Advertisement

Response to Commentaries

  • Katherine Frank
Commentary
  • 8 Downloads

I appreciate the Commentaries on my Target Article, “Rethinking Risk, Culture, and Intervention in Collective Sex Environments.” As my narrative overview of research on HIV/STI risk and collective sexual behavior was meant to promote conversation and suggest new lines of inquiry across disciplinary and theoretical paradigms, it was inspiring to read Commentaries that took that challenge seriously.

In the spirit of continuing the discussion, my response here will not address every issue raised in the Commentaries, but instead examine three interrelated issues emerging regarding collective sex environments—transgression and group dynamics, the appropriateness of interventions, and researcher positionality and reflexivity—as an opportunity to clarify certain points and look toward the future.

Collective Sex as Transgressive Group Behavior

In Frank (2013), I defined group sex as erotic or sexual activity that implicates more than two people and consists of various possible configurations...

Notes

References

  1. Arakawa, D. R., Flanders, C. E., Hatfield, E., & Heck, R. (2013). Positive psychology: What impact has it had on sex research publication trends? Sexuality and Culture, 17(2), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conley, T. D., Perry, M., Gusakova, S., & Piemonte, J. L. (2018). Monogamous halo effects: The stigma of non-monogamy within collective sex environments [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1213-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. de Visser, R., & McDonald, D. (2007). Swings and roundabouts: Management of jealousy in heterosexual ‘swinging’couples. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 459–476.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dukers-Muijrers, N. H., Niekamp, A. M., Brouwers, E. E., & Hoebe, C. J. (2010). Older and swinging; need to identify hidden and emerging risk groups at STI clinics. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 86(4), 315–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Egan, R. D., & Frank, K. (2005). Attempts at a feminist and interdisciplinary conversation about strip clubs. Deviant Behavior, 26(4), 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flowers, P., & Frankis, J. (2018). Imagining interventions for collective sex environments [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1222-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Frank, K. (2007). Playcouples in paradise: Touristic sexuality and lifestyle travel. In M. Padilla, M. B. Padilla, J. S. Hirsch, M. Munoz-Laboy, R. G. Parker, & R. Sember (Eds.), Love and globalization: Transformations of intimacy in the contemporary world (pp. 163–185). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Frank, K. (2013). Plays well in groups: A journey through the world of group sex. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Frank, K. (2015). Observational methods in the study of human sexuality. In J. DeLamater & R. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of sexualities (pp. 123–146). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank, K. (2018). Rethinking risk, culture, and intervention in collective sex environments. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1153-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedman, S. R., Mateu-Gelabert, P., & Sandoval, M. (2011). Group sex events amongst non-gay drug users: An understudied risk environment. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(1), 1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gama, A., Abecasis, A., Pingarilho, M., Mendão, L., Martins, M. O., Barros, H., & Dias, S. (2017). Cruising venues as a context for HIV risky behavior among men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(4), 1061–1068.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Giami, A. (2018). Collective sex in public: Where is the observer? [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1243-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Harviainen, J. T., & Frank, K. (2016). Group sex as play. Games and Culture: A Journal of Interactive Media.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412016659835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kimberly, C., & Hans, J. D. (2017). From fantasy to reality: A grounded theory of experiences in the swinging lifestyle. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(3), 789–799.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehmiller, J. J. (2018). The importance of studying consent and consent violations in collective sex environments [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1238-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lieberman, H., & Schatzberg, E. (2018). A failure of academic quality control: The technology of orgasm. Journal of Positive Sexuality, 4(2), 24–47.Google Scholar
  18. Mercer, C. H. (2017). Swinging: If you do not ask you may not find, but you need to. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 93, 381–382.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Meunier, E. (2014). No attitude, no standing around: The organization of social and sexual interaction at a gay male private sex party in New York city. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(4), 685–695.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Meunier, É. (2018). Social interaction and safer sex at sex parties: Collective and individual norms at gay group sex venues in NYC. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15, 329–341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0300-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meunier, É., Escoffier, J., & Siegel, K. (2018). Rethinking risks and interventions beyond HIV: The importance of contextualizing collective sex [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1214-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Moors, A. C. (2018). Moving past the rose-tinted lens of monogamy: Onward with critical self-examination and (sexually) healthy science [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1215-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Newmahr, S. (2011). Playing on the edge: Sadomasochism, risk, and intimacy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Niekamp, A. M., Mercken, L. A., Hoebe, C. J., & Dukers-Muijrers, N. H. (2013). A sexual affiliation network of swingers, heterosexuals practicing risk behaviours that potentiate the spread of sexually transmitted infections: A two-mode approach. Social Networks, 35(2), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Byrne, P., & Watts, J. A. (2011). Exploring sexual networks: A pilot study of swingers’ sexual behaviour and health-care-seeking practices. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 43(1), 80–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Race, K. (2017). The gay science: Intimate experiments with the problem of HIV. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sagarin, B. J., Lee, E. M., Erickson, J. M., Casey, K. G., & Pawirosetiko, J. S. (2018). Collective sex environments without the sex? Insights from the BDSM community [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1252-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Simms, I., Fenton, K. A., Ashton, M., Turner, K. M., Crawley-Boevey, E. E., Gorton, R., … Lighton, L. (2005). The re-emergence of syphilis in the United Kingdom: The new epidemic phases. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 32(4), 220–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Spauwen, L. W. L., Niekamp, A.-M., Hoebe, C., & Dukers-Muijrers, N. H. T. M. (2018). Do swingers self-identify as swingers when attending STI services for testing? A cross-sectional study. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 94, 559–561.  https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2017-053321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Vaillancourt, K. T., & Few-Demo, A. L. (2014). Relational dynamics of swinging relationships: An exploratory study. The Family Journal, 22, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations