Ever since then, the Kinsey Institute, here on IU Bloomington campus, tucked away in Morrison Hall, has been the foremost institute researching sexual behavior in the world, with the largest collection of materials relevant to human sexuality across history and across cultures.

In 1997 we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the founding of the KI. Our main celebration was our first public exhibition of more than 200 selected items from our extensive collections, in the Fine Arts Gallery on this campus, entitled 'The Art of Desire: Erotic Treasures from the Kinsey Institute'. This exhibit served to illustrate that sex is not new and has been represented many ways across history and across cultures. This exhibition was the single most successful exhibit to be held in the Fine Arts Gallery.

So that is why the Kinsey Institute is very interested in Sex in the 21st Century, and why I am here giving you this talk. In painting the picture of sex in the 21st Century I have been guided by the evidence, but I will also be putting some of my own interpretations, reflecting my own moral values, as I go along. I hope it will be clear when I am doing that.

Here are the principal dimensions, or functions of sex which prevailed half way through the 20th Century:

1.Reproduction; 2 Gender Identity, 3. Self Esteem; 4 Sexual Morality/Guilt; 5. Pleasure; 6. Tension Reduction; 7. Bonding/Intimacy. Lets look at each of these a little more closely.

1. Reproduction. Having children was the principal justification for sex, and obviously marriage was the context for this to take place. You may be surprised to learn that in the 1950's the idea that contraception was immoral was still deeply entrenched. You had God's permission to be sexual if you were married, and whether you had children was 'in God's hands'. Still, in the 1960's when the first oral contraceptives were introduced there was major opposition to contraception, even for married women, but during the 60's and 70's we saw women fighting back for the rights to control their own bodies and their own reproductive lives. Even Catholic women in large numbers were starting to reject the teaching of their Church on this particular issue.

2. Gender Identity. By Gender I mean 'Maleness' or 'Femaleness'. How we expressed ourselves sexually and who we did it with had a lot to do with our gender. If you were a 'real male' you of course had sex with women, you initiated sex, you were sexually dominant, and you were expected to be sexually knowledgeable. If you were a 'good' rather than a 'bad' woman, then before you were married you were expected to control the male's approaches, after marriage you conceded to his wishes; a double act of control and passivity. In those days it was not legally possible for a husband to rape his wife. The wife enjoyed giving her husband pleasure and sex could be seen as an extension of her role of nurturance

3. Self Esteem. Your sex life had a big impact on your self esteem. If you were a man, 'scoring' with women enhanced your esteem, even if it made you seem a bit irresponsible. You also wanted to be seen as 'attractive to women'. If you were a woman, it was good to be attractive to men, but you certainly needed to be virtuous and sexually controlled.

4. Sexual Morality /Guilt. All human societies have found it necessary to impose social control on sexual behavior. Even in the most sex-positive society, it would be socially disruptive if there were no rules. That will probably always be the case. But one can see how through history there have been times when control of sex had a more extensive role than that, when it was a crucial element in ensuring an orderly, well-behaved and industrious society. We can see this process starting to operate as the Industrial Revolution took hold, with the growth of the middle classes who set the work ethic, and imposed the sexual discipline accordingly. Prior to that, there was a fairly sexually liberated upper class, and a somewhat sexually disorganized working class. We can also see how these sexual constraints were part of the process of maintaining the 'status quo' in terms of male female relationships. Men needed to keep in control, and one way to keep women under control was to restrict and inhibit their sexual expression.

Religion has played and still plays a major part in defining sexual morality, the medical profession has had no small part since the mid 19th Century, and the law has been used not only to protect people from unwanted or harmful sexual experiences, an essential legal function, but also in a 'declarative' sense. Thus in the 1950's we see many of the sex laws being there principally to 'declare' a particular behavior as immoral. Thus at that stage, sexual morality was very much a morality of sexual acts. It was immoral and illegal to have sex before marriage, no matter how you did it or how you felt about each other. It was immoral and illegal for a man to have sex with a man, no matter how. It was immoral and illegal for a married couple to have oral sex no matter how much they both enjoyed it.

5. Sexual Pleasure. This was defined in male terms. Acceptable sexual pleasure was what men typically enjoyed while having vaginal intercourse, the reproductive act, with their wives. Sexual pleasure was otherwise qualified by guilt, and pleasure per se was a dubious justification for a sexual act.

6. Tension reduction. We can assume that a certain amount of sexual behavior, including masturbation, was a means of reducing tension, but we have very little evidence on this.

7. Bonding/Intimacy. Clearly, for some couples sex provided a form of intimacy, while for many other couples intimacy had to be established in spite of sex.

Now let us look at some of the major changes, relevant to sexuality, that have been taking place between then and now.

1. Changing role of women. This has been a massive social change with a substantial increase in the number of women working outside the home and obtaining university education so that they can pursue a career. This has inevitably been accompanied by a delay in the age of marriage, and an increase in the number who remain unmarried.

2. Sexual liberation was very much a phenomenon of the 60's and 70's. Reacting to the repressive era that preceded, there was a major shift, mainly among young people, in seeing sex as a legitimate means of experiencing pleasure. 'Make love, not war' was the motto. There was a noticeable increase in casual sex, and an era of 'swinging couples' was born.

As part of this liberating process we saw the emergence of 'gay liberation' groups, with gay men and lesbian women asserting their identities and establishing a new era of gay and lesbian culture which has had considerable political impact.

3. The changing roles of women in society and the freeing up of sexual expression combined to fuel a new and very energetic women's movement who were less interested in the new freedom for the male to express himself sexually, and more in the freedom for women to recognize their own sexualities and control their sexual and reproductive lives. Contraception and abortion were two complex themes in this process.

4. Rise of the Youth culture. The 'Golden Age of Capitalism' which prevailed for the first 20 or so years of this post war period, combined with the striking emergence of a new youth culture, to produce a youth movement with considerable commercial impact. Clothing and music were the two main commercial expressions. But now not only did young people have their own styles of clothing, they had a music of their own which communicated messages about sex and drugs across international boundaries. Sex and drugs were now very much the main media for young people to assert their independence from their parents' generation. This was a fundamentally new phenomenon, the impact of which has hardly lessened.

5. New era of STD's. But the era of sexual liberation carried its own obvious price in the form of new epidemics of STD's. Herpes was particularly influential in the latter part of this 'sexual revolution' phase because of its insidious nature and its resistance to ordinary treatments. Before long HIV/AIDS entered the scene, though until very recently its impact was predominantly on the gay male and to a lesser extent the drug using community. People, across the board, were starting to retreat from the 'free love' era. The costs were starting to outweigh the benefits.

6. Rise of Individualism. But by this time a fundamental change had taken hold, what has been called the 'triumph of the individual over society'. People were increasingly giving their own individual welfare and personal development top priority in their lives. Declining was the primary allegiance to the family.

As part of this process we saw a rise in the rate of divorce, a decline in the traditional family and the conventional 'mother/father and children' household, an increase in other types of 'family groupings' and in particular a rise of single parent families and the experience of changing parents for many children.

7. Loss of control of information. To a considerable extent the imposition of social control of sexuality in the first half of the 20th Century depended on controlling information about sex. It was much easier to persuade people to feel guilty about engaging in premarital sex, or same sex activity, if they at the same time thought such behaviors were unusual, abnormal or wierd. A major part of Kinsey's impact was uncovering what was happening - releasing information that people were up to much more than was assumed to be the case. The opening up of discussion about sex and hence the spread of ideas about sexual behavior that followed took root in the media which ever since have bombarded the public with a variety of 'norm-setting' information, much of it misleading. But by now such information, correct or otherwise was out of control. This process escalated dramatically with the advent of the internet and subsequently the world wide web.

I looked for a representative selection of erotic sites to show in this talk but I found them, for the most part, so horrendous that I could not bring myself to reproduce them, let alone show them in public. It has been estimated that there are between 30,000 and 60,000 sex-oriented web sites and innumerable phone-sex lines, chat rooms and video mail order services. The pornography industry has been estimated to gross at least $10 billion a year in the US - more, if you can believe it, than Americans spend on sport events and live music combined.

So these are the principal strands of social change which are making up the evolving sexual scene as we enter the 21st Century. Now let me try to paint the picture as it is currently evolving. Some things have changed more than others.

Our current list of Dimensions or functions is a bit different both in content and order. 1.Sexual Identity; 2.Sex and relationships; 3.Sexual Morality; 4.Pleasure; 5.Self Esteem; 6.Mood regulation; 7.Reproduction.

1. Sexual identity. This is the concept of what type of sexual person you are; what category do you belong to? Are you straight or gay? This social construct rose to the surface in the 60's and 70's as gay liberation started to bite. There was disdain about Kinsey's scales of degrees of hetero and homosexuality and an emphasis on 'gay', lesbian or 'straight' identities. Bisexuality at that stage was a dubious transitional phase, not to be taken seriously. More recently we have seen these more dualistic identities 'deconstructed' as a more fluid approach to sexual identity has started to come in, bringing with it new ideas about gender identity as well. I am not sure where this identity story is heading, but it could be quite different in another 20 or 30 years.

2. Sex and relationships. Here we are seeing some interesting developments with both positive and negative potential. 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' is nothing to do with virtue, but rather the idea that it is a relationship for its own sake - not as part of an institution such as marriage, and not for outward, material or official reasons. Such a relationship may be heterosexual or homosexual. It lasts as long as both partners are satisfied with the personal bonus it provides. It is therefore, by nature, of uncertain duration and often short lived. It reflects each individual's commitment to their own personal growth and well being as well as a negotiated, and hence more equitable way of relating to one another. It is typically, but not necessarily monogamous; monogamy is also something that can be negotiated.

Within such relationships we can see how sex can contribute to intimacy, serving to bond the relationship if it works well, weakening it if it does not. The notion of intimacy as a reflection of sexual vulnerability is worthy of consideration. Being sexual makes us vulnerable in a variety of ways; it, for example, involves letting go of control as we become highly aroused and experience orgasm. We are unlikely to express our sexuality openly and fully unless we feel safe - but if we can be vulnerable, let down our defenses and remain safe that forms the basis of ongoing intimacy. That type of intimacy cannot thrive unless the sexual relationship is an exclusive, monogamous one. Conversely, by allowing ourselves to be sexually vulnerable, we can be hurt, humiliated, rejected or betrayed - the other side of the coin, destroying or preventing intimacy.

But there's another interesting development. For some, particularly men, the sexuality of this type of 'pure' relationship is emotionally demanding. Increasingly, especially for those who have relatively high needs for sexual outlet, sex, at least partially, is being separated off from the relationship. Most commonly this involves masturbation. Gunther Schmidt describes a young man who came to his clinic because he didn't feel like having sex with his girl friend but was an enthusiastic masturbator, He summed it up as follows- "If I masturbate I can start when I like, come when I like and stop when I like; I needn't bother with foreplay, or romantic lighting, or tender nothings murmured in her ear; I don't have to guess what she might like; or discuss afterwards how it was; I can go to sleep when I feel like it". A slightly depressing account for the romantics among us. But apparently this is an increasing trend, at least in part. Masturbation is the simplest and least problematic way of separating sex from relationships. But there are of course others - and always have been. Prostitution and various ways of 'cheating' on one's partner have a long history, but in recent years there has been an explosion of other alternatives - such as telephone sex or the web with its varying degrees of interaction real or otherwise.

You'll not be surprised to know that IU students masturbate. According to a recent representative survey 20% of men and 1% of women students masturbated at least once a day. Forty seven percent of men masturbated several times a week, whereas 34% of women did so several times a month. Three percent of men and 24% of women had not masturbated at all during the past year.

As expected, we see a substantial sex difference in frequency of masturbation, and a fair amount of it is occurring during on going relationships. These figures are fairly typical for young people today, showing one of the most predictable differences between male and female sexual activity. Masturbation remains one of the most sensitive aspects of sex for people to talk about, though there are few people who still believe that it makes you go blind. It is interesting that only a few years ago the Surgeon General was removed from office because she indicated that masturbation was a normal part of sexual life. In fact it can properly be regarded as an important component of responsible sex, which I will address later. I heard a young woman recommend recently that young people should consider masturbating before going out on a date, so that on the date they would be able to enjoy the interpersonal interaction and not have to worry about ensuring that sex didn't get out of control.

There is also the interesting phenomenon of 'non-sexual sexuality'. In Victorian times polite people covered up their piano legs because of the sexual symbolism involved. Nakedness was in general restricted to the bed or bathroom. As we moved through the 20th Century, nakedness, of a gradually increasing extent became acceptable in certain situations. It was OK to expose quite a bit of one's body on the beach - by the end of the century, it wasn't unusual to find 'topless' women on beaches. When I first arrived at Indiana University in the summer of 1995 I was struck by the large number of young women walking around campus wearing shorts and exposing their often very attractive legs. It occurred to me that such a situation would have been the cause for a riot if it had occurred when Kinsey was doing his research. I reflected on the idea that if I had come here and found this when I was in the first flush of youth I might have found it disturbing to say the least. Then I wondered what effect it had on the typical young male student here today. I'm not certain, but I suspect that he takes it more calmly than he or I might have done fifty years ago - reflecting a degree of desensitization of the mystique of eroticism.

But in general there have been various ways, apart from nakedness that an individual might signal sexuality - manner of dress, types of hairstyle - these were part of the sexual signaling system of a sexual person. But in more recent times, such sexual presentations have become an end in themselves. People dress in ways which imply 'I'm a sexual person', who might have little or no interest in engaging in sexual activity. 'Sexy' has become a role or identity rather than an activity.

3. Sexual Morality. So what is happening to our sexual morals? I believe we are moving towards a morality of sexual responsibility rather than of sexual acts. We are behaving morally when we deal with our sexuality in a way which is responsible to ourselves, to others and to our community. We are responsible to others in ensuring that we don't spread disease, cause unwanted pregnancy or cause other forms of distress or unhappiness by our sexual behavior. And in essence, responsible sex is 'agreeable' sex - an interesting play on words - that means 'agreed to by both partners', or consensual. We have still got some way to go. Sexual harassment and coercion, including rape, are still significant problems on this campus as well as elsewhere, but maybe we are moving in the right direction. In the early 1990's students at Antioch College in Ohio formulated a sex code which was intended to do away with sexual coercion and date rape. The proposal was that, at every step of a sexual interaction the person taking the step would ask permission of his or her partner before proceeding. Spelt out, step by step, this sounded a bit ridiculous, and there was a considerable reaction in the media ridiculing this initiative. Yet in my opinion the principle behind this is fundamentally sound. You should not proceed sexually unless you are sure that your partner wants you to. You should never assume that someone means yes when they say no, and you should never say no when you mean yes. The danger in imposing such careful negotiation, it was widely assumed, was that, put into effect, this would destroy the mystique and passion of a sexual relationship. But maybe it is that mystique and to some extent the passion that goes with it, that we are moving away from as we focus on 'pure' and equitable relationships. I would personally advise a young person that he or she should not get involved in sexual activity with a partner until you know that person well enough to be sure that you are both in agreement. When we work with couples in sex therapy we follow the golden rule of 'assert yourself' and 'protect yourself'. In a good sexual relationship each partner should be able to indicate what he or she would like to do, confident in the knowledge that the partner will make it clear if they don't want to do that. It's a principle I would advocate for any sexual relationship. But how can you do that, you might ask, if you have only just met this person? In a new relationship you need time to work out how to do that, so you need time before you get sexually involved, and hence your sexual involvement may need to be postponed or limited as a consequence.

4. Sexual Pleasure. One of Kinsey's principal conclusions 50 years ago was that human beings vary enormously in their sexualities, in how important sex is for them, what they respond to, what they find most arousing and so on. Its taken a long time for that message to sink in, but we should keep it very much in mind as we establish new sexual relationships. Don't assume that you know what you partner enjoys. In fact, even in an established relationship, don't assume that you know on any particular occasion - it can vary for all sorts of reasons. The solution is to have open and maintain open effective communication, so that you can find out from your partner there and then.

Another important lesson that we have been painfully and slowly learning is that men and women tend to have different sexual needs. In some respects this has been brought into the spotlight as a result of what we might call the Viagra phenomenon.

The extraordinary impact of Viagra, particularly during the first 6 months or so after it was recently introduced, has reminded us of the central role of the erect penis in the sexuality of men. Millions of men, throughout the world, have jumped at the opportunity to enhance their erectile response. This phallocentrism has a very long history, and regrettably, it is not going to disappear over night.

It would be good if we could dissociate penile erection from potency. Men should not have to feel that they are less of a man because they cannot get a good erection. There are many other, mostly better ways of validating ones manhood.

But the Viagra phenomenon is helping us to clarify what is important for the woman. An unsurprising response to the Viagra phenomenon was the question, 'what about a drug for women?' That question was asked by women, not just drug companies looking for their next commercial landslide. When you ask that question you realize how little we understand about the determinants of sexual satisfaction in women, and you remember how much we have imposed male-oriented criteria of sexual pleasure onto women. But there are some fundamental gender differences to consider, and this includes the role of orgasm in men and women. However society might have shaped and structured our sexualities, there is a biological imperative about male sexual response; you need an orgasm with its associated ejaculation of semen, and an erect penis to put that ejaculate in the right place, for the purpose of reproduction. However much a particular social system wants to repress sexuality, it can't afford to stop that process. But women's orgasms serve no reproductive function. And most women do not experience orgasm, or even their maximum enjoyment, from good old reproductive vaginal intercourse in the way men do. Also, partly for that very reason, women's sexuality has been and still is inhibited by a variety of socio-cultural influences. Hence when you ask whether a drug, which is specifically likely to increase vasocongestion in a woman's clitoris, is going to enhance a woman's enjoyment of sex, you realize what a difficult question that is to answer. I believe there will be some women who will benefit from such pharmacological interventions but we have a way to go before we can identify who and how many of them they are.

It is a striking fact that we have numerous images in our collection of men's genitalia, but very few of women's genitalia. Judy Chicago, whose exhibition some of you may have seen on campus last fall, is a rare example of a woman who has tried to capture the imagery of female genitalia artistically. And maybe things are changing here also. It was just two weeks ago, on Valentine's Day, that we had the outstanding performance of 'Vagina Monologues' here on this campus. May be we can look forward to the vagina receiving the attention it deserves.

But in general, women and men differ in the types of stimulation they need to achieve maximum enjoyment of sex, and people in 21st century sexual relationships should be aware of that point.

5. Self Esteem. Given these other changes, we can now start to feel good about ourselves because we feel good about our sexuality. We feel good about the type of sexual person we are, the way we relate to our sexual partner, and so on. Very different to 50 years ago.

6. Mood regulation. In the first list I called this tension reduction. This is an aspect of modern sexuality about which we still understand little, but which we are beginning to understand more- the idea that sex becomes used as a means for improving negative mood. I don't have time to explore this issue, but our research at the Kinsey Institute is identifying this process as probably fundamental to much of what is called compulsive sexual behavior or sexual 'addictions'. There is no clear evidence that these are more common than they used to be, but certainly some of the modern developments, such as the web, reinforce these types of maladaptive sexual behavior patterns.

7. Reproduction. Last but not least. This potential separateness of sex and reproduction is now complete. Not only can we have sex without reproduction, we can also have reproduction without sex. But there is a specific and profound responsibility for all of us to separate sex from reproduction when we don't want to have children- that responsibility goes right across the reproductive life span. In the 20th Century, it was not a matter of American teenagers being responsible about reproduction. It was a matter of them not being old enough to be sexual, not until they got married at least. You couldn't talk to young teenagers about the responsibility to avoid unwanted pregnancies, because in doing so you might be encouraging them to be sexually active. Unfortunately that attitude hasn't yet gone away. Just a few days ago a new campaign started in Philadelphia to encourage parents to talk to their children about abstinence. I have no problem with that. I think its a good idea. But when the Director of the local Family Planning Council suggested that they should also learn about birth control, the response was "How would you like it if we said "You can drink and drive if you just use a seat belt" or "you can smoke a cigarette, just choose one with a filter" - illustrating the additional message for young people "sex is dangerous, unhealthy-period".

Sex is and should be a positive aspect of all of our lives if we approach it responsibly. An important message for the 21st Century is that young people reach their maximum capacity for sexual arousal early in adolescence. They are sexual beings. As soon as they become fertile, which for most of us means soon after puberty, they have this responsibility, this awesome responsibility of whether they create new life, new human beings. They need our help in learning how to be responsibly sexual not how to be non sexual.

Using the driving analogy once more, its like saying young people shouldn't drive fast motor cycles until they are adults, when at age 13, they discover this fast motor cycle between their legs. The best way to be responsible is not to be sexually active in ways which could lead to pregnancy. Climb of the motor cycle and put it in the garden shed for the time being. Or if you want to try it out, do so on your own in the back yard. But the fact is you cant take that 'motor cycle' away from them. So the young person has to take that responsibility and has to be allowed to see him or herself as old enough to be responsible in that way.

But there is a flip side to this responsibility about separating sex from reproduction which again concerns us all right across the reproductive life span. I strongly subscribe to the view that we should stop seeing reproduction as being in God's hands, and make a clear responsible commitment to have a child when we feel that we are ready, as two parents, to see through the process of parenthood. Such commitment is suffering as a consequence of the rise in individualism that I referred to earlier - to the increase in the extent to which people put their own personal development first. Thus we are seeing a major increase in the number of children who are seeing their parents separate, with varying arrangements, often transient, involving other proxy parents or remaining in single parent families. That is not to say that single parents can't do a good job, but it is incredibly demanding - and much more complicated if the child starts off with two parents. I believe that it is too early to really assess the effects that this change is having on the development of our children - except that there is already evidence showing that the children of separated parents are more likely to separate themselves when they are married. I strongly hope that as we move through the 21st Century we will see a redressing of the balance between 'individualism' and 'family'. That doesn't necessarily mean returning to traditional concepts of the family, but it does mean two people, when deciding to start a family, making a commitment to see, in one way or another, the joint parenting process through.

I want to offer what I hope may be some helpful comments to you IU students about your own sexual lives. In our recent survey of IU students we asked our subjects on what issues they would welcome information or help.

The top two for both men and women involved improving their sexual relationship (82% of men and 64.7% of women). Birth control, I'm pleased to say was well up there (38.3% men; 50.3% women - it will be even better when we see men as concerned as women), as was 'getting better at communicating about sex' (47.7% men; 33.3% women). I hope that a number of the points that I've covered in this talk you will find to be helpful in dealing with these issues- e.g., the importance of 'agreeable' sex, where you both agree; the importance of being able to self-assert as well as self-protect; the recognition that men and women have different sexual needs; the whole notion of responsible sexual behavior.

I also want to remind you that we have a sexuality information service specifically designed for Indiana University students. Part of this is the interactive web site - Kinsey Institute Sexual Information Service for Students - or KISISS - which you can e-mail with your questions. You will also find some brochures about our Sexual Health Clinic here at the IU Health Center. Although this is open to the public, about a third of our clients are IU students. Don't hesitate to find out about the clinic if you think you might benefit from some help.

I want to finish on a particular theme which seems to be relevant to a lot of young sexual relationships today. The conflict between safe sex and intimacy. Recent surveys show us, not only with straight but also gay couples, that an increasing proportion of young people are using condoms, engaging in safe sex, when they start a relationship, but after the relationship has been going for a while, they stop using the condoms and use other methods of birth control. The issue for them is partly that condoms don't exactly enhance sexual pleasure, but more important, the use of condoms carries a troubling message that one or other of them is not to be trusted. Yet the message is out there, loud and clear, always use a condom, regardless, even when you're on the pill. There are quite a few couples who are quite content to stick with condoms and who don't find them spoiling their relationship. But for many young couples, this message, 'always use a condom'. while sound in many respects, is problematic and they have my sympathy. How do you begin to develop that feeling of mutual trust, that any two people who are in love want to feel, when you are routinely using a condom 'in case the other is not being honest'. In reality the situation isn't quite as simple as that. There can be unknown infections from the past that can turn up to haunt you. You can have had a negative HIV test because at the time of the test you hadn't sero-converted. But to a large extent it is a matter of establishing, by an open awareness of each others recent past and present, whether there are any risks of unprotected sex. That open awareness, that openness, that degree of intimacy and trust has to be established first before you should consider dropping the 'safe sex' guard. Until you have agreed that you have reached that stage in your relationship - and that may take some time - you are in fact treating your partner with respect by continuing to use a condom. So, whereas earlier I said you needed to go through certain stages of developing the relationship before being ready to negotiate whether to have sex, having started to have sex, there is a further way to go before you are in a position to stop using safe sex. But take your time and you'll get there.

I hope sex in this 21st century turns out to be a truly positive part of your lives and relationships, as it should be for all of us. Thank you.

Return to Top