Welcome to the 2018 Annual Review of Sex Research; Plus: The Search Begins!

Welcome to the 2018 Annual Review of Sex Research (ARSR), the third ARSR I’ve had the honor to edit. Like previous issues, the 2018 ARSR provides reviews on a diverse, interesting, and compelling array of sexual phenomena. These topics include sex research and sexuality in China, effects of stigma on sex workers, mental health in bisexual people, sexual prejudice in Jamaica (one of many strongly anti-gay societies), social monogamy, connections between romantic relationships and sexuality, and young adults’ sexual decision making in sub-Saharan Africa. I am delighted that this ARSR presents a hefty amount of research on populations outside the more typical WEIRD ones (the acronym, widely used in psychology, refers to the overuse of participants who are from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic nations). The authors of 2018’s ARSR have written clear and cogent reviews, providing coverage not only on their topics but on related important contextual issues. Their articles are exciting, addressing both mainstream and marginalized subjects that merit in-depth treatments, and the authors have provided interesting takes, future lines of research, and many, many insights for readers to enjoy.

What’s in the 2018 Annual Review of Sex Research?

Three of the articles focus specifically on sexuality and relationships (long term/romantic/pair-bonds), two areas which seem like natural bedfellows but which are often kept separate. Muise, Maxwell, and Impett (2018) explore the contributions from relationships research to sex research. In so doing, they provide a helpful roadmap to the theories and methods from relationships research that can be fruitfully shared to address new questions about sexuality and shed light on existing ones. Mark and Lasslo (2018) explore the ways that sexual desire plays out in long-term relationships and the factors that influence people’s levels of desire. They engage with several myths and provide needed insights into how sexual desire might be maintained over time. French, Cavanaugh, Mustoe, Carp, and Womack (2018) describe what monogamy means across species as well as specifically within nonhuman primates. They argue that monogamy is multifaceted, with only some of its aspects relevant to nonhuman primates. For those of us interested in the connections between sexuality, relationships, and pair-bonds, these three articles provide a bonanza of important and timely insights, along with the promise and means for more integration and cross-talk across disciplines and foci.

Three articles focus on the ways that stigmatized identities shape sexual lives and people’s experiences. Ross et al. (2018) provide timely work on the increasingly understood phenomenon of a sort of “double” minoritization of bisexual individuals. Because bisexual people are often seen as existing outside of both heteronormativities and homonormativities, there can be distinct impacts of bisexual identities and experiences on mental health, and the authors highlight depression and anxiety. Benoit, Jansson, Smith, and Flagg (2018) engage the ways that sex workers are negatively impacted by stigma, rather than by sex work itself. Moreover, these authors highlight the ways that sex workers manage and negotiate this stigma in agentic ways. In the final of these three papers, West (2018) provides an important overview of what scholars know about sexual prejudice in Jamaica, making reference to other severely anti-gay societies. West cogently articulates what lessons this research holds for reducing such negative affect and stigma. All of these authors tackle critical questions that often fly under the radar of mainstream sex research, offer compelling views of the research itself, and draw fascinating insights in their conclusions about what this research tells us about sexuality and stigma.

Sex research in non-WEIRD populations often focuses on problems or pathology, and there is reason for this. Strikingly high and sometimes increasing or difficult to ameliorate rates of HIV/AIDS are prevalent in nations that have been under- or mal-resourced. Closson and Kaida (2018) provide a nuanced take on this, looking at the understudied population of adolescents and young adults in sub-Saharan Africa and the ways that both gender and sexual self-efficacy affect their sexual decision making. And in a strikingly comprehensive, informative, and “can’t-put-down” read, Ho, Jackson, Cao, and Kwok (2018) provide an overview of sex research in China that is somehow simultaneously an overview of Chinese politics, the ways sex research is done in China and by Chinese sex researchers outside of China, sexuality and gender within China, what sex researchers in China have been able to show, and what the current political situation in China portends for Chinese sex research to come. It is truly a masterful piece, and complements the strength of all the ARSR pieces.

What About the 2019 Annual Review of Sex Research?

It sometimes surprises people to know how far out we start planning, but, indeed, the authors for the 2019 ARSR are already hard at work. They have submitted their titles and are working on their outlines. The 2019 ARSR has an outstanding lineup of newer and established authors, with broad coverage of topics which are widely acknowledged to be important issues in our discipline—or which will be after these articles come out.

In the coming months, I will be starting the process of inviting authors for the 2020 ARSR. Consider whether you have a review in you or know someone who does (or should). Self-nominations are always welcome, as are nominations of colleagues or topics. Do you wish there was a review on some sexuality topic that you could send to colleagues, use in your classes, or read as a graduate student? Do we need an update on a specific sexuality subfield or a masterful integration of several areas? Send me an e-mail with your thoughts, formal or informal. I take suggestions seriously and, even if I sometimes ultimately decide not to use them, many of the ARSR pieces you have read have resulted from a sex research colleague’s nomination. Get in touch!

Where Is the Annual Review of Sex Research Going?

As editor of the ARSR, I am in the middle of a five-year appointment. It’s a plum position; ARSR editors have the luxury of working as an editor but with a much more limited set of papers than the typical journal editor has. ARSR papers are much longer, more complex, and more dense, but ARSR editors get to choose and invite authors. What a privilege! It means a limited though unique ability to shape sex research, and I take it seriously. That is why I will be stepping down at the end of my five-year term, which ends with the 2020 ARSR, and why we will begin looking for the next ARSR editor shortly.

I am not making the argument that all editors need to step down after five—or any particular number of—years. Clearly, there are cost-benefit ratios to this type of decision that depend on the particularities of each editor position, and the ARSR differs from most journal structures, as noted previously. Accordingly, I articulate here the reasons I have chosen not to consider another term, which may generalize or not.

My decision is rooted in what I see as our need to rethink and reshape academia in accordance with important and justifiable value structures (rather than vice versa). Articulating our value structures and acting on them seems especially important in any time or place but especially urgent in this current political climate. My decision is also rooted in my commitment to and practice of feminist and queer science. To me, feminist and queer science includes recognizing the political contexts within which we work, and the ways that our scholarship always is political, since none of us steps outside human culture. Editing is political. Shaping a field is political. What kind of politics are we committed to, and how should that shape our editorial practices?

(1) Limits on Power

Being editor of ARSR carries power to shape the field; to bring attention to certain topics, authors, or issues; and to strengthen papers (and, of course, what counts as strong or meritorious is not a naturally derived axiom). It is a one-person job, albeit informed by reviewers (which the editor selects), which means one person carries all this power. Does absolute power corrupt? I don't know that, but I do know it seems critically important that each of us remains accountable to and a member of our research communities, at least sometimes without the protection that can sometimes be afforded to those in positions to decide about others’ publications. The power of choosing what and whom to publish, and when and how, is something that should not be indefinite and should have clear limits. A decade (two terms) is a long time for one person to shape a field, given that most of our sex research careers have only three or four (occasionally five!) of them.

(2) Distributions of Power

As I noted, being ARSR editor carries a significant amount of privilege, responsibility, and power. Distributing this power more often and to more people helps open up scholarship to new directions, provide ways for more people to share in the responsibilities and privileges of sex research, and provides a plurality of viewpoints. This is clearly a complement to Item (1).

(3) Intellectual Pluralism

Diverse viewpoints are not just an outcome of distributing power. Intellectual pluralism is a value unto itself, separate from others. Intellectual pluralism does not mean the indiscriminate valuing of any perspective, no matter how false, absurd, or unjustifiable it is. Intellectual pluralism means a commitment to the possibility and dissemination of diverse perspectives that are understood to hold some value by the standards of our community of sex researchers and its thoughtfully, comprehensively engaged critics. Intellectual pluralism matters; we know that, without it, for example, understandings of gendered scripts would be elided by the temptations of neural scans, or the biomateriality of bodies might be sidelined by the allure of text and semiotics.

(4) Distribution of Mastery and Growth Opportunities

So far, I have focused substantially on issues of power, but the ARSR editor position also provides an opportunity for immense growth and mastery. Mastery and growth are important to us as people and as scholars, and these opportunities should be shared. Having the chance to build and grow new skills, learn new ways of seeing, and have bigger-picture vistas is something I hope for, for more of us. This holds for opportunities to be editor, reviewers, and authors. Indeed, authors consistently report that the experience of writing an ARSR review is not only challenging but formative, and that they feel proud for having completed one.

(5) Nurturing and Developing Next Generations of Leaders and Sex Researchers

This might sound like the same as Item (4), but with this belief I want to articulate something different. Here, the point is that we want as many sex researchers as possible to be stakeholders in our field. We want everyone possible to be able to think about leadership possibilities and to have the possibility of being leaders. This means intergenerational commitments to opportunities. I have been a very young ARSR editor (in years and career) and this position of leadership at my career stage has positioned me to be relevant to other leadership positions (maybe! one day!), as it will others. It has also helped me see what sex researchers at all career stages can aspire to and accomplish. Given the especially hot-potato political nature of sexuality and sex research, our ability to provide our sexuality scholars and scientists at all levels with connections and access to our (inter)disciplinary infrastructure is particularly important.

Searching for the new ARSR Editor

So! For all these reasons, I will be stepping down at the end of my five-year term as ARSR editor. That means, of course, it’s time to plan for the next editor. If you are interested, or know someone who would be, please let me or Journal of Sex Research editor Cynthia Graham know, as we are in the starting stages of planning a process for identifying the next ARSR editor. Who knows? The next ARSR editor might have an entirely different viewpoint on all of this, and wouldn’t that be generative?