Author Description

One of the most fundamental conclusions from Alfred Kinsey's research of more than 50 years ago was that human sexuality is extraordinarily variable in its expression. Basic biological mechanisms interact with a variety of sociocultural factors to shape a bewildering array of patterns of sexual response. This interaction between biology and culture is poorly understood, but the capacity to associate sexual response with diverse stimuli, based on the principles of learning, is fundamental, and sociocultural influences can both encourage and discourage, intentionally or unintentionally, what stimuli are involved. When we consider the society that Kinsey studied, we can see how easily sexual expression was distorted by socially driven guilt and anxiety and by the social promotion of sexual stereotypes, fostering problematic power relationships between men and women and ostracizing those with unconventional sexual values. The negative consequences, to both the individual and society, were plain to see. But have we been moving toward a better socially determined pattern of sexuality since Kinsey's time? That is also questionable. The past 50 years have seen social change at a rate and extent unprecedented in history. A number of changes that are clearly to be welcomed have combined with other changes of less certain advantage to impact sexuality at the end of the 20th century, and we enter the 21st century far from certain where we are heading. One fundamental part of this changing picture has been called the triumph of the individual over society (Hobsbawm, 1997). People have increasingly been giving their own individual welfare and personal development top priority in their lives. Primary allegiance to the family is becoming a thing of the past. While traditional marriage has been taking a beating, at least as a long-term commitment, we have seen the impact of the women's movement on the structuring and negotiating of what have been called pure relationships. The pure