are summarized across all respondents and they are as follows. To the first question what are the attitudes and practices in your workplace regarding sexual diversity; some respondents noted some disparity in numbers between males and females; with steps being taken to hire more of the minority group. Others noted strict organizational policies relating to diversity being enforced and others noted that employees did not disclose personal information at all about sexual diversities while in other workplaces disclosure did occur and was not considered important. One respondent mentioned some occasional sexist remarks from other employees; others noted an absence of sexual orientation related or sexist jokes completely (in one case because the upper management was known to be same-sex oriented). To the second question are you aware of sexually diverse coworkers in your workplace; most responded reported they were aware; some coworkers were comfortable enough to discuss this aspect with them; new employees were not sure about it still being new to the company; and some respondents reported this was a subject of nondisclosure due to homophobic elements within their workplaces or in one case the workplace was exclusively heterosexual.To the third question how do you perceive they are treated within the workplace by other coworkers? Responses again varied; most felt that everyone was treated fairly for the most part; either because of no voluntary disclosure or a 'live and let live' policy; though in one workplace a respondent noted that any deviation from the perceived norm would get an individual "ostracized or avoided"; and two respondents felt that female coworkers received preferential treatment regarding job tasks on account of sex. To the fourth question how do you think they would prefer to be treated within the workplace; most respondents agreed they felt sexually diverse coworkers would prefer to be treated equally and as the professionals they are; one respondent suggested some employees enjoy like to be treated as "special" on account of sex and avoidance of certain job tasks. To the fifth question; how would you prefer to be treated by coworkers regarding sexual diversity; all respondents agreed on three key points: they want their sexuality left out of the workplace; sexuality has no place in workplace discussion or work (unless discrimination is actively taking place); and they want to be treated equally and in relation to the quality of the work they perform; one respondent expressed a wish that all individuals could be free to be who they are without fear of discrimination. To the sixth question; what do you think could be done to promote better treatment of sexually diverse people in your workplace; most respondents felt their workplaces did at least an adequate job of policing anti-diversity issues between enforcing existing policies; training and refresher training; suggestions were employee surveys to be sure all coworkers were satisfied with how they were treated on the job; one respondent thought outside social activities would increase employee bonding and help minimize potential discrimination. One respondent felt pay should be more commiserate with work performance and job tasks should not be assigned according to sex. Several respondents suggested that more needs to be done to promote sexual diversity on a societal scale including an emphasis on education; and that social barriers between sexually diverse individuals need to be removed while respect for sexual diversities needs to be more heavily promoted. Summary of the key focus group findings: Clearly employees do take note of one another's sexual diversity; either through noting the presence of a sex minority in the workplace; the presence or absence of sexual innuendos and remarks; and also the willingness to divulge such differences or the absence of such (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011). Clearly employees take note of organizational policies and how well or poorly they are enforced when it comes to the subject of sexual diversity; and some may even resent disparities in job tasks when they appear to be given based on physical sex or there is a perceived expectancy of single individuals to work longer than those who are not (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011). All of the employees feel everyone should be able to enjoy professional camaraderie and respect regardless of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or marital status; that individuals should be recognized for their professional contributions to the organization through their work (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011). Some employees reported very different attitudes regarding sexual diversity in their workplaces; some were open and welcoming; some workplaces were covertly hostile and one was overtly hostile; workplaces where employees did not divulge any such information; employees seemed to indicate this may be due to a perception it would not be accepted. In workplaces where it was openly acknowledged; employees reported sexual diversity was not important; individuals were treated with respect and in accordance with their job performance.Though the focus group method is a qualitative method and therefore exploratory in nature; the population small and not generalizable to larger populations; one factor stood out as a mitigating factor in all workplace environments (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). The presence and level of enforcement of organizational sexual diversity policies; when present; clearly written; and strictly enforced; employees reported more awareness; more cooperation; more respect between colleagues; less job task disparity; less covert and overt hostility based on sexual diversity. In workplaces absent sexual diversity policies or new hire training; or when enforcement of such policies was lax; workplace environments were more overtly hostile (or covertly hostile when policies were not enforced). Curiously; one employee reported consistent periodic training on the subject of diversity including sexual diversity after the hiring process; reported the workplace has a more than adequate enforcement policy; but also reported homogeneity in the workplace (all colleagues are heterosexual and married). Other employees reported that in workplaces hostile to sexual diversity they were also conflict prone in general; even the perception of any difference was enough to cause individuals to be isolated and ostracized within the workplace. All of the employees reported that they wished to be treated fairly and with respect for their work and most felt the subject of sexuality diverse or otherwise has no place in the workplace. The employees expressed they did not believe any sexually diverse coworkers would want to be singled out on account of that diversity over the quality of their work and the contributions they make to the organization's well-being. The only exception was in the case of perceived discrimination of coworkers based on sexual diversity (be it sex, gender identity or sexual orientation); this all employees consider unacceptable. Employees from workplaces in which policies were not present; clarified for all; and strictly enforced all expressed this needs to be rectified; in workplaces where this is the case most employees had additional suggestions with the sole exception being the homogeneous workplace (heterosexual and married).
  • How individuals and organizations can encourage acceptance of sexual diversity in the workplace: First and foremost; policies and procedures regarding diversity should be reviewed for inclusion of sexual diversity; clarified; and included in new hire training (and hire according to qualifications of the job and for diversity) (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011). Periodic refresher training should be provided on a consistent basis but limited to once per year; and procedures for enforcement of diversity policies should be evaluated for effectiveness (Newstrom, 2011). Organizations can provide surveys to employees to measure the perceived effectiveness of these policies; including an open-ended question for critiques or suggestions from employees regarding perceived inequities in job task assignments (Newstrom, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Organizations should also consistently enforce such policies across the board; some male employees reported sexual harassment by female coworkers but felt this was okay because they did not mind; sexual harassment policies need to be clarified so that all employees understand that respectful and courteous conduct is required for all employees regardless of sex; gender; or orientation (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011). It is not necessary to single individuals out for recognition of sexual diversity in the workplace; nor is it necessary to enforce a "don't ask, don't tell" policy; focus on policies that reward employees for prosocial attitudes and behaviors regarding work performance; and enforce anti-discrimination policies in the workplace (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011).
  • How organizations can take advantage of sexual diversity in the workplace: Organizations should recognize that it is beneficial for employees to communicate with one another in a civil and courteous manner; treat one another fairly and with respect (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011). This minimizes conflict and perception of inequity; stress; tardiness; absence from work; healthcare costs and employee turn-over (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011). This increases social bonding in the workplace; work performance and organizational performance overall. When employees enjoy working with one another; regardless of various diversities; they can be more open with one another about sexual diversity and absent an environment that is permissive of discrimination; employees can and will happily overlook such differences which benefits communities and society (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011). One employee lamented that society needs to change collectively before sexual diversity can be open and accepted in the workplace; however history suggests inclusion of sexual diversity in workplaces can affect societal perceptions of sexual diversity for the better; in an incremental shift that can include whole cultures and many nations (Konik & Cortina, 2008; Moon & Hur, 2011; Newstrom, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). The key factors of human sexuality; genetics, biological, motivational, social and behavioral help shape individual differences and identity in all people (CTU, 2011; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Culture can have a major impact on how these individual differences may be expressed or if they are expressed at all (CTU, 2011; 2012; Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). How others perceive and react to human sexuality diversity can impact psychological and physical processes; especially in relation to self-perception and a sense of self-worth (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). For some individuals sexuality is a large part of their personal identity and for others perhaps not so much; but most people want to be perceived as more than just their sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or marital status; they want to be perceived holistically and accorded respect (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014). Culture plays a very big role in how individuals will tend to perceive others; especially as it relates to sexual diversity; and also how self-perception can affect self-worth and esteem; positive changes with regard for respect for human sexuality as well as sexual diversity may need to come from religious institutions and government organizations; and is especially important for globalized workplaces and workforces (Rathus, Nevid & Fichner-Rathus, 2014).
  • Thank you for teaching us Dr. Dunn. This was a most awesome class.

Transcript

  • 1. Cherilyn Formanek Colorado Technical University Online PSYC350 1304A-01
  • 2. • “The ways in which we express ourselves as sexual beings” • “A combination of physiological processes, sociological influences, psychological processes and individual differences in three key areas: gender identity, sexual orientation and sexual behavior” • Gender identity- identification with gender expectations and roles • Sexual identity- identification involving sexual anatomy, gender identity and sexual orientation • Sexual orientation- sexual preference attraction
  • 3. • Physical sex anatomy determines sexuality • Males as physically and or intellectually superior to females • Homosexuality as deviant and mentally disordered
  • 4. • The influence of religion and philosophy on human sexuality as a taboo subject • The researchers that challenged religious, philosophical and political ideologies regarding human sexuality as a taboo subject • Alfred C. Kinsey and Colleagues • William H. Masters and Virginia Johnson • John Money
  • 5. • The research of Kinsey and Colleagues • The research of Masters and Johnson • The research of Money • How Studies and Opinions have Changed Over Time
  • 6. • Genetic factor • Biological factor • Social factor • Motivational factor • Behavioral factor • Impact on the Development of Individual Human Sexuality
  • 7. • Human Sexuality as Portrayed in the Media of Various Cultures • Influenced by culture • Influenced by masculine and feminine ideals and stereotypes • State controlled dissemination of information regarding sexuality • Can influence men women and children when portrayed as sex objects • Can influence behavior in sexual situations in the absence of realistic information
  • 8. • The Focus Group • The Questions asked • What are the attitudes and practices in your workplace regarding sexual diversity • Are you aware of sexually diverse coworkers in your workplace • How do you perceive they are treated within the workplace by other coworkers • How do you think they would prefer to be treated within the workplace • How would you prefer to be treated by coworkers regarding sexual diversity • What do you think could be done to promote better treatment of sexuality diverse people in your workplace
  • 9. • Develop Evaluate and Re-write Policies and Procedures Regarding Diversity for Inclusion of Sexual Diversity • Enforce Policies and Procedures with Consistency and for all Employees • Measure Employee Perceptions of Diversity Policies through Surveys • Reward Employee Performance and Prosocial Behaviors
  • 10. • Minimize: • Conflict and bullying behaviors • Perceptions of inequalities • Stress • Tardiness absence and employee turn-over • Healthcare costs • Increase: • Social bonding between employees • Work performance • Attendance • Organizational performance • Benefit from: • Healthy and happy employee workforce • Community satisfaction with organization • Decreased liability for discrimination • Changing social attitudes regarding diversity and sexual diversity
  • 11. Almosaed, N. (2004). Violence Against Women: A Cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Muslim Affairs 24 (1) 67-88. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Barker, M. & Duschinsky, R. (2012). Sexualisation's four faces: sexualisation and gender stereotyping in the Bailey Review. Gender and Education 24 (3) 303-310. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Bolton, S. & Sareen, J. (2011). Sexual Orientation and its Relation to Mental Disorders and Suicide Attempts: Findings from a Nationally Representative Sample. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 56 (1) 35-43. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Bullough, V. (1994). Science in the Bedroom: a History of Sexology. Retrieved from https://campus.ctuonline.edu Cerankowski, K. J. & Milks, M. (2010). New Orientations: Asexuality and Its Implications for Theory and Practice. Feminist Studies 36 (3) 650-664. Retrieved from EBSCOHost
  • 12. Colorado Technical University (2011). Key Factors [M.U.S.E.]. Retrieved from https://campus.ctuonline.edu Colorado Technical University (2012). The Impact of Culture on Sex and Sexuality [M.U.S.E.] Retrieved from https://campus.ctuonline.edu Gerouki, M. (2010). The boy who was drawing princesses: primary teachers' accounts of children's non-conforming behaviours. Sex Education 10 (4) 335-348. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Gruber, E. & Grube, J.W. (2000). Adolescent sexuality and the media: a review of current knowledge and implications. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1070813/
  • 13. Gutierrez, R. (2012). Islam and sexuality. Social Identities 18 (2) 155-159. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Haeberle, E.J. (2013). Archive for Sexology: Chronology. Retrieved from http://www.sexarchive.info/Entrance_Page/History_of_Sexology/Chronol ogy/chronology.html Haeberle, E.J. (2013). Archive for Sexology: Modern Sex Research (1938- ). Retrieved from http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/CHR07.HTM Hodgins, H.S., Brown, A.B. & Carver, B. (2007). Autonomy and Control Motivation and Self-esteem. Self and Identity 6 189-208. Retrieved from EBSCOHost
  • 14. Iantaffi, A. & Bockting, W.O. (2011). Views from both sides of the bridge? Gender, sexual legitimacy, and transgender people's experiences of relationships. Culture, Health and Sexuality 13 (3) 355-370. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Jones, R.M., Wheelwright, S., Farrell, K., Martin, E., Green, R., Di Ceglie, D., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2012). Female-to-Male Transsexual People and Autistic Traits. J Autism Dev Disord 42 301-306. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Konik, J. & Cortina, L.M. (2008). Policing Gender at Work: Intersections of Harassment Based on Sex and Sexuality. Soc Jus Res 21 313-337. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Landry, D. (2011). Queer Islam and New Historicism. Cultural Studies 25 (2) 147-163. Retrieved from EBSCOHost
  • 15. McKenzie, S. (2010). Genders and sexualities in individuation: theoretical and clinical explorations. Journal of Analytical Psychology 55 91-111. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Moon, T.W. & Hur, W.M (2011). Emotional Intelligence, Emotional Exhaustion, and Job Performance. Social Behavior and Personality 39 (8) 1087-1096. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. National Organization for Women (2012). Chronology of the Equal Rights Amendment, 1923-1996. Retrieved from http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/history.html Newstrom, J.W. (2011). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work 13th Edition. New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Retrieved from https://campus.ctuonline.edu.
  • 16. Peplau, L.A. (2003). Human Sexuality: How Do Men and Women Differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science 12 (2) 37-40. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Rathus, S.A., Nevid, J.S. & Fichner-Rathus, L. (2014). Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity Ninth Edition. Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education Inc. Russock, H. (2011). An evolutionary interpretation of the effect of gender and sexual orientation on human mate selection preferences, as indicated by an analysis of personal advertisements. Behaviour 148 307-323. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Saewyc, E.M. (2011). Research on Adolescent Sexual Orientation: Development, Health Disparities, Stigma and Resilience. Journal of Research on Adolescence 21 (1) 256-272. Retrieved from EBSCOHost
  • 17. Saleh, Ibrahim (2011). Media Sexual and Reproductive Health Taboos in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). New Questions, New Insights, New Approaches 125-132. Retrieved from Google Saleh, Ibrahim, (2012). The representation of women in media. Retrieved from http://www.thebeatmag.co.za/the- representation-of-women-in-media/ Ulusoy, H., Swigart, V. & Erdemir, F. (2011). Sexual Harassment: Think globally, act locally: understanding sexual harassment from a cross-cultural perspective. Medical Education 45 603- 612. Retrieved from EBSCOHost