Sexuality and Embodiment

CHAPTER 25 SEXUALITY AND EMBODIMENT Deborah L. Tolman, Christin P. Bowman, and Breanne Fahs Our bodies are the permeable boundary between our individual sense of self and the society in which we live. From the most banal bodily acts of life—how we dress, the magazines we read, with whom we sleep—to the big questions of social organization regarding marriage, family, sexual morality, and sexual health, the body is always involved in some way. The body is at once our own, something we share with others, and also something that is important to and shaped by the social world. Almost everything about sex is also about the body; sexuality is an intrinsic part of an embodied self. Although there is certainly much research that focuses on particular biological functions of sexual bodily parts and physiological processes associated with, and in some cases considered to comprise, sexuality, this line of research is predicated on the body as fundamentally and exclusively organic and, for the most part, hardwired (see Chapters 7 and 23, this volume). We begin the introduction to this chapter by articulating social concepts of “the body” and their relationship to understandings of and research about sexuality. Until very recently, the body has been considered a natural object and therefore the domain of the natural sciences. Conceptualizations of the body as a production that incorporates the physical and the social rather than as a biological—given theories of embodiment—have constituted a burgeoning field of inquiry, particularly within the disciplines of sociology, literature, cultural studies, feminist studies, education, and psychology. In an era in which forms of sexual interactions, identities, and representations have proliferated so profoundly, where evidence and vestiges of sex saturate landscapes from the visual to the virtual, the question of where and how bodies enter to constitute sexual feelings, thoughts, and actions is currently a primary one (Attwood, 2007; Coy & Garner, 2012). Embodiment theories have enabled us to reformulate research inquiries that are anchored in and about bodily experiences of the sexual and of sexuality. Grounded in a set of fundamentally social theories, embodiment theories and studies depart from much of sexuality research in that they are also inherently political, that is, they locate and provide insight into how bodies and sexuality, as experienced and made sense of, are not simply natural but exist, are apprehended, and are understood within social structures of power. These structures imbue bodies and bodily processes with meanings and significance, both inside and out. Embodiment epistemologically locates the sexual body, and the sexual person who “lives in” any body, in phenomenology, or the ways in which people apprehend and experience their sexual bodies. It is ironic to recognize that the notion of how actual bodies—material, sexual bodies themselves— are experienced or come into being or consciousness has been overlooked frequently in current academic research on sex and sexuality. The long-established approach to studying the sexual body, exemplified in the work of Masters and Johnson’s (1966) study of the (human) body’s sexual response cycle, has been understood exclusively in terms of the body as a The authors acknowledge the contributions of Gary Dowsett and Duane Duncan to the initial formulations of the chapter, and Jennifer Chmielewski for assistance with references and manuscript preparation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14193-025 APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology: Vol. 1. Person-Based Approaches, D. L. Tolman and L. M. Diamond (Editors-in-Chief) Copyright © 2014 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. 759 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs biological mechanism, with biological substrates, and determined by the body’s biology, a closed-system paradigm in which context did not matter. The study of biological substrates of many sexual bodily processes has blossomed and provided critical understanding of human sexuality (Lloyd, 2006; see Chapter 7, this volume), whereas other claims have been challenged by researchers whose premise is a social understanding of sexual bodily processes, that is, the ongoing debates over female sexual dysfunction (FSD; Shifren, Brigitta, Russo, Segretti, & Johannes, 2008; Tiefer, 2006; see Chapters 8 and 11 this volume) and gender identity (Stryker, 2006). As the beginnings of postmodernism seeped into sexuality research, the social construction of sexuality provided an alternative way to map and understand sexuality, including sexual desire, sexual identities, and sexual relationships (Plante, 2006; Tiefer, 2004), and it emerged as a prominent paradigm. New ways of thinking about and conducting research on sex and sexuality flourished, challenging the idea that sexuality was a natural or innate expression of each individual’s true self, and drawing attention to the ways in which sexuality as a field of ideas or discourses constituted truths about subjectivities or lived experience or understanding of various aspects of selves (i.e., Gamson, 2000; Seidman, 1996; see Chapter 3, this volume). These two lines of theory came to clash as polar opposites through the 1990s (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998), as the “essentialism–social constructionism” debates, yielding antithetical understandings of what sexuality was and how it emerged over individual lifetimes and across historical time and human societies. In the eyes of biological determinism (often referred to as essentialism), sexuality is an essence, an objective and unchanging set of biological processes. In the eyes of social construction, sexuality is not a fixed essence or inherently determined by biology but is constituted through social meanings and understandings about what sexuality is, how it is expressed, and what it means (Tiefer, 2004). The emergence of embodiment theories has provided one alternative to the impasse that these debates generated (Tolman & Diamond, 2001; see Chapter 1, this volume). The very questions that an embodiment lens poses constitute a useful reframing of the mind–body binary that has fractured sexuality research: How do we connect 760 the body as a material, biological entity to the body as a social entity or entities? How do we make sense of the sexual body in the context of, or as an “effect” (an outcome) of, social life? How do we understand the individual in relation to the social world via the body? As Plummer (2002, 2012) and Dowsett (1996, 2000) have each argued, the actual desiring, heaving, sexual body is hardly anywhere to be found in sexuality research (see also Schilling, 2003). Ironically, the vast majority of sexuality research does not have much sex in it; what people actually do, think, and feel when expressing sexual feelings or use their bodies in sexual ways, is very rare. Sexuality research is for the most part more sanitized than the messiness of actual sex. As scholarship on embodiment has developed, it in fact has been more theoretical than empirical and more textual than involving actual bodies. The plethora of theoretical scholarship on embodiment, however, has begun to make possible a growing body of sexuality research grounded in or about embodiment that mobilizes and connects theoretical formulations of embodiment to empirical investigation of sexuality as embodied experiences and phenomena. This chapter presents the major embodiment theories and, in particular, how embodiment in relation to sexuality is theorized in psychology. We then present a critical review of a wide range of empirical research on sexuality that has utilized these theoretical frameworks to explore the body, embodiment, sex, and sexuality, including gendered sexual bodies, the sexual body and its parts, the sexual body in action, the sexual body across the life span, sexual-minority sexual bodies, and the “disobedient” sexual body. Finally, we consider briefly some implications of this relatively new knowledge for clinical practice and interventions as well as for the future of embodiment and sexuality and how the accomplishments and shortcomings of what has been done might be leveraged to expand this new arena of research. WHAT IS EMBODIMENT? Embodiment refers to the experience of living in, perceiving, and experiencing the world from the very specific location of our bodies. The concept Sexuality and Embodiment of embodiment within psychology and other social sciences actually refers to two distinct processes or phenomena: being embodied and embodying the social. These conceptualizations of embodiment are by no means incompatible or mutually exclusive; we can rely on both simultaneously, and thereby paint a much fuller picture of embodiment as it relates to sexuality (see, e.g., Crossley, 1996; Rubin, 1984). Being embodied refers to an experiential awareness of the feelings and sensations within one’s body, which reflects our corporeality (Grosz, 1994) or the reality that we “live in skin” (J. Ward, 2002). This awareness can be characterized as lived embodiment, because it refers to the body as we live in it and feel it (e.g., see Merleau-Ponty, 1962; Young, 1990). Merleau-Ponty (1962) described the lived body as a “body-subject,” meaning that the body itself, not cognition, is capable of genuine experience. That is, the body is not just a passive sensory-data receptor that then relies on our consciousness and cognition to give it meaning, but the body experiences the world directly because the body is forever entangled with the world. He referred to this “body which is better informed than we are” as having a “latent knowledge” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 238). Similarly, Young (1984) suggested that it is possible to “locate consciousness and subjectivity in the body itself” (p. 161). That is, our bodies themselves experience sensations and awareness, rather than simply collecting external stimuli and information in service to a cognitive, meaning-making psyche. G. Lindemann (1996) deftly wove social influences into an understanding of the material, physical body, by theorizing distinctions between objectified, experiencing, and experienced bodies. The objectified body is the visible, material body that moves through physical and social space. The experiencing body is the sensory (or lived or phenomenological) body, experiencing the environment through the five senses; this lived body has also been described as being in a specific sociocultural context or a body in situation (Young, 1990, p. 16; see also Moi, 2001). The experienced body is our cognitive sense of our own bodies, for instance, our understanding of our own pleasure or pain. The experiencing body, then, is the kinesthetic, affective, emotional, and desiring body. For Lindemann, the experiencing and experienced bodies come together to make up the living body. In applying Lindemann’s account to a social psychological analysis of sexuality, we can understand the objectified body as the one onto which all societal presumptions (e.g., requirements of masculinity and femininity) are projected. Sexual desires as well as sexual pleasures, therefore, can be understood as experienced within the body itself. This is not to say that bodily sensations are somehow independent from the realm of the social. Indeed, bodily sensations are constantly modified, interpreted, and informed by the social contexts in which these bodies exist. A countervailing conception of embodiment is the notion of intersubjectivity (or derivatization), that is, that the body is experienced in relationship to or with another person. In this context, sexual objectification is not a form of alienation but a form of personification, such that the sexual bodies of two people in a sexual encounter can be sexual subjects and sexual objects, with a mutuality of desire and being desired simultaneously (Cahill, 2011). Conversely, embodiment can refer to the ways our social and historical environments enter into and become entangled with our bodies. This social constructionist viewpoint emphasizes the mechanisms by which our bodies come to behave in certain normative fashions; in short, by living day to day in a society that makes certain demands on our bodies and psyches, we come to internalize these norms or discourses and embody them (e.g., see Bartky, 1990; Foucault, 1978). These norms and discourses form and inform our bodily feelings, behaviors, and comportment, and they constitute the phenomenology of embodiment (Bartky, 1990; Bordo, 1993, 2000; Young, 1990). Some theorists have referred to this concept as social inscription, as the body can be understood as a surface onto or into which social norms are written by others or by the self. The key psychological theories of embodiment are the psychodynamic processes of internalization and dissociation, understood as providing mechanisms of inscription that are not conscious. These processes are conceived as relational, that is, the production or experience of the self in relation to specific others or in relation to proximate or distal social contexts (Henriques, Hollway, Urwin, Venn, & Walkerdine, 1998; Ussher, 1989; Young, 1990). 761 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs Embodiment also can constitute conscious ways that we might form or “perform” our bodies as part of the production of identities (Butler, 1994). These related conceptualizations of embodiment, then, can be characterized as inscribed embodiment. It is within these multiple understandings of embodiment that we review theoretical frameworks that are used heavily by sexuality researchers and psychologists primarily working in gender and sexuality. Although there has been a useful proliferation of embodiment theories (i.e., “visible identities,” Alcoff, 2005; “bodily imaginaries,” Gatens, 1996; “cyborg bodies,” Haraway, 1991), the work of Foucault and Butler are the foundational theories in which these developments are anchored, and our review reflects this emphasis. We also have highlighted the emerging developments in feminist and queer theory that have come to play an important role in research on embodiment and sexuality. Foucault and Butler: Production of Embodied Subjects One of Foucault’s anchor projects was the history of sexuality (1978) as it connected to the archaeology of power (1975). Whereas we tend to think of sexuality as a distinct thing that individuals “have,” Foucault’s insights suggest an alternative: that sexuality is in fact a condition of the time and place in which we live and reflects the dynamic relationship between sexual bodies, sexual practice, institutional power, and knowledge. Foucault’s (1966, 1975) work thus has been of enormous value in thinking about how bodies and sexuality are socially constructed. He demonstrated how hegemonic (that is, dominant) discourses emerged and continued to both enable and constrain how bodies might be experienced and lived, explicating the development of regulations specifically related to the management of bodies, including fertility, reproductive health, and sexuality (Foucault, 1969, 1975). All of these regulations emerged as key areas of personal life that the state had an interest in regulating. Each of these concerns produced authoritative discourses related to personal conduct, against which individuals came to evaluate and categorize themselves and others in acts of self-surveillance and self-discipline. Foucault (1975) demonstrated how institutional or state 762 power induced compliance not by force but through more insidious coercive means: via authoritative discourses that regulate social conduct through the bodies and subjectivities of individuals. As such, Foucault’s work opened up a distinctly social approach to understanding the body and its place in social relations, all while problematizing or debunking the notion that the body is predetermined, ahistorical, or existing materially outside of culture. Foucault proposed that a set of ideas or discourses produce and sanction particular practices, experiences, and identities as normal (or pathological) and acceptable (or abjected, wrong, and thus “appropriately” marginal). These discourses produce regulation, control, and “surveillance” that exist, in essence, simultaneously nowhere and everywhere, difficult to pinpoint but reliably effective in shaping and regulating. By discourse, Foucault meant not only a way of speaking but also an integrated way of being and knowing that includes the body, the mind, and relationships. Hegemonic or dominant discourses exert intangible but forceful pressure to comply with a set of interlocking norms or ideologies, communicated through language and produced, reproduced, and sanctioned through practices and institutions that both reflect and enact these discourses (Foucault, 1969). Rather than operating through the direct imposition of power and force, discourse regulates conduct, thoughts, and feelings through reliance on socially agreed-on authorities sanctioned by the state, such as medicine and the law. In Foucault’s view, power is not a thing but a relation; power is not simply repressive but productive. Foucault’s approach to discourse as social practice provides a way to analyze how bodies and sexualities reflect and enact the power relations of the societies in which they can be seen to exist. This understanding of social organization and the development and lived experiences of individuals within it is predicated on the dissolution of the fixed subject, who presumably enters into social relations as a whole and biologically determined agent. From Foucault’s perspective, there is no such fixed subject who precedes his or her meaningful recognition in discourse; instead, subjectivity must be constituted by the subject in the course of social relations. He or she “takes up” subject positions in Sexuality and Embodiment discourse or can be understood to perform subject positions or to be composed of (potentially changing, multiple, and contradictory) subjectivities. These generally are not conscious acts. The insidiousness and effectiveness of the operation of discourses, especially those that are hegemonic, is that they are not visible as such; it is the very self that abides by, reproduces, and reinforces the state’s regulations and interests. Most important, Foucault demonstrated the “situated nature of subjectivity” (Braidotti, 1994, p. 238), that is, that subjectivity is always constituted in and by specific historical and social contexts. Foucault understood that subjects cannot have access to the body except through discourses about the body that constrain how we might think about and understand it. Rather than requiring the repression of sexual instincts, the proliferation of discourses on the management and regulation of sexuality led individuals to view themselves as having an innate sexuality, as an extension of their character or true nature. Foucault’s primary example is the invention of homosexuality as a category of identification for men and women who participate in same-sex sexual behavior. Before the 1880s, there was no such thing as a homosexual person, nor before the 1930s was there such a term as heterosexual. Although one of the key critiques of Foucault centers on his silence about gender, many feminist scholars have used, extended, and elaborated Foucault’s work in important ways, particularly at the intersection of gender and sexuality. The most significant contribution is Butler’s (1990) work, which echoed Foucault’s challenge to biological determinism and provided an alternative understanding of gender as a set of embodied social practices. Butler (1990) argued that rather than being predestined, gender and gendered bodies are constituted through the repeated stylization of highly regulated acts and practices that, when applied to and through the body over time, give the appearance of being natural. She explained the way in which the sexed body is in fact a product of binary gender discourses, which she denoted as a “process of materialization which stabilizes over time to produce the effect of boundary, fixity, and surface we call matter” (Butler, 1993, p. 9). Thus, gender is not something that people have but something people do, a notion Butler termed “performativity.” This endless doing or practice is regulated by conformity through an alignment of sex, gender, and sexuality that she termed “the heterosexual matrix” (Butler, 1990, p. 151). The heterosexual matrix demands and organizes individual and social behavior such that compliant productions of femininity by women, masculinity by men, and heterosexuality by everyone, constitute “normal” or what Butler (1993) described as “intelligible”—recognizable or understandable—embodiment (see also Rich, 1980; Rubin, 1984). Feminist scholars have infused Foucault’s understanding of bodies as produced through regulatory and authoritative discourses with Butler’s notion of performativity to argue for the fundamental role of heterosexuality as an institutionalized, regulatory discourse that functions to produce experiences and meanings of gendered bodies (Bordo, 2000). Although Butler’s work has proven foundational to contemporary embodiment studies, critics have highlighted that Butler’s articulation of the performativity of embodied practices sometimes leaves aside the physicality of the body—that is, the ways in which illness, aging, or pregnancy inform identity and experience (Turner, 1995; Longhurst, 2001)— and also fails to consider actual differences between bodies (Schilling, 2003). For instance, Green (2008) has theorized that sexual desire should be conceptualized at both the micro and macro levels, ideally analyzing the somatization of social relations (embodiment), in addition to identifying structural predictors of sexual desire. Feminist Theories of Embodiment Given the history of the male–female binary which has constituted women as “more biological, more corporeal, and more natural than men” (Grosz, 1994, p. 14), feminists have developed alternative theoretical frameworks that recognize women’s corporeality without eliding into a naturalized, reductionistic, essentialized mind–body dualism that attributes minds to men and bodies to women (see Chapter 2, this volume). Feminists also have powerfully critiqued the historical association of the body with a range of “lesser” individuals and statuses, 763 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs including colonized people, people of color, people with disabilities, and those living in poverty, grounding these critiques in the concept of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), whereby every corporeal body is situated within, constructed, and experienced through interlocking and inseparable standpoints constituted by specific structural realities and meanings. Embodiment provides a way to understand social differences emanating from race, class, and able-bodiedness as embedded in the flesh, situated in bodies constructed through culturally and historically specific discourses (Spelman, 1990). Postcolonial and transnational scholars have drawn attention to the ways in which racial discourses intersect with sexuality discourses to constitute some bodies as closer to nature (and thus more sexually dangerous and out of control) than others (i.e., Howe & Rigi, 2009; Magubane, 2001; Minh-Ha, 1989) Shildrick and Price (1999) observed that embodiment theory enables feminist scholars to recognize and account for the materiality or physicality of female bodies (and other marginalized bodies), while at the same time interrogating our living-inbodies in a social world that informs, forms, and organizes how bodies are known and recognized. That is, embodiment theory rejects the mind–body dualism on which notions of hard-wired sexual difference have been predicated while respecting the materiality and situatedness of women’s bodies as they intersect with other structural contexts (see also de Beauvoir, 1949/2009; Irigaray, 1984). Grosz (2008) has deepened feminist embodiment theory by stressing “the virtualities, the potentialities, within biological existence that enable cultural, social, and historical forces to work with and transform that existence” (p. 24). An alternative imaginary is a “Mobius strip,” whereby mind and body are inextricably entangled (Braidotti, 1994; FaustoSterling, 2000; Grosz, 2008) within the specifics of historical and social moments and institutions. Feminist theoretical perspectives on embodiment provide insight into and understanding of how patriarchy reproduces itself and regenerates oppression in and through bodies. This work has focused explicitly on gender and sexuality as core “vectors” for the perpetuation of institutionalized heterosexuality (Bartky, 1990; Bordo, 1993; Butler, 1993). 764 Thus, feminist theorists have articulated the specific ways that bodies are under pressure to become socially inscribed as female–male or feminine– masculine (Bartky, 1990; Bordo, 1993; Young, 1990). For instance, by regimes of dieting, makeup, exercise, dress, and cosmetic surgery, women, and increasingly men, try to sculpt their bodies into shapes that reflect the dominant societal norms. Bartky (1990) explicated how women produce feminine embodiment, for instance, by taking norms of femininity into their bodies (i.e., sitting with our legs crossed, taking up as little space as possible); Young (1990) demonstrated how “throwing like a girl” is an effect of endemic yet subtle bodily training and consequential production of a body through femininity discourses about what female bodies can and cannot do. Young (1990) outlined how women learn to experience menstruation as disgusting and necessary to hide, and how women learn to apprehend their breasts as objects of (male) desire and public consumption that require constant management, compelling women to experience their breasts as alien and separate from their own sense of integrated feeling and experience. Such disciplinary practices attach not only to the production of appropriately gendered bodies but also to other aspects of bodily identity subjected to social normalization, such as race. For instance, hair straightening, bluetinted contact lenses, and surgical reconstruction of noses and lips exemplify practices that extend the hegemonic discourse of feminine beauty to “unruly” black bodies. Queer Theories of Embodiment Queer theorists have highlighted the force of institutionalized heterosexuality as heteronormativity, whereby embodying and participating as “properly” gendered heterosexual men and women is equated with normality (Sedgwick, 1990). Importantly, queer theories deconstruct the heterosexual– homosexual binary and help illuminate the ways in which non-normative bodies and sexualities help to constitute and consolidate heterosexual bodies and sexual practices as natural, normal, and prior to culture; non-normative bodies and sexualities also can instigate transformation of the social norms that contain and maintain “proper” sexuality and Sexuality and Embodiment acceptable embodiments (Berlant & Warner, 2000; Butler, 1994). These processes are produced and induced by making sexual acts and human intimacies that are not circumscribed within heteronormativity invisible or seen only as maligned or criminalized. Queer theories fuel and explain embodied practices that defy heteronormativity and thus make sexuality and bodies that are not contained by its norms into visible, knowable, and increasingly recognizable ways of being, such as dressing in drag, participating in gay pride parades, and engaging in “flaunting” (Berlant & Warner, 2000). These practices and lived experiences were described as “epistemologies of the closet” by Sedgwick (1990), meaning that knowledge about (and from) such lives, desires, and experiences was shut out or shut up rather than pathological or wrong. Queer theory and research focuses on decentering and destabilizing socially given or normative standards and identities of sexuality and gender—what has been called “upending categories”—to reveal that normalized embodiment is compelled and how it can be resisted (Halberstam, 1998). Queer theory emphasizes both the possibility and necessity of resistance to normative discourses—in particular through alternative, often previously unnamed, marginalized or demonized embodied practices. In fact, such resistance is necessary for the regulatory system of heteronormativity itself to be made visible and has the effect of showing how it can be vulnerable to change. By revealing how heteronormativity attempts to regulate and contain bodies and sexualities that do not comply, queer theory demonstrates its regulatory function through and on bodies (Butler, 1993; Moraga & Anzaldúa, 1981). One way that this theoretical perspective is utilized is by unpacking the lived embodied experiences of those who do not or refuse to embody gendered and heterosexual bodily norms, such as fat women (Shaw, 2006), feminine men (Connell, 1995), masculine women (Halberstam, 1998), and transgender people (Feinberg, 1997) Recent research on embodiment embeds queer theory within conventional research techniques to examine messy and unstable multilayered subjectivities (Epstein, 1994). Both feminist and queer theorists have been challenged for “overtextualizing” the body, that is, for focusing so much on the meanings that bodies have taken up through discourses that the corporeality or materiality of the body has been given short shrift (Braidotti, 1994; Grosz, 2008). As Connell (1995) noted, “bodies, in their own right as bodies, do matter” (p. 51). Scholarship on sexuality and embodiment comes from an array of disciplines. These embodiment theories have been useful to social science researchers’ investigation of people’s lived experience and understanding of where sexuality and embodiment meet at the individual, interpersonal, and cultural levels. Psychologists have contributed to this growing body of research and have drawn on and often developed and complicated psychological theories to articulate research questions about sexuality and bodies that are distinctly relevant to the discipline. Psychoanalytic concepts have been especially important mechanisms underlying theorized processes of embodiment. The next section reviews several key psychological theories that are important. PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES AND THE SEXUAL BODY William James (1890) understood the self, the “I,” as fundamentally embodied: “the world experienced (otherwise called ‘the field of consciousness’) comes at all times with our body as its center. . . [e]verything circles around it, and is felt from its point of view” (cited in Young, 1990, pp. 89–90). It could be argued that being embodied—that is, living, experiencing, sensing in and through one’s body, and being (in simple terms) connected with one’s body and through one’s body to oneself and to others in relational contexts—is an implicit default state of what might be considered psychologically healthy. Empirical psychology has been from the mid-1950s until quite recently oriented toward inquiry into what is broken, wrong, dysfunctional, or unhealthy (Gable & Haidt, 2005), especially in relation to sexuality (Diamond, 2006; Rutherford, 2012). Thus, psychological theories relating to embodiment most often have described processes and states of disembodiment, with an eye toward how to prevent, cure, or ameliorate disembodiment. 765 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs Disembodiment is understood in psychology as an effect of dissociation. In the literature on sexual abuse, for instance, disembodiment has been recognized as the outcome of the psyche’s response to trauma, the dissociation from knowledge (sensory, cognitive) that constitutes an ongoing state of disconnection from the felt body experience as well as from particular memories (Freud, 1900; Herman, 1992; Young, 1990). Embodiment also has been understood as a key element of identity or a sense of self, what is known or experienced “as me” (Young, 1990). Sexual subjectivity has been articulated in psychology as one’s sense, awareness, or knowledge of one’s perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires as a sexual being situated in the body; it has been articulated as including sexual body–esteem, entitlement to self-pleasure and pleasure from a partner, sexual self-efficacy, sexual agency, and reflection about sexual behavior (Fine, 1988; Hirschman, Impett, & Schooler, 2006; Horne & ZimmerGembeck, 2005; Phillips, 2000; Tolman, 1994, 2002). Identity theories position sexual subjectivity as an ongoing process of constructing and experiencing a coherent sexual self through available discourses (e.g., Hammack & Cohler, 2009; Ussher, 1989). The theory of self-objectification provides an explanation for individuals’ conscious and less conscious monitoring and shaping of their bodies to comply with conventions of “attractive” and “normal” sexual bodies. This process relies on positing (for women and gay men) the internalization of a “male (desiring) gaze,” such that a person turns her or his own body into an object, observed not only by others but also by the self. Rather than existing as a feeling subject, an individual moves a specific dimension of the social world from the interpersonal to the intraindividual to organize one’s perception of one’s body and bodily experience (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; McKinley & Hyde, 1996). This theory was developed to understand women’s relationships with their bodies under the conditions of patriarchy in which their bodies are the focus, in practices and in discourses, of male desire and originally was demonstrated as a part of women’s and not men’s psychological repertoire (Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 766 1998), although its applicability to men and ethnically diverse populations is being evaluated (e.g., Hebl, King, & Lin, 2004; Roberts & Gettman, 2004). Piran (e.g., Piran & Ross, 2005; Piran & Teall, 2012) has developed and tested the developmental theory of embodiment, which incorporates both positive or connected risk and “disrupted” embodiment and is composed of five factors: embodiment, body journey, physical freedom versus physical corseting, mental freedom versus mental corseting, and social power versus social disempowerment. Another psychological concept that is salient to embodiment is agency or choice. A critical and often-contested dimension of embodiment is the place of agency and choice in how it is conceptualized. That is, to what extent might conscious processes be involved in what people do or feel or want in, with, or for their bodies, and in what ways is embodiment predicated on unconscious processes? Some feminist theorists have discussed agency and choice as key sites of contestation around the body and sexuality (Gill, 2008). Another area in which the rhetoric of “choice” appears is in disagreements about Foucault, particularly critiques that his theory lacked the capacity for an agentic, resistant subject who could articulate and enact counterhegemonic discourses— discourses that explicitly challenge or refute what dominant practices or norms determine to be acceptable, normal, or valued (Alcoff, 1988; for a critique of this perspective, see also Lacombe, 1996). If bodily experience is constructed by hegemonic discourses, then are individuals doomed to enact and abide by its regulatory power? The psychological concept of agency is a capacity to recognize and enact choices, that is, “the ability of human beings to create viable lives even when they are constrained by social forces” (Eitzen, Baca Zinn, & Gold, 1999, p. 469). The self-determination theory model of internalization provides a framework linking the intrapsychic, social, and subjective dimensions of agency and choice: Individuals may feel autonomous while meeting social expectations as a result of internalization, a process by which Sexuality and Embodiment individuals over time increasingly come to identify with social expectations, so that subjectively they experience these constraints in a highly agentic way, that is, in a way that involves a subjective sense of autonomy or choice. (Miller, Das, & Chakravarthy, 2011, p. 46) Agency can range from conscious resistance to oppressive forces or cultural constraints to survival strategies that are neither transformative nor meant to be. Agency has been conceptualized as “strategies” of action, ranging from unconscious capitulation that does not intend resistance to the much more deliberate and organized resistances people engage in because they have the agency to do so. Furthermore, agency can be exercised as accommodation to, or resistance toward, norms and structures that manage, control, and discipline the body (Dillaway, 2011; Komter, 1989). Currently there is much debate about the place of agency and choice in relation to embodiment (Gill, 2008; Peterson, 2010), with some scholarship tackling it as a central question related to sexuality and embodiment (Albanesi, 2009). One of the key questions in this debate is how people’s understanding of their decision making may be impeded by what appears to be a set of viable choices that in fact is impoverished (Tolman, 2012). Gendered Sexual Bodies In the field of sexuality, femininity traditionally is understood as a collection of heteronormative scripts, norms, or ideologies that require women to suppress their needs and desires (Greene & Faulkner, 2005; J. Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, & Thomson, 2004), to play “gatekeeper” roles for male desire (Byers, 1995; Gagnon, 1990), and to remain ignorant about sex in general (Gagnon, 1990; J. Holland et al., 2004). At the same time, femininity also requires attending to one’s sexual body, as many scholars have pointed to the increasing pressure on women to “perfect” their genital appearances via labiaplasty and other cosmetic procedures meant to render women’s genitalia more “feminine” by making them more “virginal” or “childlike” (Braun, 2005; Braun & Kitzinger, 2001; Sanger, 2009; Tiefer, 2008). Furthermore, femininity requires constant self-surveillance and self-objectification, as women internalize an observer’s perspective and endeavor to live up to impossible standards of sexual desirability (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; J. Holland et al., 2004). Many feminists, therefore, have argued that traditional femininity ideologies play an alienating role in the lives of women, estranging them from their bodies and their sexualities (Bartky, 1990; J. Holland et al., 2004, Tolman, 2002). Indeed, women who endorse traditional femininity ideologies report experiencing less sexual agency and less comfort with their bodies during sex (Curtin, Ward, Merriweather, & Carruthers, 2011). It follows, then, that when women are thinking about their bodies during sex (high levels of body consciousness), they have less sexual self-esteem (Wiederman, 2000), experience less sexual pleasure (Sanchez & Kiefer, 2007), have more difficulty achieving orgasm (Sanchez & Kiefer, 2007), and have greater sexual anxiety (Wiederman, 2000) and emotional disengagement during sex (Yamamiya, Cash, & Thompson, 2006). This distancing of women’s psyches from their bodies during sexual encounters may make it difficult for women to negotiate safe and pleasurable sexual experiences (Curtin et al., 2011). Just as femininity plays a key role in regulating the behaviors and attitudes of women within compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1980), traditional masculine ideals prescribe what sexual activities and desires are acceptable for men (Byers, 1995; J. Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, & Thomson, 2003; J. Holland et al., 2004). Some scholars have even argued that “heterosexuality is not, as it appears to be, masculinity-and-femininity in opposition: it is masculinity” (J. Holland et al., 2004, p. 10). That is, both women and men alike are held to the standards of what J. Holland et al. (2004) have described as an internalized “male-in-the-head,” or a hegemonic, heterosexual masculine observer that resides within the minds of all people, submitting us to the surveillance of a “male gaze” (J. Holland et al., 2004; Storr, 2000). Within sexuality, traditional ideals of masculinity both include and demand urgent and insatiable heterosexual male sexual desire (Falomir-Pichastor, Manuel, & Mugny, 2009; Forrest, 2000) as well as an innate knowledge of 767 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs sexuality that requires no additional learning (Kehily, 2001). Masculinity often constructs male bodies as dominant (Kehily, 2001; Simpson, 2007) and penetrative (whereas female or feminine bodies are receptive; Forrest, 2000). Men’s first experiences with (hetero)sexual intercourse may make them feel like they are really “being a man,” and some men recall very embodied experiences of sexual pleasure in which “something mysterious happens all over your body” (Simpson, 2007, p. 177). Hegemonic masculinity intersects with race and other social identities as, for example, Black men may be presumed to have better sexual performance (Nyanzi, Rosenberg-Jallow, Bah & Nyanzi, 2005), thus positioning these men as hypermasculine and, as such, more ruled by sexual impulses and thus animalistic and in greater need of social control. The Sexual Body and Its Parts Researchers often conceptualize bodies by focusing on the particular social and cultural messages directed at particular parts of the body, particularly breasts, genitals, and other easily sexualized body parts. Consequently, a sizeable body of research has emerged that examines the particular anxieties and challenges associated with different body parts and with conceptualizations of the exposed body. In general, research on sexualized body parts suggests that compliance with social norms is expected for numerous regions of the body, whereas deviance from social norms elicits rejection and social disapproval. Studies examining nudity often have questioned the relationship between individuals and their social contexts, particularly in the public regulation and personal assessment of the nude female body. Eck (2003) found that both men and women had readily accessible cultural scripts about the naked female body (e.g., overt sexualization and acceptance), whereas the naked male body elicited more diverse and less scripted responses (e.g., feelings of guilt, rejecting the body). This may influence women’s subjective feelings about their nude bodies, as Weinberg and Williams (2010a) found that women’s positive feelings about nudity were more strongly associated with sexual behavior and pleasure compared with men and were strongly mitigated through positive relationships with their partners. 768 This suggests that compared with men, women’s feelings about nudity reference cultural scripts that imagine female nudity as only and inherently sexual. Cover (2003) noted that recent slippages have occurred between sites once considered “nonsexual” and sites imbued with the “sexual,” particularly communal showers, places where children bathe, and public nude beaches, indicating that our cultural panics surrounding nudity have extended into sites previously considered nonsexual. In more specific analyses of sexualized body parts, women’s breasts have received much attention as a site of embodiment and a locus for cultural anxieties about small versus large breasts. Millsted and Frith (2003) found that women’s breasts are invested with social, cultural, and political meanings that shape women’s understandings of their embodied selves, particularly as they associate self-worth with the size of their breasts. After interviewing eight large-breasted women, they concluded that these women experience a mix of feeling feminine and attractive while also recognizing their breasts as appropriated and consumed by others. Echoing these findings, Young (2005) asserted that breasts represent sites of conflict that reveal the depth of patriarchy, as women’s quests toward cosmetic surgery (breast enlargement and postmastectomy procedures) link femininity with the size and shape of women’s breasts. Just as breasts have signified the essence of femininity for women, the penis has signified ultimate masculinity for men. In the comparable way that small breasts often create anxiety for women, small penises have elicited subjective feelings of distress for men. The anxiety is caused, in part, by ambiguity about what constitutes “small” in a context in which size is imbued with a fundamental gender “performance.” Del Rosso’s (2011) online ethnography found that men who self-identified as having small penises felt more anxiety in face-to-face encounters with partners than in online encounters, perhaps suggesting that online sexual exchanges can mediate the negative impact of feeling that one has a small penis. Furthermore, as Nugteren et al., (2010) found in their study of men seeking treatment for small penises, the majority of men found relief with psychotherapy, although a small percentage required Sexuality and Embodiment surgery to alleviate the stressors caused by perceived small penis size. Looking more broadly at social and cultural trends, both pornography and the rise of the Viagra culture have influenced men’s experiences of “phallic embodiment,” setting larger (and harder) standards for “typical” masculinity beyond average bodies (Loe, 2007; Maddison, 2009; see Volume 2, Chapter 1, this handbook). Although both men and women face pressures to groom body hair in socially scripted ways—often with women as completely hairless and men as hairy (or, at most, increasingly “manscaped” (Boroughs, Cafri, & Thompson, 2005)—research on body hair has found that women who deviate from social scripts face more severe social punishments and rejection than do men (Fahs, 2011a). With approximately 99% of women reporting that they had removed body hair at some point in their lives (Toerien, Wilkinson, & Choi, 2005), women who do not shave their body hair face internal feelings of disgust and external appraisals of their bodies as “manly” and unattractive, suggesting that heterosexist and sexist scripts both inform assessments of body hair (Fahs, 2011a). Furthermore, women of color who choose to have body hair face more severe social penalties than White women, particularly from family members concerned with “respectability” (Fahs & Delgado, 2011). Aside from body hair (i.e., underarm, leg, facial), women have experienced increasing pressures to remove all or most of their pubic hair (Tricklebank, Braun, & Clarke, in press), with younger and partnered women reporting more frequent pubic hair removal than older and nonpartnered women (Herbenick, Schick, Reece, Sanders, & Fortenberry, 2010). Researchers also recently identified a new line of work examining women’s genital self-image, particularly how women feel about their vulvas and pubic hair. Roberts and Waters (2004) posited that because media messages convey women’s fundamental unacceptability in their natural state, women internalize ideas that they need sanitizing, deodorizing, exfoliating, and denuding (see also Bartky, 1990). These self-objectifying feelings can translate into women’s disgust toward their vaginas, menstrual cycles, and bodily functions. More precisely, researchers have developed the Female Genital Self-Image scale, finding that more positive genital self-image correlated with greater likelihood of seeking gynecological exams, particularly for women who regularly practiced vaginal penetrative intercourse (DeMaria, Hollub, & Herbenick, 2011). Associations between positive female genital self-image and women’s sexual health and functioning also have been identified (Herbenick & Reece, 2010; see Chapter 11, this volume), as women with more positive feelings toward their genitals reported more frequent vibrator use, masturbation, genital self-examinations, and gynecological visits (Herbenick et al., 2011). Perhaps because social scripts about the body remain relatively rigid, particularly for women, expectations that women will modify, alter, and conform their bodies to existing cultural standards have led to a slew of plastic surgeries promoted to women. In addition to pressures women face to enlarge their breasts, new surgeries target women’s genitals, particularly their labia and vaginas. Braun and Tiefer (2010) outlined how trends toward “disease mongering” have created new ways for women’s self-consciousness to translate into surgical procedures, including labiaplasties (e.g., removing “excess” labial tissue in a manner that produces a more child-like vulva), vaginal “rejuvenation,” and vaginal tightening. Despite the medical community finding no medically indicated reason for such surgeries, a new market of genital surgeries has arisen in the past decade (Braun, 2005). In qualitative research on women who underwent a labiaplasty, Bramwell, Morland, and Garden (2007) found that women’s expectations for how a labiaplasty would improve their sex lives did not translate into reality. Many feminists caution that plastic surgeries can instigate urgent and endless renovations of the self (M. Jones, 2008), with debates emerging about the efficacy and agency of women who undergo elective plastic surgery. Pitts (1999) has argued that when mental health discourses dominate discussions about body modification, alternative accounts of female embodiment become obscured by discussions of the “normal” and “pathological” body. Schover et al. (1995) studied women who had cancer and underwent partial mastectomies and mammoplasties and found that fewer than 20% of women reported poor psychosocial adjustment, poor body image, or poor sexual functioning, although women 769 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs who had elected chemotherapy treatments reported poorer sexual functioning and body image (see Chapter 21, this volume). Adding to these debates, Gagné and McGaughey (2002) noted that women who underwent elective mammoplasty (i.e., not postcancer reconstruction) felt greater power and control over their bodies even while embodying hegemonic ideals of feminine beauty. They argued that cosmetic surgery can empower individual women while also reinforcing ideals and norms that oppress women as a group. The Sexual Body in Action Commonly heard phrases like “sexual performance” and “sexual satisfaction” have roots in pathologizing sexuality and sexual bodies (Irvine, 1990) as well as in empirical work on these same topics, as scholars have examined the sexual body in action. Evaluating the meaning of sexual desire, sexual satisfaction, orgasm, sexual performances, and technologies exerted on (or embraced by) the sexual body have all constituted emerging areas of research in recent years. Sexual desire constitutes one of the most complex and difficult topics to assess, explore, theorize, and make claims about. As issues of safety, consent, pleasure, commitment, taboo, and cultural scripts about the “erotic” (broadly defined) fuse, research on sexual desire provides a window into the complexity of psychological research on embodiment. As a more concrete examination of desire, research has directed much recent attention to the desires and practices of young women. Sieg (2007) noted that although young women’s sexualities more recently often are portrayed as liberating and empowered, young women’s qualitative accounts of their experiences reveal discrepancies between their relational desires and relational realities in that they compromised their own needs and desires within their heterosexual relationships. Similarly, Backstrom, Armstrong, and Puentes (2012) interviewed 43 college women about their experiences with cunnilingus and found that women in relationships could expect and ask for cunnilingus, whereas women merely “hooking up” often could not unless they asserted these desires clearly. Furthermore, women in relationships alternatively found both pleasure and difficulty with cunnilingus, particularly 770 related to their partner’s feelings about it and the social scripts they had internalized about receiving oral sex (Bay-Cheng & Fava, 2011; see also Burns, Futch, & Tolman, 2011) Similar controversies surrounding the meaning of sexual satisfaction and orgasm have also appeared in recent literatures on embodiment. Deciding how to measure sexual satisfaction, along with considerations about how satisfaction may interact with social identities and social justice concerns, has been taken up in McClelland’s (2010) call for better understandings of social and sexual stigmas as antecedents to sexual satisfaction ratings. Fahs and Swank (2011) found sexual satisfaction and sexual activity as often misaligned. In particular, younger women, women of color, less educated women, and lower socioeconomic status women describe having low sexual satisfaction and high sexual activity. Social identity variables also appeared as significant in a recent study by Seal, Smith, Coley, Perry, and Gamez (2008), who found that age differentials between partners and the presence of a Black male partner predicted more traditional interpersonal scripts about sexuality. Research on orgasm also has revealed much about the way men and women internalize scripts about sexual normality and “acceptable” desires. Fahs (2011b) found that women faked orgasm for a number of reasons, primarily to please their (male) partners, to end the encounter (often because of fatigue), and to seem sexually normal. Jackson and Scott (2007) theorized the gendered dimensions of women faking orgasm and noted that the production of fake orgasms signifies the quintessential problems of conceptualizing embodiment too broadly: namely, broad sociological views on embodiment neglect the more concrete modes in which material gendered bodies behave in everyday life. Theoretical accounts of orgasm have given new and fruitful direction to the study of the sexual body in action. Performance artist Frueh (2003) explored orgasm as an artistic expression, whereas Jagose (2010) asserted that the fake orgasm reveals the counterfeit nature of heterosexual sex by showing the pleasures inherent in a queer deconstruction of heterosexual penetrative intercourse. Sexuality and Embodiment Along these lines, embodiment researchers have examined, theoretically and empirically, the notion of performances of the sexual body. Although the concept of “sexual performance” has a long history in sexuality research and therapy (i.e., Kaplan, 1974), the performance of the sexual body in action refers to productions and enactments of certain forms of embodiment rather than achievement by specific body parts. The ways people consume sexuality and perform sexuality has cast a wide net, capturing research not only on body norms but also sexual desire, practices, and feelings. As Weber (1998) argued, sexual performances can expand widely (e.g., the nation state) or remain incredibly detailed and small (e.g., the individual orgasm). In particular, embodiment researchers have captured the ways women manage others’ anxieties about their bodies by performing their own bodies within certain socially prescribed limits. Fahs (2011a) argued that much of contemporary women’s sexuality reflects the simultaneously liberating and disempowering aspects of sexual performance, particularly when women fake orgasms, pretend bisexuality at parties in front of men, discuss female Viagra, and minimize sexual coercion and violence as “okay” or “not really rape.” Women learn to manage their identities and “do gender” (West & Zimmerman, 1987) in particular ways that conform to, and rebel against, cultural and social expectations. Berkowitz (2006) found that women and men manage their self-presentation and negotiate gender performances even in adult novelty stores, where people both enact and resist hegemonic masculinity, femininity, and compulsory heterosexuality. Ultimately, questions have arisen about the benefits and problems of adhering to traditional performances of gender and sexuality, particularly for the embodied self. In a review of the empirical literature, Sanchez, Fetterolf, and Rudman (2012) found that traditional gender role adherence had negative consequences for women’s sexuality and led to more sexual problems and less sexual satisfaction. When women internalized traditional connections between sexuality and male power, and when men enacted such connections, both men and women experienced less rewarding and authentic sexual expressions (see Chapter 2, this volume). To address other performances of male sexuality, Jewkes and Morrell (2010) found that enacting black African manhood that emphasized toughness, strength, and prodigious sexual success was associated with more sexual risktaking, as men resisted condoms and HIV treatment, whereas women who espoused this perspective were more tolerant of infidelity and violence. In a more subversive example, Shapiro’s (2007) study of drag kings found that intentional transgressive performances of gender encouraged interrogation, play, and adoption of new social roles, as gender performances formed the basis for “oppositional communities” of differently embodied selves. Sexual performances are beholden to their particular social and political contexts, particularly as women adopt new ways to attract the sexually endorsing male gaze. An increasing number of studies have interrogated the phenomenon of women engaging in same-sex eroticism for the viewing benefit of men (Diamond, 2005). Just as Fahs (2009) theorized this “performative bisexuality” as a potentially new manifestation of compulsory heterosexuality, Hamilton (2007) also found that college women affiliated with the Greek party scene catered to male sexual desire by performing interest in same-sex eroticism and by rejecting lesbians because of their assumed disinterest in garnering men’s sexual attention. Yost and McCarthy (2012) found that 33% of college women had engaged in same-sex kissing at college parties, while 69% of college men and women had observed this behavior. High levels of alcohol consumption, pressure to engage in same-sex kissing, heterosexist attitudes, and the belief that college is a time for experimentation predicted greater likelihood of women engaging in public same-sex eroticism at college parties (see Chapter 20, this volume). As a more literal example of the performing sexual body, sexualized dancing also has appeared in the contemporary literatures on women’s embodiment. Regehr (2012) has theorized the increasing popularity of recreational burlesque dancing as enhancing women’s feelings of empowerment and self-efficacy even while connecting to a history of women offering their bodies for men’s visual consumption (e.g., pornography and strip clubs). In an interview study of young women contestants on a burlesque reality television show in which they 771 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs spent 6 weeks learning techniques to perform, Regehr found that some of the women shifted from an exclusive focus on looking at their bodies to beginning to feel more sexy or sexy once again through engagement in a sexualized practice that was new to them. She found that by the final performance, these women were more focused on their own embodied experiences, with an imagined viewership that was present but also receded as their own practice had developed. Looking at sexualized dancing at college parties, Ronen (2010) described this dancing in less liberating terms, finding that men initiated sexual “grinding” more often than women and thus reproduced systematic gender inequalities by limiting women’s access to agency and pleasure because of men’s control of, and intrusion into, women’s space. In this dancing, women had to privilege men’s pleasures over their own while confirming men’s higher status. Similar arguments could be made for the appropriation of stripping into “strip aerobics,” as it packages “women’s empowerment” within the guise of something that reveals the “everyday” aspects of sexual exploitation (Whitehead & Kurz, 2009). Performances of sexuality also can extend into the realm of reproductive technology, as ideas about gender and power infuse medical understandings of the body and its processes. Embodiment scholars have found clear connections among gender, embodiment, and reproductive control. Carpenter and Casper (2009) examined public debates about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, known to prevent many cervical cancers, and found that attempts to mandate HPV vaccination have activated intense concerns about adolescent girls’ “promiscuity,” whereas discourses surrounding the promotion of male circumcision to prevent HIV have not triggered similar anxieties around boys’ sexuality. Such technologies also can become a mechanism to reproduce meanings of gender and sexuality as they interact with age and race. Along these lines, Lowe (2005) found that although women can access contraceptive technologies and assert bodily autonomy by controlling their reproduction, this conflicts with dynamics present in heterosexual couplings that demand attention to, and concern with, men’s preferences and needs, sometimes at women’s expense. 772 Angulo-Olaiz (2009) found that Latina women struggled with prioritizing sexual health because of gendered perceptions of love and motherhood, associations between commitment and sexual risktaking, and unequal access to economic opportunities. In discussions of sexual safety and condom use, women as the carriers of disease have appeared frequently, particularly in discussions of the HPV vaccine (Carpenter & Casper, 2009). Analyzing research findings on safer heterosexual practices, Vitellone (2002) found that heterosexual masculine self-identity, rather than avoidance of disease or risk, plays a key role in the creation of discourse surrounding condoms. Technologies of sexual embodiment can be understood as medical or technological efforts to create particular kinds of desires, appearances, or sexual norms as enacted onto the embodied female self. As a quintessential example, the rise of Viagra (Loe, 2006) and experimentation with female Viagra and sexual performance drugs (e.g., flibanerin, sildenafil; Fahs, 2011a) exemplify the medicalization of sexual performance. Feminists, particularly Tiefer (2004), have devoted significant critical attention to the widespread advertisement and dispersion of Viagra, noting that it prescribes not only medicalized erections but also incites desire for “overperformance,” while ignoring the sociocultural bases of sexual desire and performance. Demonstrating the necessity of seeing Viagra as socially situated, Castro-Vásquez (2006) posited that the introduction of Viagra in Japan coincided with anxieties about pollution, men’s unwillingness to perform their “appropriate” gender roles, decreased adherence to marriage norms, and declining birth rates. A similar study of New Zealand men conducted by Grace, Potts, Gavey, and Vares (2006) found that Viagra connects with men seeing their partner’s pleasure as a measure of success and their own sexuality as based in performance. Conversely, Loe (2004) found that women in the United States did not view Viagra as universally positive, as some aging women were becoming less interested in sex at the same time as their longtime partners were now having pharmaceutically induced erections. Lifestyle drugs that refashion the body according to socially acceptable or socially demanded criteria Sexuality and Embodiment carry with them the need for caution and concern by those who advocate social views of sexuality. Marshall (2006) cautioned that Viagra represents not only the medicalization of sexuality but also the expansion of consumer culture and the manufactured notion of the “sexual expert” who decides what “normal” sexual functioning looks like, thus normalizing and defining dysfunction according to pharmaceutical priorities. Mamo and Fishman (2001) argued that Viagra, much like antidepressants, performs ideological work and reinforces traditional notions of hegemonic masculinity (e.g., erection as “manly”). Marshall (2006) noted that Viagra has created new standards for male virility by distorting the naturally occurring declines in virility that coincide with age. Nuancing this claim, Wentzell (2011) studied Mexican men from different generations and noted that younger men expressed more interest in Viagra than older men, although these younger men wanted to use it to sustain positive marital sexual attachments rather than in the service of machismo. Still, opportunities for resistance to these medically reinforced social scripts abound, as some have found ways to subvert the intended uses of Viagra in meaningful ways. Holt (2009) found that medical understandings of Viagra as a drug guaranteed to produce erectile performance compared with gay men’s recreational use of Viagra produces questions about the public health and social understandings of safe sex and “good” sex within different subcultures of men. Potts (2004) theorized that although Viagra has created new definitions of “normal” sexuality, its inconsistent ability to induce consistent erections and the failure of female Viagra underscore the necessity for experimentation, creativity, and transformation in the erotic realm. As a note on the future of the performing sexual body, the development of, and failure to gain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for, female sexual desire disorder drugs have illuminated additional gendered debates about the medicalization of sexuality. More than a decade has passed since the FDA approved Viagra for men in 1998, and a successful female counterpart has yet to be produced (Hartley, 2006; Tiefer, 2006), suggesting that sexual dysfunction among men and women may differ more than had been previously assumed (McHugh, 2006; Tiefer, 2006; see also Chapters 7 and 8, this volume). The New View campaign, a group of feminist researchers, activists, and therapists who work on female sexuality, has articulated a critical stance toward the medicalization of women’s sexual problems (Cacchioni, 2007; Tiefer, 2001, 2010). The campaign has fought against the increasingly automatic and first response to women’s concerns with their sexual bodies to be medicalizing women’s desires, orgasms, or physiological functioning. The campaign claims that such medicalization of women’s bodies obfuscates and suppresses more complex understandings of women’s sexual functioning. Hartley (2006) reported that for drug companies to effectively create a market for FSD drugs, they had to problematize or “disease” the vicissitudes of women’s sexuality while also promoting off-label uses of men’s Viagra to women. Consequently, drug companies have promoted FSD as increasingly widespread and have worked to infuse mainstream media with ideas about the “failing” female sexual body (Hartley & Tiefer, 2003). Recognizing that what constitutes “normal” sexual functioning for women is complex and ambiguous at best (see Chapter 8, this volume), an embodied analysis of the social underpinnings of the market for drugs demonstrates how discourses about sexual bodies can be leveraged into bodily experience, individual and social practices, and social policy. THE SEXUAL BODY ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN As sexuality develops across the life span, so does the sexual body itself. Corporeal changes in physiology and hormones are infused with social meanings. Social meanings and corporeality shift inextricably over the course of a life. Embodiment itself is both continuous, as embodied processes are always already infused in the development of sexuality, and dynamic in form and experience. Childhood Studies of childhood sexuality are generally few and far between (Sandfort & Rademakers, 2000; see Chapter 14, this volume), and they tend to focus 773 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs almost exclusively on sexual abuse (Bancroft, 2003; Ryan, 2000). Other weaknesses of this literature include an overreliance on retrospective accounts (Graham, 2003) and an overemphasis on charting and tabulating the specific behaviors in which children engage (Friedrich, 2003). Although some studies have begun to focus on children’s sexual identities and sexual cultures, and in particular have explored how heteronormativity organizes these aspects of sexuality as early as the childhood years (Renold, 2005), inquiry into embodied dimensions of childhood sexuality remains scarce. Because the notion of childhood sexuality poses a profound threat to hegemonic notions of childhood as a time of innocence, children are denied knowledge about sexuality and any form of sexual citizenship (Angelides, 2004; Renold, 2005; Robinson, 2012). The prohibition on knowledge of childhood sexuality extends to children’s apprehension of their own bodily feelings (Lamb, 2001; Sandfort & Rademakers, 2000). We know little about whether children’s embodied feelings, experiences of arousal, and genital sensations can even be considered sexual (Ryan, 2000), and what expected development of these bodily sensations and experiences entails (Lamb & Coakley, 1993). Western societies generally relegate children’s sexual feelings to a liminal developmental state called “emerging sexuality” (Renold, 2005, p. 37), which prepares the child for adult sexuality but is itself inherently incomplete. There is disagreement about whether children’s sexual play is actually sexual or just another form of play (Renold, 2005; Robinson, 2012) or evidence of sexual abuse (Hyde, 2003). We also do not understand the degree to which children’s developing cognitive capacities shape their capacity for making meaning of pleasurable feelings in the body as sexual (Robinson, 2012). In the few studies that have incorporated questions about children’s bodily experiences of sexuality, it remains difficult to resolve these questions. Some studies have traced how girls transition from child to adolescent in middle school, by repositioning these subjectivities through embodied activities, such as from “innocent play” to the “heterosexualization of boy-girl friendships” (Renold, 2006, p. 495), in which girls begin to experience and engage with boys as potential boyfriends rather than playmates (see also Hauge, 2009). 774 In one study of young children’s body awareness and physical intimacy (Rademakers, Laan, & Straver, 2003), researchers interviewed 31 children 8 to 9 years old and their parents, about romping, cuddling, and being in love. Most children enjoyed cuddling because of the bodily sensations or feeling of safety they felt, and many more of the children than their parents said that children need cuddling; more than half said they had been in love, said it was positive, “nice,” “fun,” and a “tickling sensation” (Rademakers et al., 2003, p. 124). When shown a naked same-sexed body, all children were able to identify what were “pleasant” parts for them, with fewer indicating “exciting”; even fewer indicated that genitals, bottom, or anus were either “exciting” or “pleasant” parts of their own bodies. No gender differences were identified. Although there is evidence that both boys and girls masturbate in childhood (Strachan & Staples, 2012), there is little inquiry into what these experiences feel like for them, in either prospective or retrospective reports. Herdt and McClintock (2000) have argued for a “magical age of 10,” when awareness of sexual feelings and attractions as distinctly sexual—and the emergence of unequivocally sexual subjectivity—is associated with an interplay between adrenarche (maturational increase in adrenal androgen production) and changing cultural meanings and roles. In their formulation, these braided developments mark the prepubertal shift from childhood to adolescent sexuality. Although their theory is anchored in an overview of cross-cultural studies, no systematic or empirical work has confirmed this model, specifically the critical role that they posit for adrenal androgens in this transition. Adolescence The body offers and has been imbued with meanings associated with the emergence of adult sexuality over the course of adolescence. One key and increasingly troubled bodily focus has been the loss of virginity, typically defined, and instantly problematized, as the first experience of sexual intercourse. Even the term “loss” has been challenged as positioning this experience as both passive and commodified. The emergence of “secondary virginity” is an exquisite case in point, a reclamation discourse Sexuality and Embodiment arising out of the abstinence-only movement whereby both girls and boys who have had sexual intercourse could proclaim the status of virginity contingent on their desire and commitment to not having sex overriding their bodily history (Loewenson, Ireland, & Resnick, 2004). Most of the literature on embodied adolescent sexuality has focused on girls’ experiences, primarily because this literature rests on cultural assumptions that adolescent boys’ sexual experiences are predicated on bodily (and unbridled) sexual desire and the complementary assumption of girls either not having or not acting on their own sexual feelings (Fine, 1988; J. Holland & Thomson, 2010; Tolman, 2006). These discursive studies are organized by questions of how young people “take up” subject positions, identified by how they describe their experiences, that is, what discourses they use to make sense of their sexual and relational experiences. Other studies within this conceptual context address how young people experience, make meaning of, and negotiate their sexual desires and other dimensions of sexual experiences. This research situates girls’ and boys’ embodied practices within the theoretical framework of heteronormativity, investigating how constructions of femininity and masculinity underpin and shape their individual bodily experiences (e.g., Epstein, Calzo, Smiler, & Ward, 2009; Impett, Henson, Breines, Schooler, & Tolman, 2011). Another set of questions is how adolescents constitute, are constituted by, and also resist heteronormativity in and via their bodies in their (primarily heterosexual) relationships (Hauge, 2009; Maxwell & Aggleton, 2010; Renold & Ringrose, 2011). In particular, this line of research has investigated how feminine heterosexual practices embody the power relations through which masculinity and femininity are constructed (Burns et al., 2011; J. Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, & Thomson, 1994; J. Holland et al. 2004; Martin, 1996; Pascoe, 2007; Tolman, 2002). J. Holland et al. (1994) found that for most of the 150 diverse young women in their narrative study, who for the most part provided disembodied accounts of sexual experience, they heard “points of tension where physical bodies interrupt idealized relationships” (p. 23). The disembodiment required and produced by enacting practices of proper femininity, regimes of dress and diet, and subsequent alienation from their material or sensate bodies yielded pressure on girls to be passive objects of others’ sexual desire (J. Holland & Ramazanoglu, 1994). They found that girls’ concern about their reputations and having to contend with both the specter and experience of sexual coercion and violence (see also Burns et al., 2011; Tolman, 1994, 2002) produced at best struggles with their sexual feelings and responses. For some, “normal sex” did not include a girl’s sexual pleasure but did require faking orgasm; one girl expressed her surprise at having a real orgasm, when she had understood faking as part of “normal sex.” These authors’ notion of “the male in the head,” those heteronormative demands of a set of sexual practices predicated on patriarchal surveillance and organization of sexuality around male sexual needs, dominated the accounts they heard. J. Holland et al. (2004) did hear of girls’ resistance to embodied femininity in the realm of sexual practices in this research. More often, “experiential empowerment,” that is, enacted within and through the body, was overridden by “intellectual empowerment,” in which girls’ belief in their ability to choose sexual agency was difficult to play out. Enactments of “good” and “bad” girl performances, through sexualized clothing to explicit sexual agency, have been found to fluctuate between stark and ambiguous, with girls balancing the benefits and costs of these mutually reinforcing embodiments and also maintaining ambiguity about meanings (Gleeson & Frith, 2004; Hauge, 2009). Interviews with young men have revealed the tensions between the variability in their actual bodily sexual feelings and the flat yet powerful message of being “up for it” all the time (J. Holland & Thomson, 2010). These researchers noted the difficulty of discerning embodied sexual experience through talk, given the limited language for, and social condemnation and even titillation of, talking explicitly about sex and sexual activity. In a recent reflection on the continuity and changes in young people’s sexual experiences, J. Holland and Thomson (2010) found that although the cultural milieu is far more sexualized than it was a decade ago, with pornography being part of the mainstream, 775 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs sexual diversity being visible, and information about condoms and contraception being more available, for young people, negotiating heterosexuality remains “fragile and uncertain” (p. 348). The array of discourses about the bodies and sexualities of girls, and to some extent, boys, of diverse ethnicities and socioeconomic statuses has been explicated in this area of research (French, 2012). Tolman (2002; Tolman & Szalacha, 1999) found continuities and distinctions in the desire narratives of girls in urban and suburban contexts in which (urban) Black and Latina girls’ negotiation of assumed hypersexuality was evident in their struggles to embody their sexuality and (suburban) White girls navigated assumptions of an absence of sexual feelings in their own bodies. Curtis (2009) described “the geography of girls’ sexual pleasure” (p. 151) in her study of girls’ sexuality on Nevis using surveys, focus groups, and individual interviews with girls ages 12–17 years old. Focusing on the context of a changing social landscape in which new discourses and images of female sexual pleasure infuse traditional beliefs about sex and women’s sexuality, she found that girls described experiences of intense physical sexual pleasure in an array of sexual contexts—the first willingly bestowed kiss, the negotiation of sexual progression with overeager boyfriends, and the endurance of the pain of first intercourse. Although sexual pleasure wove through these girls’ narratives, sexual coercion often anchored their stories (see also, Fine & McClelland, 2006; Tolman, 1994; Vance, 1984). That is, embodied sexual pleasure for these young women was clear and present even as they engaged in experiences that they resisted or did not want. Another line of research has investigated sexual subjectivity, the sense and experience of the self as sexual, which is predicated in part on experience anchored in the body and has been considered in relation to sexual health. Curtin et al. (2011) observed that concerns about body image or discomfort with one’s body can make it difficult to experience one’s own body and sexual pleasure in sexual activity. They found a relationship between diverse young women objectifying their own bodies and both body comfort and body self-consciousness around sexual partners. Impett and Tolman (2006) 776 found that young women with a stronger sense of self as sexual were more likely to experience sexual satisfaction. Ringrose (2013) suggested that narratives told by early adolescent girls in individual interviews and mixed-ethnicity focus groups reflect combinations of simultaneous resistance to and desire for sexual subjectivities predicated on being the object of a male sexual gaze, undergirded by the possible presence of their own desires. Maxwell and Aggleton (2012) examined how young women described and understood their own bodies in their sexual and relational encounters with boys. The majority of young women in the study described sexually feeling bodies, including “sparks” and “sexual tensions” in their narratives (Maxwell & Aggleton, 2012, p. 314). Acting in relation to their physical responses for and to another person, participants narrated confidence and a sense of their bodies as powerful. Maxwell and Aggleton suggested that these narratives reflect these girls’ bodies as providing a space for becoming more knowledgeable and comfortable with their sexuality and grounding their choices about how they wanted to be sexual. They concluded that these narratives illuminate four agentic practices within and beyond sexual interactions anchored in these girls’ bodily sexual experiences: assertive, refusing, proactive, and interrogative strategies. Although there is now a fast-growing literature on the development of gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity construction (Diamond, 2005; Thompson & Morgan, 2008; see Chapters 19 and 20, this volume), including uses of the body to construct and convey resistance to heteronormative expectations to produce these identities, actual sexual experiences of sexual-minority young (or older) people have received insufficient attention by researchers. Diamond’s developmental study of 89 sexualminority women over a 10-year period identified “fluidity” in women’s sexuality, such that their attractions and behaviors changed over time, suggesting shifting embodied sexual feelings. She concluded that many women’s desires may not be fixed on a particularly gendered object. In comparison, the research on young sexual-minority men’s emerging sexual desire indicates more stability in desire for other men (e.g., Ainsworth & Baumeister, 2012). Sexuality and Embodiment Boislard & Zimmer-Gembeck (2011) found that young women with a history of same-sex sexual experience and a monogamous steady partner reported a greater sense of entitlement to self-pleasure and more self-efficacy in their sexual pleasure. Adulthood Most of this chapter is about embodiment and sexuality among adults, but several specific dimensions can be noted from a life span perspective. Expectations that sexual practices become associated with bodily sexual satisfaction, especially for women, consolidate for adults. Some research has demonstrated associations for women between their feelings about their bodies and their experiences of their sexual desire or arousal, that is, their feelings in their bodies, whereas some research has demonstrated positive perceptions of one’s body and increases in levels in sexual desire, especially in midlife and as women age (Woertman & Brink, 2012). In her clinical and theoretical work, Young (1990) elaborated explicitly how dissociation induced by sexual trauma can produce disembodiment among women, particularly dissociation or disconnection from sexual feelings. Sanchez and Kiefer (2007) found that body shame led to sexual self-consciousness during intercourse, which in turn predicted lower sexual arousability and less sexual satisfaction. These studies did not investigate differences by race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Questions of embodiment are raised rather than explained by these findings. In general, whereas bodily sexual feelings associated with sexual orientation has been an area of study (see the section The Sexual Body in Action earlier in this chapter), explicit experiences of the actual (i.e., “the heaving, sweating”) body engaged in sexual expression have been studied even less among heterosexuals. Although “controlling images” (Collins, 1990) of Black and Latina women’s sexuality have been explicated (e.g., Miller-Young, 2010, M. Ward & Wyatt, 1994; Zavella, 2008), the impact of those stereotypes on experiences of embodied sex itself among people of color is largely unexplored. Shildrick (2005) has delineated the anxiety that bodily disconformity and limited bodily control characterizing disabled people and their sexuality incites in able-bodied individuals about their own sexuality (see the section BodyRelated Disobedience later in this chapter). McClelland (2011) has problematized our knowledge of sexual satisfaction among marginalized populations not only because of inadequate sampling but because assumptions of sexual entitlement (to bodily pleasure in particular) infuse the very items of scales used to measure bodily satisfaction. Dimensions and parts of the sexual body that are taken up in reproduction also have been studied (see Chapter 23, this volume). Roberts and Waters (2004) observed that mandates of femininity demanding that women keep their bodies sanitized and deodorized mean that menstruation must be “kept under wraps” (p. 5). Roberts (2004) found that the more women self-objectified, that is, viewed themselves as sexual objects, the more likely they were to associate their menstruating bodies with disgust, shame, and embarrassment. Although the phenomenon of women’s pregnant bodies becoming newly sexualized in the media has been elaborated (Oliver, 2010), experiences of their own bodies as sexual (e.g., having sexual desires or feelings) during pregnancy have not been studied. In a study of White breastfeeding mothers, Reich (2011) found women having to negotiate even potential exposure of their breasts in public as a violation of norms of femininity and sexuality, in which case the embodiment of their breasts as providing sustenance to their babies ironically violated the sanctioned embodiment of their breasts as providing sexual excitement as objects of desire. In a phenomenological study of menopausal hot flashes, Dillaway (2011) found, among primarily heterosexual, Black and White women from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, that the physical sensation, while mostly intense, was less distressing than the visibility and sense of loss of bodily control. In addition, these women also felt they had violated cultural norms of proper female comportment, what Dillaway called “nontransformative acts of agency” (2011, p. 205), managing the evidence of this bodily change in their individual bodies but not purposefully refusing to comply with restrictive cultural norms. Middle-class White women also reported that having their bodies become menopausal was a positive experience, liberating them from concerns 777 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs about contraception and ushering in greater sexual enjoyment (Dillaway, 2005; Loe, 2004). In a single study of the association between being nude and experiencing sexual pleasure among 184 heterosexual men and women, Weinberg and Williams (2010a) found that comfort with one’s nude body was associated with a sexually expansive point of view but with sexual pleasure only for women. They also found that women’s feeling objectified interfered with their sexual intimacy and pleasure. They explained these feelings in part as an effect of structured gender inequality and acknowledged the study’s race and age limitations. Although there is research on gay men’s sexual embodiment (see the section Sexual-Minority Men’s Sexual Embodiment later in this chapter), there is surprisingly little study of heterosexual men’s embodiment of sexuality (Marshall & Katz, 2002), outside of medicalized sexual function (see the section Body-Related Disobedience later in this chapter). In their study, Weinberg and Williams (2010a) found that although some men felt self-conscious about penis size, their experiences of their bodies as sexual were not affected. In one study of men’s experience of masturbation for in vitro fertilization semen collection, Inhorn (2007) found this process especially anxiety provoking for Muslim men, for whom masturbation is an act of impurity (see also Moore, 2007). Sperm itself is a new disembodied commodity that is ironically very much of the body of individual (sexual) men but is now accessible outside of sexual relationships through sperm banking, producing a panicked disembodiment of fatherhood among some and freedom of choice about a variety of reproductive technologies (and embodiments) among others (Moore, 2007). Sexuality among aging adults has become an emergent area of study, as social norms have changed to represent greater acceptance of sexuality in late life, and as consumer markets have endeavored to create and sustain a new target population for sexuality-related products and services (Katz & Marshall, 2003; see Chapter 17, this volume). Apart from research related to sexual dysfunction, some research on older women’s sexual embodiment finds a mix of resistance to stereotypes of declining sexual interest as well as growing discomfort with the 778 evident sexuality of older people. For instance, some older women report active resistance to stereotypes and cultural mandates about the inevitability of low sexual interest in late life and the increasing asexuality of the aging body. In fact, Loe (2004) found that some aging heterosexual women continue to pursue pleasure, for example reporting regular vibrator use, and also reporting frustration because of a lack of male sexual partners and men’s loss of sexual function. These studies contradict the notion that older women are more interested in cuddling and emotional intimacy than sexual pleasure. Quite to the contrary, one woman noted that “cuddling gets you hot and bothered and you need a man down there” (Loe, 2004, p. 308). Even as new representations of aging bodies as “sexy oldies” are emerging, older and more repressive notions persist. One study found that older women (ages 45–89) in a focus group study reacted with disgust to open discussions and representations of sexuality in later life, finding these images “unwatchable” (Vares, 2009, p. 520). Dickerson and Rousseau (2009) describe aging Black women’s sexuality as obsolescent, their bodies rendered invisible in the sexual landscape. There is an absence of research on aging lesbian, gay, and bisexual people’s experiences with their sexual bodies. SEXUAL-MINORITY SEXUAL BODIES The sexual bodies of sexual-minority people constitute compelling material challenges to compulsory heterosexuality. By demanding and enacting sexuality, sexual expression, and gender expression that elude and defy the terms of heterosexuality, sexualminority sexual bodies demonstrate and demand recognition of the variability of sexuality. Regardless of debates about the etiology of sexual-minority sexualities, embodiments outside of heterosexuality raise fundamental questions about its legitimacy and justification (see Chapter 18, this volume). Sexual-Minority Men’s Sexual Embodiment Traditional notions of power in sexual relationships draw on ideals of masculinity and femininity within heterosexual couplings. Conventional understandings of sexuality, when applied to sexual-minority Sexuality and Embodiment men, would suggest that more masculine men should occupy the “top” or penetrative position during anal sex, whereas less masculine men or feminine men occupy the “bottom” or receptive position (Hoppe, 2011; Kippax & Smith, 2001). Thus, “tops” may be presumed to hold more power than “bottoms,” and this position is assumed to be one of domination (Kippax & Smith, 2001). Although many sexual-minority men have fear or anxiety about being anally penetrated (Middelthon, 2002), it also can be considered masculine and powerful to “take it like a man” as the “bottom” (Dowsett, Williams, Ventuneac, & Carballo-Dieguez, 2008; Middelthon, 2002; Ridge, 2004), and these “bottoms” expressed feelings of embodied pleasure that they attributed to the very act of pleasing their partners and giving up their power (Hoppe, 2011). Power is also visible in the sexualized body images of sexual-minority men (Kong, 2002; Pyle & Klein, 2011). Traditionally, the gay male community has valued and rewarded male bodies that are young, White, thin, muscular, and hairless (Duncan, 2010; Kong, 2002; Poon & Ho, 2008; Pyle & Klein, 2011). Despite the fact that these narrow prescriptions may facilitate body image dissatisfaction among sexual-minority men (Duncan, 2010), in recent years, sexual-minority men whose bodies do not conform to this ideal, or who are attracted to men whose bodies do not fit this ideal, have created alternative spaces for sexual expression (Pyle & Klein, 2011; Shiu-Ki, 2004). In this way, “chubs,” “bears,” and “chasers”—as well as non-White, hairy, or other male bodies that do not conform—challenge the existing power dynamics within the gay male community (Pyle & Klein, 2011). In attempting to limit the spread of HIV and practice safe sex, sexual-minority men, regardless of serostatus, must monitor their embodied feelings of sexual desire and pleasure. Sexual-minority men frequently articulate that they are not solely interested in sexual pleasure but also crave intimacy, love, and romance (Slavin, 2009). As condom use is seen as detracting from intimacy (Dowsett et al., 2008; Villaamil & Jociles, 2011), spontaneity (Davis, 2002), and pleasure (Davis, 2002; Dowsett, 2003; Villaamil & Jociles, 2011), sexual-minority men sometimes find it difficult to negotiate a balance between intense sexual desire, arousal, or pleasure and safe sex practices. The Internet and social networking websites increasingly have been employed by men seeking other men with whom to engage in sexual activities (Dowsett et al., 2008; see Volume 2, Chapter 3, this handbook). Men using this technology often enact inscribed embodiment in their performances of masculinity and “macho talk” in their interactions with other users and, indeed, following Butler (1990), do gay (Dowsett et al., 2008; White, 2010). Sexual-Minority Women’s Sexual Embodiment Unlike the empirical research on sexual-minority men, sexuality research focused on sexual-minority women is decidedly less sexually embodied. That is, although the research on sexual-minority men focuses on actual bodies in sexual acts (e.g., “tops” vs. “bottoms,” power dynamics during sex, negotiating desire and condom use during sex), and how these acts are interpreted by the actors, research on sexual-minority women’s embodied sex lives remains sparse. The following research focuses mainly on how sexual-minority women relate to their social worlds rather than to one another. This is a shortcoming in the literature on sexual minorities’ sexual embodiment and likely reflects the widespread bias in research on same-sex sexuality toward male sexuality. In a fashion complementary to sexual-minority men, sexual-minority women are socialized in a culture that values traditional notions of heterosexual performance and especially normative femininity among women (Rooke, 2007). Within the lesbian community, however, a variety of socially inscribed gender performances have come into acceptance, including “butch” (more “masculine” gender presentations) and “femme” (more “feminine” gender presentations; J. Walker, Golub, Bimbi, & Parson, 2012). Sexual-minority women are sometimes complicit in gender policing: “gaydar,” or the ability for sexual-minority women to identify one another, often relies on bodily performances of female masculinity, which excludes sexual-minority women with feminine or conventionally heterosexual gender presentations (Levitt & Horne, 2008; L. Walker, 2001). Gender presentations often are assumed to 779 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs translate to sexual behaviors among sexual-minority women, in that “butch” women are presumed to be more sexually aggressive, and “femme” women are presumed to be more receptive. These stereotypes are not supported by the research, however, which instead suggests that sexual behaviors among sexual-minority women are fluid across labels or gender-specific identities and socially inscribed embodiments of gender (J. Walker et al., 2012). Sexual-minority women historically have been denied legitimacy through discourses that render invisible the possibilities of eroticism between women (Farquhar, 2000; Rooke, 2007). For example, defining female–female sex has been challenging, with sexual activity between women often conceived as mutual genital stimulation (Rothblum, 1994). This definition overlooks many other important erotic behaviors pursued between women (Rothblum, 1994) ranging from kissing (Ussher & Mooney-Somers, 2000) to bondage and exhibitionism (Tomassilli, Golub, Bimbi, & Parsons, 2009). The concepts of choice and agency play out in the lives of sexual-minority women in unique ways. Some scholars have argued that female–female relationships exemplify female sexual agency in sexualminority women’s ability to choose a wider range of supportive and intimate partners and network structures than those who fit neatly into heterosexual norms (Weeks, Heaphy, & Donovan, 2001) and that sexual-minority women are more able to attend to their own sexual desires rather than to the desires of someone else (Hammers, 2008). Still, others demonstrate how such agency is moderated by social class (McDermott, 2009), race (Tomassilli et al., 2009), and other social factors (Blackwood, 2005; Hammers, 2008; Pasko, 2010). Nevertheless, women with a history of same-sex sexual experience tend to have higher sexual entitlement and sexual self-efficacy overall (Boislard & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2011). Although we have used the phrase “sexualminority” instead of lesbian to include the full range of individuals with same-sex attractions and behavior, regardless of identification, it bears noting that the vast majority of research on sexual minorities has focused on openly identified lesbians and openly identified gay men. The literature on sexual embodiment among bisexually identified individuals is 780 nearly nonexistent. One possible explanation for this dearth is that “sexual embodiment” is a concept that refers to bodies in sexual relationships and that for bisexually identified men and women, unless they are having sex with men and women simultaneously, each individual sexual relationship they may have likely would be with either a man or a woman. These embodied sexual experiences, then, might fall into the literatures on either gay and lesbian sexual embodiment or heterosexual embodiment. Still, some empirical work specifically has explored bisexuals’ experiences, especially those of women. Diamond’s (2008) work on sexual fluidity demonstrates that mixed patterns of attraction (i.e., to both men and women) are more common than exclusive same-sex attractions and that even lesbian-identified women tended to report bisexual experiences and behaviors as time went on. Some of the women Diamond (2008) studied described themselves as “attracted to ‘the person, not the gender’” (p. 172), suggesting that current notions of sexual orientation might be too focused on gender as an organizing construct. In a narrative study of four in-depth cases of women with bisexual patterns of attraction, Hammack, Thompson, and Pilecki (2009) illuminated how shifting embodied feelings of desire for both men and women can infuse young women’s negotiation of rigid sexual identity categories with unique complexity and can render the body a source of confusion and questioning rather than clarification. The Sexual Body in Society and the Media One of the key debates in which embodiment and sexuality are embroiled is how the increasing widespread commodification and objectification of sexual bodies, in particular through sexualization and in pornography, informs people’s experiences and negotiations of their sexuality (Garner, 2012). As the divide between pornography and mainstream depictions of sexuality evaporates (McNair, 1996), current arguments center less on questions about morality and more on questions about the possible implications of pornography for people’s own changing experiences of their sexuality (Corsianos, 2007; Garlick, 2011; see Volume 2, Chapter 1, this handbook) and on sexual aesthetics (Attwood, 2007). An intensified focus on looks and physical appearance is Sexuality and Embodiment displacing attention to embodied feelings (Frost, 2005; Tolman, 2002, 2012). In the global context in which Western media and sexual representations now circulate, this shift is extending beyond the West and affecting people transnationally (De Casanova, 2004; Howe & Rigi, 2009; see Volume 2, Chapter 9, this handbook). In 2007, the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls released its report on the state of knowledge about this growing phenomenon. The report defined sexualization as (a) a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics; (b) a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy; (c) a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision-making; and (d) sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person (APA, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, 2007, p. 1). The report yielded a notable increase in research on sexualization and its impact and ignited public debate and discussion, within and beyond the academy (e.g., Bragg, Buckingham, Russell, & Willett, 2011; Egan & Hawkes, 2008). The explosion of online pornography has meant that it has become accessible and pertinent to how people think, learn and imagine possibilities for their own sexual experience (Owens, Behun, Manning, & Reed, 2012; Short, Black, Smith, Wetterneck, & Wells, 2012). One line of inquiry in psychology is how sexualization reflects or affects current modes of sexual being, behavior, or experience, and if so, whether those manifestations are positive or problematic, particularly for women. Given that women who feel more positively about their bodies have been found to express more comfort with their own sexual feelings (Ackard, Kearney-Cooke, & Peterson, 2000; Trapnell, Meston, & Gorzalka, 1997; Wiederman, 2000), the power of sexualization to diminish or negatively affect women’s feelings about their bodies raises important questions about women’s sexual embodiment. For instance, narrow sociocultural ideas of women’s sexual attractiveness predict women’s sexual intentions about and their acceptance of different types of sexual behavior, hindering their subjective experience of their own sexuality (Nowatzki & Morry, 2009). Sanchez and Kiefer (2007) found that body shame in women was linked more strongly to greater sexual problems than in men, including lower sexual arousability, less ability to reach orgasm, and having less pleasure from physical intimacy. These changes were mediated by sexual self-consciousness, regardless of relationship status or age. Focusing attention during sexual encounters on how one looks rather than on how one feels can lead to diminished sexual pleasure (Wiederman, 2000, 2001). A woman who has been socialized to dissociate from her own sexual arousal and desire may find it difficult to be aware of her desires, to assert her desires, or to feel entitled to satisfaction in sexual situations (Brotto, Heiman, & Tolman, 2009; see Chapter 8, this volume). The process of self-sexualization, apprehending and experiencing the self as a sexual object for the desire of others or for commodification by the self, has received growing empirical attention (Roberts & Zurbriggen, 2012). For instance, self-sexualization has been associated with African American girls’ increased focus on looks and beauty (Gordon, 2008). Complicated questions about what constitutes selfsexualization have been raised as well, illuminating the liminality of experiences of empowerment that attach to bodily expression associated with sexuality. For instance, pole dancing is a wildly popular physical fitness activity that underscores and relies on how looking youthfully sexy and performing a very particular bodily trope trumps feeling sexy or even sexual (Donaghue, Whitehead, & Kurz, 2011). Ironically, pole dancing takes advantage of the disconnection from their bodies that many women have in the wake of their own sexual socialization and the societal context of the sexualization of girls (Tolman, 2012). Yet research also has demonstrated the complexity of how pole dancing as exercise makes ambiguous its association with sexual display, and thus it may entail for women a reworking of a practice for sexual titillation with feelings of power in one’s body and, possibly because of this ambiguity, feeling powerful or sexy without the physical presence of a male audience, perhaps through the context of a space safe from an actual sexualizing gaze (S. Holland & Attwood, 2009). The question, however, of whether experience of embodied feelings of 781 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs power in this particular context may carry over beyond a given moment and space into women’s sexual lives remains contested and unexplored (Tolman, 2012). Another realm of psychological research on sexualization is phenomenological, seeking to understand how an increasingly sexualized mainstream landscape shapes embodied experiences of sexuality. Analysis of public discourses and representations, by which increasingly sexualizing and pornographic sentiments are communicated and circulated, are critical to understanding how lived experience may be constructed (Bartky, 1990; Hardy, 2009). This research primarily is composed of content and discursive analyses of sexualized images, especially their meanings for different constituencies, although much of the research has centered on girls’ and women’s bodies (Brookes & Kelly, 2009; Fabrianesi, Jones, & Reid, 2008; Hernandez, 2009; Merskin, 2004; Sanger, 2009), For instance, Goodin, Denberg, Murnen, and Smolak (2011) evaluated the presence of sexualizing clothing for girls on the websites of 15 popular stores and found that 30% of images had sexualizing qualities (“garments worn to enhance, exaggerate, call attention to, or accentuate the curves or angles of any part of the body . . . to arouse interest of physical intimacy from others,” p. 5), with the highest being for “tween” markets. Joshi, Peter, and Valkenberg (2011) evaluated representations of sexual wanting (expressing sexual urges and sexual desires or expressing their own sexual wishes) in an analysis of U.S. and Dutch teen magazines, finding that in the U.S. coverage, boys’ sexual wanting received more attention than girls’ sexual wanting, whereas in the Dutch coverage sexual wanting was depicted equally often for boys and girls (see Volume 2, Chapter 12, this handbook). Some research has focused on whether and how girls in particular are attempting or preferring a particular kind of “sexy” body (Coy, 2009a; Ringrose, 2010). For instance, in one study, young girls presented with girls wearing sexualized clothing versus nonsexualized clothing indicated that they greatly preferred the former, both for their ideal self and for being popular (Starr & Ferguson, 2012). Gill (2009) suggested that White, heterosexual young women have shifted from sexual objectification to “sexual 782 subjectification”; that is, rather than being shown as passive objects of desire, these young women (and only these young women) are portrayed as being active “subjects” of their own sexuality. Rather than being “liberating,” however, such portraits may constitute a new set of limiting mandates about how young women should express or appear to express their sexuality that is anchored in the “midriffbearing,” actively desiring young woman, requiring a toned but not too strong body that looks youthful but should not be too physically capable (Fahs, 2009). Yet Attwood (2011), in a study of women’s digital representations of their sexuality in interactive new media, identifies new sexual femininities that defy simple binaries of passive object and active subject, with women producing themselves as sexual actors as “camgirls” or depicting sexually defiant women in “altporn.” The question of whether or how these women’s own bodily sexual feelings inform or result from these subversive acts of representation is an important next step in understanding the interplay between representations of others’ sexual bodies and how people experience their own sexual bodies. The participation of boys and men in these productions may incite their sexual feelings, despite the duality of their dedicated purpose of creating marketable images and not identifying as men who objectify women (Garner, 2012). Representations of sexiness in middle age are becoming extensive, promising both a challenge to narrow conventions of female attractiveness and a new repressive regime for women as they age (Tally, 2006; Vares, 2009). Representations of “lesbian” sexual performance are more pervasive, but there is no research on how such representations are experienced by sexualminority women. These performances of same-sex desire may constitute “heteroflexibility,” wherein women’s same-sex kissing or touching as a public endeavor produces an embodiment of male sexual fantasy to consolidate a heterosexual identity (Diamond, 2005; Fahs, 2009). There is no evidence to date that these experiences reflect or incorporate embodied sexual desire, feelings, or responses, although the emergence of “bi-curiosity” as an intelligible identity may reflect or enable exploration or experience of actual erotic pleasure and enjoyment rather than being just a function of pressure alone. Sexuality and Embodiment One particular debate in which embodiment has emerged is the relationship between sexualization and sexual empowerment. On one side of the debate is the contention that sexualized images may reflect and provide cultural space for a more assertive and entitled or empowered sexuality, trumping traditional conceptions of appropriately feminine sexuality (Lamb, 2010; Peterson, 2010). Others argue that sexualization may reinstantiate and invigorate gender inequalities in sexual interactions and that a sense of sexual empowerment that does not embody one’s own sexual feelings may be problematic (Fahs, 2009; Gavey, 2012; Tolman, 2012). Egan and Hawkes (2008) suggested that an unintended consequence of the current debate is that sexualization is framed as deterministic and restrictive regarding young women’s sexuality, although others have argued for young women’s subversion and resistance to an objectified sexuality under these conditions (e.g., Attwood, 2007). Teasing apart the complex, contradictory, and commercial dimensions of the “new sexual empowerment” means raising challenges about what is missing from it—women’s embodied sexual pleasure as an anchor to sexual subjectivity and real choices that flesh out rather than laminate female sexual agency. Evans, Riley, and Shankar (2010) suggested the concept of new “technologies of sexiness” (p. 119), whereby women could utilize the contradictory yet proliferating discourses about women’s sexuality to construct subversive sexual subjectivities, eluding the disembodiment attached to sexualization (see also Coy, 2009b). A long history of research on the impact of pornography on sexuality has yielded inconsistent evidence (Segal, 1992). However, the explosion of the availability and possibility for new forms of engagement with porn through the Internet, a specific and increasingly salient context, has yielded more specific research on pornography’s interplay with embodied sexuality. Rather than simply investigating whether viewing porn has negative effects on sexual behavior, sexual arousal, or sexual selfappraisal, more recent research on pornography focuses on the ways in which people produce, consume, and integrate it into their daily lives (van Doorn, 2011; Wilson-Kovacs, 2009). The emergence of the Internet as a site for constructing and experiencing male and female bodies by real women and men both reproduces gendered sexual bodily norms and emerges as a forum for resistance to them (Alexias, Kountria, & Tsekeris, 2011). More racial diversity is accompanied by less variation in the shapes of women’s bodies in porn—now thinner, larger chested, with surgically or digitally altered labia— with ramifications for real women’s dissatisfaction with or concern about their material bodies (Tibbals, 2010). In one study of women’s self-published porn sites, DeVoss (2002) found that women are “inserting their embodied subjectivities into public space” (p. 75), thus challenging notions of female sexual submission and production for male pleasure. Cyberspace is one of the new frontiers of the intersections among sexuality, media, and embodiment; the concept of the cyborg subject, wherein bodies and technology meet and comingle, ushers in new conceptions of the body and challenges the very terms of what constitutes a material body (Haraway, 1991). Cybersexuality (i.e., sexual behavior, desires, and bodies transmitted online and imbued with sensations and attitudes that mimic so-called real bodies and sexualities) has appeared more forcefully in recent years. In one sense, cybersex has been implicated in, enacted in, and constructed through mediations of sexual media (van Doorn, 2011; Waskul, 2002). van Doorn (2011) explored how virtual performances of gender, sexuality, and embodiment become materialized in digital space and may inform actual signification of gender norms, sexual identities, and even what is understood as sexual practice, particularly for engagement with heteronormativity. Eklund (2011) explored how the online game World of Warcraft imbues players with gender and sexuality scripts and makes way for numerous queer performances, even while seemingly promoting heterosexual exchanges between players. Looking at social networking sites, Ringrose (2011) argued that because mainstream online spaces demand and assume heterosexuality, they create new and intensified gendered and sexualized identities among young people. The ambiguous boundary and interplay between behavior in cyberspace and offline has inspired empirical questions about online sexual 783 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs embodiments and actual bodies. Analyzing harassment on social networking sites, Ybarra and Mitchell (2008) found that although social networking sites do create contexts for unwanted sexual solicitation, problems of disembodying and harassing youth and teens extend far beyond the reach of cyberspace. In a study of relationship and marriage possibilities between men in the United States and women in other countries, Constable (2007) raised the question of how cultural and structural differences present challenges to expectations generated online through sexual images and talk and offline realities. Although there is a depth of textual analysis of cybersex (e.g., Campbell, 2004; R. Jones, 2008; Wolmark, 1999), the material sexual body has received far less scholarly attention, in part because digital bodies raise questions about what an intelligible body is. There is some research on how cyberspace provides a new venue for individual exploration and construction of what constitutes embodied erotic experience that challenges the everyday conception of what is named erotic. For instance, in a study of online gay chat communities for gay self-identified bears and muscle worshippers that constitute a sexual space, Campbell (2004) demarcated the centrality of the physical body in social relations through these online interactions. As Waskul (2002) noted, cybersex involving videos becomes an embodied experience that creates both a viewed object and an experienced subject, yet he did not address the experiencing sexual subject. Attwood (2002) suggested that new media technologies may render a kind of “autosexuality” (p. 101), in which sex with other people (i.e., their bodies) is replaced by fundamentally disembodied sex that brings less danger, less mess, and less inconvenience. Yet she is one of the few scholars to recognize the engagement of the material body in cybersex; in her assessment of the sexualization of culture, she provided an explicit anecdotal description of a woman’s bodily sexual response at the abrupt end of an online sex chat, offline physical frustration at coming close to orgasm. The “heaving body” does not appear to be a topic of research but rather an illustration of how cyberspace and media complicate what constitutes sex and how questions about sexual identities have dominated research on cybersex, which have yet to 784 engage material bodies. Alapack, Blichfeldt, and Elden (2005) observed that as virtual sex “wins the war between desire and technology,” neglect of “live embodiment” proliferates (p. 52). In an ethnography of trading “sexpics” on an online site, Slater (1998) found that rather than a realm of deconstruction and ideal possibilities, participants exerted tremendous energy attempting to refix bodies and identities in search of material forms of authenticity. Even as disembodiment motives for online chatting have been associated with loneliness, depression, and diminished social support, when used as a technology for social connection, online engagement can lead to offline connectivity (Kang, 2007), suggesting a potential line of inquiry for cybersex and its multiple embodiments. THE DISOBEDIENT SEXUAL BODY Bodies that do not reflect or refuse to conform to either explicit or unwritten hegemonies of normality or acceptability are often declared “not sexual.” Notions of which bodies are eligible to be sexual are entangled with the material diversities of bodies that defy such criteria. There are many people who are assumed not to be sexual or disallowed status as sexual people predicated on what we are calling “disobedient” embodiments in such hierarchies of normality who refute and resist this exclusion. We review three types of such disobedience: body related, sexuality related, and gender related. Body-Related Disobedience When a person’s physical body becomes ill, he or she must negotiate many changes in his or her sexual activities. Cancer patients, for example, often feel that the body that they had once mastered now enslaves them (Waskul & van der Riet, 2002) or feels “invaded” by an alien (Mairs, 1997). Similarly, people who have limited or no bladder or bowel control have an acute awareness of the proximity of their excretory organs to their anatomical sites of sexual pleasure (Koch, Kralik, & Eastwood, 2002; Manderson, 2005). For these people, as well as for women who experience chronic vulvar pain, good communication with one’s sexual partner and partner receptivity to different “sexual scripts” is crucial Sexuality and Embodiment to maintaining a satisfying sex life (Koch et al., 2002; Labuski, 2011). Women who have been treated for breast cancer experience many changes in their sexualities, often related specifically to their bodies (Emilee, Ussher, & Perz, 2010). Because of the intense nature of the treatment regimen for breast cancer, women experience a range of changes in sexual functioning, including disruptions in arousal, lubrication, orgasm, sexual desire, and sexual pleasure (Emilee et al., 2010). Women who have undergone mastectomies may presume (often wrongly) that their sexual partners will be repulsed by their changed bodies (Sheppard & Ely, 2008). Similarly, in the case of testicular or prostate cancer among men, many men feel that the loss of a testicle or the inability to maintain an erection signifies a loss in masculinity, and they worry that their sexual function will be forever compromised (Gurevich, Bishop, Bower, Malka, & Nyhof-Young, 2004; Kelly, 2004). Even in cases in which men experience impotence as a result of cancer treatment, some men discover new avenues to sexual satisfaction, including redefining intimacy and exploring non-penile-penetrative erotic behaviors (Oliffe, 2005). Regardless of the specific bodily ailment, the psychological impact men and women experience as a result of their illnesses depends greatly on the social and relational contexts in which these individuals engage in sexual behaviors (Emilee et al., 2010). People with physical disabilities often are desexualized actively in Western culture (Erickson, 2010; Guldin, 2000; Kim, 2011; Shildrick, 2007). Women with disabilities have reported as much sexual desire (Nosek et al., 2001; Vansteenwegen et al., 2003) and sexual motivation (Vansteenwegen et al., 2003) as nondisabled women, but they report significantly lower sexual satisfaction overall (Nosek et al., 2001; Vansteenwegen et al., 2003). Disabled people often internalize cultural ideals of what a “sexy body” should look like (Guldin, 2000) or what “real sex” should be (Tepper, 2000), and in feeling that they do not measure up to these ideas, they may experience feelings of inadequacy or emotional pain (Guldin, 2000; Tepper, 2000). These people’s sexualities are not overdetermined by such societal ideals, however, and many disabled people view themselves as sexy (Erickson, 2010; Guldin, 2000), find alternatives to the traditional methods of achieving sexual pleasure (Tepper, 2000), or may even happily embrace an asexual identity (Kim, 2011). For example, some people redefine for themselves what an orgasm should be or feel like and explore nongenital or nonejaculatory orgasms that may be centralized in other areas of the body, such as the lips or mouth (Guldin, 2000). Disabled men may choose to focus not on their difficulty maintaining an erection but instead on their prowess in giving partners oral sex or pleasurable manual stimulation, thus improving their feelings of self-worth (Guldin, 2000). Overweight or fat people in our culture often are judged to be physically unattractive and are assumed, therefore, to find sexuality problematic (Bess, 1997). These stereotypes are more stringently applied to women than men, as our society is more accepting of large or fat men and even equates male largeness with strength and power (Bess, 1997). Fat men and women report fewer sexual partners than people with healthy weights (Bajos, Wellings, Laborde, & Moreau, 2010), which may be a result of a self-conscious fear of rejection and internalization of social stigmas about obesity (Bess, 1997). Fat men in particular are more likely to report sexual dysfunction (Bajos et al., 2010) and report less sexual desire and fewer erotic fantasies than men with more average weights (Jagstaidt, Golay, & Pasini, 1997). Many people who have undergone bariatric surgery feel they are more sexually attractive after surgery (Camps, Zervos, Goode, & Rosemurgy, 1996), and some also enjoy sex more (Camps et al., 1996; Kinzl et al., 2001). Sexual satisfaction, however, is not contingent on body weight; the outdated theory that fat individuals eat to avoid sex is not supported by the literature (Bess, 1997). Although fatness is not always associated with or a result of a less healthy lifestyle or eating habits, the fat body often is understood as diseased, pathological, sexually unattractive, and asexual (Braziel & LeBesco, 2001; Murray, 2004; Rothblum, Solovay, & Wann, 2009). As Murray noted, “[a fat woman is] expected to deny [her] own sexual desires and identity because [her] body stands as an ‘embolism’ (Sedgwick, 1993, p. 217) . . . between [her] sexuality and [her] society” (p. 239) and that fat women are denied sexual subjectivity and desirability outside of being fetishized objects. 785 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs Pitman (1999) observed that for fat lesbians, internalizing both homophobia and fat hatred can yield complex dissatisfaction with their sexual bodies as well as their bodies more generally. Sexuality-Related Disobedience Reported sexual dysfunction among men and women has become widespread, largely because Western culture has convinced people that sexuality is “natural” and therefore no learning should be necessary to produce high levels of pleasure and satisfaction (Tiefer, 2006). This conceptualization of sexuality as automatic and unlearned predisposes people to feel that if they are experiencing any disturbances or dissatisfaction in desire, performance, or pleasure, this must be a simple medical problem with a simple medical solution (Tiefer, 2006). The biomedical model of sexual dysfunction sets the stage for pharmaceutical production and leverage of a specific dysfunction discourse that frames sexual dissatisfaction as exclusively biological in nature and curable with “magic bullet” approaches (Cacchioni, 2007; McHugh, 2006; Moynihan, 2003; Tiefer, 2006). This increasingly popular discourse of sexual difficulty is especially problematic for women, as FSD and hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) have remained hard to define (Moynihan, 2003; Tiefer, 2006; see Chapter 8, this volume). Because FSD and HSDD have been based on the assumption that females experience biologically parallel sexual problems to those of men (Hartley, 2006; McHugh, 2006), some have argued that these diagnoses are an example of starting with a non-evidence-based presupposed “condition” and then trying to produce confirmatory evidence through research—often without success (Mayor, 2004; McHugh, 2006). Similar challenges surrounding the debates about sexual dysfunction also influence academic understandings of asexuality (generally defined as a lack of sexual attraction; Carrigan, 2011): Is sexual desire, arousal, or behavior most important? Is sexual desire the same as sexual attraction? Can any of this be understood without exploring the social and psychological contexts within which it takes place (Carrigan, 2011; Scherrer, 2008)? An absence of sexual feelings of any kind generally has been assumed to signal sexual or psychological problems, predicated 786 on the notion of the feeling sexual body as normal. The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), however, introduces an absence of distress about lack of sexual desire as contraindicating a diagnosis of HSDD. There has been a recent explosion of websites dedicated to the asexual community, providing much needed space for discussion online. Within the academy, however, very scholars have taken up asexuality as an area of investigation, with a few exceptions in the past 5 to 10 years. Asexuality traditionally has been pathologized as, for example, sexual aversion disorder or HSDD, rather than studied as an acceptable self-chosen identity (Prause & Graham, 2007; Scherrer, 2008), although this increasingly is changing in the literature (Boaert, 2004). Individuals who self-identify as asexual may have diverse reasons for doing so and may understand their asexuality in a variety of ways, ranging from regarding sex apathetically to feeling complete disgust at the prospect of sex (Carrigan, 2011). Many asexuals make an explicit distinction between the ideas of romance and sexuality, feeling that emotional attraction, companionship, and romance are desirable within relationships but that sex is not (Brotto, Knudson, Inskip, Rhodes, & Erskine, 2010; Scherrer, 2008). Developmentally, asexuals may express that they always have felt that they were somehow different from their peers who feel sexual attraction, and that this feeling of difference led them to believe something was wrong with them, until they discovered the concept (and sometimes the community) of asexuality (Brotto et al., 2010; Carrigan, 2011; Scherrer, 2008). Masturbation has proven to be a site of variability among asexuals, as some people feel no desire for sex with others or with themselves, whereas other people find masturbation occasionally satisfying and consistent with their asexual identities (Prause & Graham, 2007; Scherrer, 2008). Additionally, some individuals, who do not identify as asexual, nevertheless find fulfillment in romantic relationships that lack a sexual component, and this pattern, in particular among women (e.g., Boston marriages) has been documented for centuries (Rothblum & Brehony, 1993; Smith-Rosenberg, 1975). Sexual dysfunction and asexuality are not the only sites in which individuals challenge normative Sexuality and Embodiment frameworks for healthy sexuality. People who engage in exhibitionist or sadomasochistic sexual practices, for example, also resist social and medical norms. According to the DSM-IV, exhibitionism is still considered a mental disorder that involves exposing one’s genitals to a stranger (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), and the vast majority of the literature pertaining to exhibitionism has focused on men (Hugh-Jones et al., 2005). The pathologization of exhibitionist behavior has been supported by theories regarding faulty brain chemistry as well as psychodynamic processes, such as castration anxiety (Hugh-Jones et al., 2005). Recent work on exhibitionism, however, has focused more on the performative nature of exhibitionism and has shown that much exhibitionism is evident online and on websites where people can post naked or erotic pictures of themselves for others to view for their own personal enjoyment (Hugh-Jones et al., 2005). Female exhibitionists who post on these websites report feeling powerful and socially supported (Hugh-Jones et al., 2005), demonstrating that women who exhibit may use the practice as a means to sexual empowerment. There is no research on embodied sexuality in sex club contexts, where performing and consuming exhibitionism is condoned. Sadomasochism in particular and BDSM practices in general (including bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism) have been similarly pathologized historically (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). On-the-ground and online communities of sadomasochists actively reject the idea that their style of kinky sex is harmful, and instead they focus on mutually consenting partners and communication as most important (Langdridge & Butt, 2004; Weiss & Weiss, 2011). Sadomasochistic practices rely heavily on extreme performances of power, domination, and submission socially inscribed on the body, and this performativity may mirror traditional understandings of masculinity and femininity (D. Lindemann, 2011). Furthermore, as some scholars have pointed out, lived embodied links between pleasure and pain are not uncommon (Deckha, 2011). Sexual performances of sadomasochism may not exist solely on the fringes of society. As sadomasochistic practices have become increasingly trendy, the topic has become more prevalent in mainstream magazines, mainstream booksellers, and mainstream advertisements (Hanna, 2001). Yet Weiss (2006) found in a study employing surveys, focus groups, and interviews that current practices of accepting sadomasochism through normalization or understanding it through pathologization both reinforce privileges of normative sexuality (see Chapter 9, this volume). Gender-Related Disobedience Many people experience their bodies and their genders in ways that do not conform to traditional understandings of male–female or masculine–feminine. Transgender individuals (those whose gender presentation does not conform to conventional notions of masculinity or femininity and may run counter to their own biological assignment as male or female), including but not exclusively transsexuals (those who feel that their psychological sex does not match the sex they were assigned at birth, and who desire bodily modifications to bring these into alignment), may or may not actually use these terms to understand their genders. Some gender-nonconforming individuals prefer such gender identifications as “butch” or “femme” (Valentine, 2007) or simply may identify themselves as their preferred gender without reference to any “trans” identities (Wilson, 2002). Transgender individuals experience their sexualities in unique ways, especially because the medical expectation of any transition is that an individual will become a heterosexual man or woman (Pardo, 2011; see Chapter 24, this volume). Many transgender people challenge compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1980) at the point of both lived and inscribed embodiment, in that they understand their sexual attractions as distinct from the bodies assigned a gender at birth, and therefore they “subvert the cultural assumption that sex between male- and female-bodied individuals equals heterosexuality” (Rich, 1980, p. 109; Hines, 2007; Schleifer, 2006). For example, many female-tomale transsexuals change their sexual orientation after transitioning or find themselves attracted to both men and women (Dozier, 2005; Schleifer, 2006). Cisgender people (those whose preferred gender matches the gender they were assigned at birth) who are sexually attracted to transgender people may construct 787 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs unique sexual desires on the basis of their own sexual orientations (Weinberg & Williams, 2010b). For example, in a study of cisgender men who were sexually interested in transwomen (in this study defined as male-to-female transsexuals who retain their penises), those who identified as heterosexual tended to ignore the transwoman’s penis, whereas bisexually oriented men incorporated the transwoman’s penis into the sexual experience (Weinberg & Williams, 2010b). People who are born with atypical or ambiguous genitalia (referred to as “intersex,” although less frequently currently than in the past) also must navigate gender norms and expectations in their expressions of their sexualities. Often, intersex infants, who are born with ambiguous genitalia that do not fit into the presumed binary framework of sex, are understood by doctors to require “corrective” or “reparative” surgery to “fix” the atypical sexual bodies (Kessler, 2002; Roen, 2008). It is most common for an infant born with an atypically small penis or an atypically large clitoris to be surgically altered to fit into one or the other side of the sex binary, and these corrective procedures often entail numerous follow-up surgeries over the course of development (Minto, Liao, Woodhouse, Ransley, & Creighton, 2003). Ironically, since the incidence of ambiguous genitalia in the population has been estimated to be as high as 2% (Blackless et al., 2000), it seems that the occurrence of intersexuality is relatively common (Roen, 2008). There is debate about these surgeries, with some critiquing this practice as “correcting” ambiguous bodies to match “intelligible” bodies that fit into an essentialized gender binary (Kessler, 2002; Roen, 2008) and others noting that such surgeries frequently are required for physical or psychological reasons (Creighton & Liao, 2004; Holmes, 2002; Woodhouse, 2004). Infants who undergo surgical procedures may have compromised sexual functioning as adults (Minto et al., 2003). For example, people who had undergone feminizing surgery as infants and were then living as adult females had more difficulty achieving orgasm than individuals who had not had surgery (Creighton & Liao, 2004; Minto et al., 2003). Results such as these have prompted medical professionals to take much greater care in surgical decisions, often delaying genital surgeries until a person is old 788 enough to contribute meaningfully to the discussion and explicitly consent to any surgical procedures (Woodhouse, 2004). Additionally, many of these individuals now reject the label “intersex,” because of its negative associations with terms like “hermaphrodite,” or because they may feel that “intersex” was something “done to” them and therefore not a part of their chosen identity (Grabham, 2007; Koyama, n.d.). Interventions for Embodiment A number of researchers have proposed various interventions to assist and support people who are experiencing challenges or difficulties with sexuality as social inscription on the body or as living experience of the body. Sensate approaches to sex therapy, in which the therapist guides the client, either as an individual or as a couple, to refocus and, in essence, reconnect with their physical sexual feelings and responses, can be understood as a form of embodiment intervention and continues to be a central approach to sexual distress (see Chapter 8, this volume). An embodiment lens may underscore that a purely mechanistic approach is impoverished or may not be appropriate depending on the complaint. Therapeutic work connecting embodiment and psychotherapy has been particularly successful in treating disorders like anorexia and bulimia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and childhood sexual abuse. Lester (1997) argued that to successfully treat anorexia, therapists should deconstruct notions of “inside” and “outside” to allow the patient to experience a connection with their own bodies. Similarly, Langmuir, Kirsh, and Classen (2012) suggested that sensorimotor psychotherapy—in which patients use their bodies actively to improve body awareness and to decrease dissociation—can successfully treat trauma disorders. Adding a more psychoanalytic twist, Baker-Pitts (2007) argued that female therapists can use their patients’ projections about both the therapists’ and patients’ bodies to grapple more intensely with defense mechanisms of dependency and broader projections made onto the female body. Research also has worked to establish the embodied bases of existing psychotherapy processes. Dekeyser, Elliott, and Leijssen’s (2009) work on empathy argued for empathy as a cooperative, dialogical process Sexuality and Embodiment vividly grounded in the body. More expansively, Phelan (2009) analyzed the benefits and contraindications of therapists and patients touching before, during, or after psychotherapy sessions, finding a wide range of outcomes depending on the reasons for touch, the patient’s perceptions of touch, cultural and religious considerations, and rationale for touch. Ultimately, issues of embodiment in psychotherapy—for the therapists and their patients—can serve as meaningful interventions when working with clients with a range of complaints and disorders. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS This chapter demonstrated how a lens of embodiment offers a unique and important understanding of sexuality. Leveraging and building from embodiment theories, researchers have generated a new and substantive body of research predicated on the physicality of sexuality that is foundationally social rather than biologically deterministic. Reviewing the prominent theories that guide thought and research on embodiment, we have provided both broad strokes about and intimate looks into knowledge about sexual bodies that are situated in time, space, action, and society. In particular, the chapter focused attention on intersections of embodied sexuality and psychology. This relatively new line of research both includes psychology and has much to offer the discipline. The chapter has argued that developing these lines of inquiry within psychology will constitute a significant contribution to the understanding of sexuality. It concludes with suggestions for future directions. Recent work from neuroscience supports embodiment theory as a useful framework for social science research, suggesting that the body in and beyond sexuality research is seen as more plastic, with “hard wiring” incorporating the environmental contexts in which it develops, exists, performs, and malfunctions (Cromby, 2004; see Chapter 7, this volume ). This work not only challenges the debate between “nature” and “nurture” but also offers further evidence that the interactionist perspective embedded in embodiment theory enables it as a functional conceptual framework (Tolman & Diamond, 2001; see Chapter 1, this volume). For instance, evidence from men recovering a sexual life following treatment for prostate cancer suggests that all of us may generate new capacities for sexual feeling and expression following the loss of other capacities or valued practices (Litwin, Melmed, & Nakazon, 2001). The constraints on our ability to do so are likely to be as much social as they are physical and psychological. Diamond (2005) has suggested applying dynamical systems theory (DST) to our understanding of women’s same-sex sexuality development. She argued that DST, in explaining how interactions among internal and external features of experience produce abrupt transitions, new patterns, and sensitivity to fluctuations, accounts for the changing patterns she identified in this population. It is possible that DST may provide a way to understand embodiment of sexuality among other groups and practices, providing a roadmap to the interplay between our physicality and our relational, environmental, and cultural contexts characterized by shifting discursive, sociopolitical, and historic dimensions. These examples demonstrate the ways in which thinking of the mind and body as separate, or of bodies as independent from society, limits our potential for understanding sexuality. Embodiment theories provide tools for observing, posing, and investigating daring and difficult questions about sexuality that can contribute to resisting oppressive binaries that so many bodies and psyches labor under, struggle, subvert, or resist. Looking forward, we imagine many new threads of research on embodiment and sexuality. In particular, future research can interrogate the limitations of the “rhetoric of choice” and agency with regard to sexual decision making, particularly as debates intensify about which kinds of embodiment, and which embodied expressions, signify “liberation” and “empowerment” and which signify the internalization of oppression (and negative stereotypes). More nuanced work that theorizes the body into contemporary cultural narratives, such as strip clubs, commodification of sex, and the untethering of sex from morally determined and condoned contexts, and that leverages these theories in posing and answering the innovative research questions that will emerge represents the potent future of research on embodiment. We foresee that embodiment 789 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs research likely will venture more and more into thinking about and theorizing nonconforming bodies, particularly disability studies, fat studies, and queer studies. How these nonconforming bodies yield intersectional understandings of gender, power, and sexuality will form the cutting edge of embodiment research. The material and bodily dimensions of subjects engaged in practices is a rich arena that will both inform and be informed by research grounded in embodiment perspectives. Ultimately, as so many of these studies testify, research on embodiment and sexuality places the corporeal body at the center of fields that have largely ignored the body as a “knowing subject”. Transcending, sidestepping, or solving the biological determinism versus social construction debate, embodiment theory, and research afford an exciting new strategy to move forward, in a complex way, how we understand the very real complexities of sexuality. References Ackard, D. M., Kearney-Cooke, A., & Peterson, C. B. (2000). Effect of body image and self-image on women’s sexual behaviors. International Journal of Eating Disorders,28, 422–429. doi:10.1002/1098108X(200012)28:4422::AID-EAT103.0.CO;2-1 Ainsworth, S. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Changes in sexuality: How sexuality changes across time, across relationships, and across sociocultural contexts. Clinical Neuropsychiatry,9, 32–38. American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/reportfull.pdf Angelides, S. (2004). Feminism, child sexual abuse, and the erasure of child sexuality. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies,10, 141–177. doi:10.1215/10642684-10-2-141 Angulo-Olaiz, F. (2009). The role of pap smears in negotiating risk: Latinas’ perceptions of trust and love in sexual relationships with men. NWSA Journal,21, 166–190. doi:10.1353/nwsa.0.0095 Attwood, F. (2002). Reading porn: The paradigm shift in pornography research. Sexualities,5, 91–105. doi:10.1177/1363460702005001005 Attwood, F. (2007). No money shot? Commerce, pornography, and new sex taste cultures. Sexualities,10, 441–456. doi:10.1177/1363460707080982 Attwood, F. (2011). The paradigm shift: Pornography research, sexualization, and extreme images. Social Compass, 5, 13–22. doi:10.1111/j.17519020.2010.00356.x Backstrom, L., Armstrong, E. A., & Puentes, J. (2012). Women’s negotiations of cunnilingus in college hookups and relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 1–12. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011. 585523 Bajos, N., Wellings, K., Laborde, C., & Moreau, C. (2010). Sexuality and obesity, a gender perspective: Results from French national random probability survey of sexual behaviours. British Medical Journal.doi:10.1136/bmj.c2573 Alapack, R., Blichfeldt, M., & Elden, A. (2005). Flirting on the Internet and the hickey: A hermeneutic. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 8, 52–61. doi:10.1089/ cpb.2005.8.52 Baker-Pitts, C. (2007). Two bodies in the room: An intersubjective view of female objectification. Psychoanalysis, Culture, and Society,12, 124–141. doi:10.1057/palgrave.pcs.2100117 Albanesi, H. P. (2009). Gender and sexual agency: How young people make choices about sex.Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Bancroft, J. (Ed.). (2003). Sexual development in childhood.Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural feminism vs. post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,13, 405–436. doi:10.1086/494426 Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression.New York, NY: Routledge. Alcoff, L. (2005). Visible identities: Race, gender, and the self.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Bay-Cheng, L. Y., & Fava, N. M. (2011). Young women’s experiences and perceptions of cunnilingus during adolescence. Journal of Sex Research,48, 531–542. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.535221 Alexias, G., Kountria, A., & Tsekeris, C. (2011). Sex and the web: The embodiment of female sexuality in online pornography. Facta Universitatus: Series Philosophy, Sociology, and Psychology,10, 217–231. Berkowitz, D. (2006). Consuming eroticism: Gender performances and presentations in pornographic establishments. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,35, 583–606. doi:10.1177/0891241605285402 American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Berlant, L., & Warner, M. (2000). Sex in public. In L. Berlant (Ed.), Intimacy (pp. 311–330). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 790 Sexuality and Embodiment Bess, B. E. (1997). Human sexuality and obesity. International Journal of Mental Health,26, 61–67. Blackless, M., Charuvastra, A., Derryck, A., FaustoSterling, A., Lauzanne, K., & Lee, E. (2000). How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology,12, 151–166. doi:10.1002/(SICI)15206300(200003/04)12:2151::AID-AJHB13.0.CO;2-F Blackwood, E. (2005). Transnational sexualities in one place: Indonesian readings. Gender and Society,19, 221–242. doi:10.1177/0891243204272862 Boaert, A. F. (2004). Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. Journal of Sex Research,41, 279–287. doi:10.1080/00224490409552235 Boislard, P. M., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2011). Sexual subjectivity, relationship status and quality, and same-sex sexual experience among emerging adult females. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology,1, 54–64. doi:10.5539/jedp.v1n1p54 Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture, and the body.Berkeley: University of California Press. Bordo, S. (2000). The male body: A new look at men in public and private.New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Boroughs, M., Cafri, G., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). Male body depilation: Prevalence and associated features of body hair removal. Sex Roles,52, 637–644. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3731-9 Bragg, S., Buckingham, D., Russell, R., & Willett, R. (2011). Too much too soon? Children, “sexualization” and consumer culture. Sex Education,11, 279– 292. doi:10.1080/14681811.2011.590085 Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects: Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory.New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Bramwell, R., Morland, C., & Garden, A. S. (2007). Expectations and experience of labial reduction: A qualitative study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,114, 1493–1499. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01509.x Braun, V. (2005). In search of (better) sexual pleasure: Female genital “cosmetic” surgery. Sexualities,8, 407–424. doi:10.1177/1363460705056625 Braun, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). The perfectible vagina: Size matters. Culture, Health and Sexuality,3, 263– 277. doi:10.1080/13691050152484704 Braun, V., & Tiefer, L. (2010). The “designer vagina” and the pathologisation of female genital diversity: Interventions for change. Radical Psychology,8, 1393–1407. doi:10.1089/jwh.2009.1728 Braziel, J. E., & LeBesco, K. (2001). Bodies out of bounds: Fatness and transgression. Berkeley: University of California Press. Brookes, F., & Kelly, P. (2009). Dolly girls: Tweenies as artifacts of consumption. Journal of Youth Studies,12, 599–613. doi:10.1080/13676260902960745 Brotto, L. A., Heiman, J. R., & Tolman, D. L. (2009). Narratives of desire in mid-age women with and without arousal difficulties. Journal of Sex Research,46, 387–398. doi:10.1080/00224490902792624 Brotto, L. A., Knudson, G., Inskip, J., Rhodes, K., & Erskine, Y. (2010). Asexuality: A mixed-methods approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior,39, 599–618. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9434-x Burns, A., Futch, V. A., & Tolman, D. L. (2011). “It’s like doing homework”: Academic achievement discourse in adolescent girls’ fellatio narratives. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,8, 239–251. doi:10.1007/ s13178-011-0062-1 Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity.New York, NY: Routledge. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex.New York, NY: Routledge. Butler, J. (1994). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of “postmodernism”. In S. Seidman (Ed.), The postmodern turn: New perspectives on social theory (pp. 153–170). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511570940.011 Byers, E. S. (1995). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,8, 7–25. doi:10.1300/J056v08n01_02 Cacchioni, T. (2007). Heterosexuality and “the labour of love”: A contribution to recent debates on female sexual dysfunction. Sexualities,10, 299–320. doi:10.1177/1363460707078320 Cahill, A. J. (2011). Overcoming objectification: A carnal ethics.New York, NY: Routledge. Campbell, J. (2004). Getting it on online: Cyberspace, gay male sexuality, and embodied identity.Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press. Camps, M. A., Zervos, E., Goode, S., & Rosemurgy, A. S. (1996). Impact of bariatric surgery on body image perception and sexuality in morbidly obese patients and their partners. Obesity Surgery,6, 356–360. doi:10.1381/096089296765556700 Carpenter, L. M., & Casper, M. J. (2009). A tale of two technologies: HPV vaccination, male circumcision, and sexual health. Gender and Society,23, 790–816. doi:10.1177/0891243209352490 Carrigan, M. (2011). There’s more to life than sex? Difference and commonality within the asexual community. Sexualities,14, 462–478. doi:10.1177/ 1363460711406462 791 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs Castro-Vásquez, G. (2006). The politics of Viagra: Gender, dysfunction, and reproduction in Japan. Body and Society,12, 109–129. doi:10.1177/ 1357034X06064328 Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Vol. 2. Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Constable, N. (2007). Love at first site? Visual images and virtual encounters with bodies. In M. B. Padilla, J. S. Hirsch, M. Muñoz-Laboy, R. Sember, & R. G. Parker (Eds.), Love and globalization: Transformations of intimacy in the contemporary world (pp. 252–269). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Corsianos, M. (2007). Mainstream pornography and “women”: Questioning sexual agency. Critical Sociology, 33, 863–885. doi:10.1163/156916307X230359 Cover, R. (2003). The naked subject: Nudity, context, and sexualization in contemporary culture. Body and Society,9, 53–72. doi:10.1177/1357034X030093004 and agency. International Journal of Sexual Health,23, 48–62. doi:10.1080/19317611.2010.524694 Curtis, D. (2009). Pleasure and perils: Girls’ sexuality in a Caribbean consumer culture.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Davis, M. (2002). HIV prevention rationalities and serostasis in the risk narratives of gay men. Sexualities,5, 281–299. doi:10.1177/136346070200 5003002 de Beauvoir, S. (2009). The second sex(C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.). New York, NY: Knopf. (Original work published 1949) De Casanova, E. M. (2004). “No ugly women”: Concepts of race and beauty among adolescent women in Ecuador. Gender and Society,18, 287–308. doi:10.1177/0891243204263351 Deckha, M. (2011). Pain as culture: A postcolonial feminist approach to S/M and women’s agency. Sexualities,14, 129–150. doi:10.1177/1363460 711399032 Coy, M. (2009a). Milkshakes, lady lumps, and growing up to want boobies: How the sexualisation of popular culture limits girls’ horizons. Child Abuse Review,18, 372–383. doi:10.1002/car.1094 Dekeyser, M., Elliott, R., & Leijssen, M. (2009). Empathy in psychotherapy: Dialogue and embodied understanding. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 113–124). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Coy, M. (2009b). This body which is not mine: The notion of the habit body, prostitution and (dis)embodiment. Feminist Theory,10, 61–75. doi:10.1177/1464700108100392 DeLamater, J. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research,35, 10–18. doi:10.1080/00224499809551913 Coy, M., & Garner, M. (2012). Definitions, discourses and dilemmas: Policy and academic engagement with the sexualisation of popular culture. Gender and Education,24, 285–301. doi:10.1080/09540253.2012 .667793 Del Rosso, J. (2011). The penis as public art: Embodiment and the performance of masculinity in public settings. Sexualities,14, 704–724. doi:10.1177/1363460711420461 Creighton, S., & Liao, L. M. (2004). Changing attitudes to sex assignment in intersex. BJU International,93, 659–664. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2003.04694.x Crenshaw, C. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review,43, 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039 Cromby, J. (2004). Between construction and neuroscience: The societal co-constitution of embodied subjectivity. Theory and Psychology,14, 797–821. doi:10.1177/0959354304048107 Crossley, N. (1996). Body-subject/body-power: Agency, inscription and control in Foucault and MerleauPonty. Body and Society,2, 99–116. doi:10.1177/13570 34X96002002006 Curtin, N., Ward, L., Merriwether, A., & Caruthers, A. (2011). Femininity ideology and sexual health in young women: A focus on sexual knowledge, embodiment, 792 DeMaria, A. L., Hollub, A. V., & Herbenick, D. (2011). Using genital self-image, body image, and sexual behaviors to predict gynecological exam behaviors of college women. Journal of Sexual Medicine,8, 2484–2492. doi:10.1111/j.17436109.2011.02379.x DeVoss, D. (2002). Women’s porn sites—Spaces of fissure and eruption or “I’m a little bit of everything.”Sexuality and Culture,6, 75–94. doi:10.1007/BF02912229 Diamond, L. (2005). “I’m straight, but I kissed a girl”: The trouble with American media representations of female–female sexuality. Feminism and Psychology,15, 104–110. doi:10.1177/0959353505049712 Diamond, L. (2006). What we got wrong about sexual identity development: Unexpected findings from a longitudinal study of young women. In A. Omoto & H. Kurtzman (Eds.), Recent research on sexual orientation (pp. 73–94). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sexuality and Embodiment Diamond, L. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dickerson, B., & Rousseau, N. (2009). Ageism through omission: The obsolescence of Black women’s sexuality. Journal of African American Studies,13, 307–324. doi:10.1007/s12111-008-9084-z Dillaway, H. E. (2005). Menopause is the “good old”: Women’s thoughts about reproductive aging. Gender and Society,19, 398–417. doi:10.1177/ 0891243204271350 Dillaway, H. E. (2011). Menopausal and misbehaving: When women “flash” in front of others. In C. Bobel & S. Kwan (Eds.), Embodied resistance: Challenging the norms, breaking the rules (pp. 197–208). Nashville, TN: Nashville University Press. Donaghue, N., Whitehead, K., & Kurz, T. (2011). Spinning the pole: A discursive analysis of the websites of recreational pole dancing studios. Feminism and Psychology,21, 443–457. doi:10.1177/0959353511424367 Dowsett, G. (1996). Practicing desire: Homosexual sex in an age of AIDS.Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Dowsett, G. W. (2000). Bodyplay: Corporeality in a discursive silence. In R. Parker, R. M. Barbarosa, & P. Aggleton (Eds.), Framing the sexual subject: The politics of gender, sexuality, and power (pp. 29–45). Berkeley: University of California Press. Dowsett, G. W. (2003). Some considerations on sexuality and gender in the context of AIDS. Reproductive Health Matters,11, 21–29. doi:10.1016/S09688080(03)02290-0 Dowsett, G. W., Williams, H., Ventuneac, A., & Carballo-Dieguez, A. (2008). “Taking it like a man”: Masculinity and barebacking online. Sexualities,11, 121–141. doi:10.1177/1363460707085467 graduate students. American Sociologist,30(4), 56–63. doi:10.1007/s12108-999-1023-5 Eklund, L. (2011). Doing gender in cyberspace: The performance of gender by female World of Warcraft players. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies,17, 323–342. doi:10.1177/1354856511406472 Emilee, G., Ussher, J. M., & Perz, J. (2010). Sexuality after breast cancer: A review. Maturitas,66, 397–407. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.03.027 Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). “Anything from making out to having sex”: Men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research,46, 414–424. doi:10.1080/00224490902775801 Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist,49, 709–724. doi:10.1037/0003066X.49.8.709 Erickson, L. (2010). Out of line: The sexy femmegimp politics of flaunting it!In M. Stombler, D. M. Baunach, E. O. Burgess, D. J. Donnelly, W. O. Simonds, & E. J. Windsor (Eds.), Sex matters: The sexuality and society reader (3rd ed., pp. 135–140). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Evans, A., Riley, S., & Shankar, A. (2010). Technologies of sexiness: Theorizing women’s engagement in the sexualization of culture. Feminism and Psychology,20, 114–131. doi:10.1177/0959353509351854 Fabrianesi, B., Jones, S. C., & Reid, A. (2008). Are pre-adolescent girls’ magazines providing age-appropriate role models? Health Education,108, 437–449. doi:10.1108/09654280810910854 Fahs, B. (2009). Compulsory bisexuality? The challenges of modern sexual fluidity. Journal of Bisexuality,9, 431–449. doi:10.1080/15299710903316661 Dozier, R. (2005). Beards, breasts, and bodies: Doing sex in a gendered world. Gender and Society,19, 297–316. doi:10.1177/0891243204272153 Fahs, B. (2011a). Dreaded “otherness”: Heteronormative patrolling in women’s body hair rebellions. Gender and Society,25, 451–472. doi:10.1177/089124 3211414877 Duncan, D. (2010). Embodying the gay self: Body image, reflexivity and embodied identity. Health Sociology Review,19, 437–450. doi:10.5172/hesr.2010. 19.4.437 Fahs, B. (2011b). Performing sex: The making and unmaking of women’s erotic lives.Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Eck, B. A. (2003). Men are much harder: Gendered viewing of nude images. Gender and Society,17, 691–710. doi:10.1177/0891243203255604 Egan, R. D., & Hawkes, G. L. (2008). Endangered girls and incendiary objects: Unpacking the discourse on sexualization. Sexuality and Culture,12, 291–311. doi:10.1007/s12119-008-9036-8 Eitzen, D. S., Baca Zinn, M., & Gold, S. J. (1999). Integrating professional socialization and training for sociology Fahs, B., & Delgado, D. (2011). The specter of excess: Race, class, and gender in women’s body hair narratives. In C. Bobel & S. Kwan (Eds.), Embodied resistance: Challenging the norms, breaking the rules (pp. 13–25). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Fahs, B., & Swank, E. (2011). Social identities as predictors of women’s sexual satisfaction and sexual activity. Archives of Sexual Behavior,40, 903–914. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9681-5 793 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Manuel, J., & Mugny, G. (2009). “I’m not gay . . . I’m a real man!”: Heterosexual men’s gender self-esteem and sexual prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1233–1243. doi:10.1177/0146167209338072 Frost, L. (2005). Theorizing the young woman in the body. Body and Society,11, 63–85. doi:10.1177/1357034X05049851 Farquhar, C. (2000). “Lesbian” in a post-lesbian world? Policing identity, sex, and image. Sexualities,3, 219– 236. doi:10.1177/136346000003002007 Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology,9, 103–110. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103 Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality.New York, NY: Basic Books. Gagné, P., & McGaughey, D. (2002). Designing women: Cultural hegemony and the exercise of power among women who have undergone elective mammoplasty. Gender and Society,16, 814–838. doi:10.1177/089124302237890 Feinberg, L. (1997). Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman.Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review,58, 29–53. Fine, M., & McClelland, S. I. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard Educational Review,76, 297–338. Forrest, S. (2000). “Big and tough”: Boys learning about sexuality and manhood. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,15, 247–261. doi:10.1080/14681990050109845 Foucault, M. (1966). The order of things.New York, NY: Vintage. Foucault, M. (1969). The archaelogy of knowledge.New York, NY: Harper & Row. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish.New York, NY: Pantheon. Foucault, M.(1978). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Random House. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.(1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly,21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402. 1997.tb00108.x Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T. A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 269–284. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269 French, B. H. (2012). More than Jezebels and freaks: Exploring how black girls navigate sexual coercion and sexual scripts. Journal of African American Studies,17, 35–50. doi:10.1007/s12111-012-9218-1 Freud, S.(1900). The interpretation of dreams (Vol. 4). London, England: Hogarth Press. Friedrich, W. (2003). Studies of sexuality of nonabused children. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Sexual development in childhood (pp. 107–120). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 794 Frueh, J. (2003). The aesthetics of orgasm. Sexualities,6, 459–478. doi:10.1177/136346070363012 Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research,1, 1–43. Gamson, W. A. (2000). Sexualities, queer theory, and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp. 347–365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Garlick, S. (2011). A new sexual revolution? Critical theory, pornography, and the Internet. Canadian Review of Sociology,48, 221–239. doi:10.1111/j.1755618X.2011.01264.x Garner, M. (2012). The missing link: The sexualisation of culture and men. Gender and Education,24, 325–331. doi:10.1080/09540253.2012.670392 Gatens, M. (1996). Imaginary bodies: Ethics, power, and corporeality.London, England: Routledge. Gavey, N. (2012). Beyond “empowerment”? Sexuality in a sexist world. Sex Roles,66, 718–724. doi:10.1007/ s11199-011-0069-3 Gill, R. (2008). Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism and Psychology,18, 35–60. doi:10.1177/0959353507084950 Gill, R. (2009). Beyond the “sexualization of culture” thesis: An intersectional analysis of “sixpacks,” “midriffs,” and “hot lesbians” in advertising. Sexualities,12, 137–160. doi:10.1177/1363460708100916 Gleeson, K., & Frith, H. (2004). Pretty in pink: Young women presenting mature sexual identities. In A. Harris (Ed.), All about the girl: Culture, power, and identity (pp. 103–114). New York, NY: Routledge. Goodin, S. M., Denberg, A., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2011). “Putting on” sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles,65, 1–12. doi:10.1007/s11199011-9966-8 Gordon, M. K. (2008). Media contributions to African American girls’ focus on beauty and appearance: Exploring the consequences of sexual objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly,32, 245–256. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00433.x Sexuality and Embodiment Grabham, E. (2007). Citizen bodies, intersex citizenship. Sexualities, 10, 29–48. doi:10.1177/1363460707072951 Grace, V., Potts, A., Gavey, N., & Vares, T. (2006). The discursive condition of Viagra. Sexualities,9, 295–314. doi:10.1177/1363460706065050 Graham, C. (2003). Methodological issues involved in adult recall of childhood sexual experiences. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Sexual development in childhood (pp. 67–76). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Green, A. I. (2008). Erotic habitus: Toward a sociology of desire. Theory and Society,37, 597–626. doi:10.1007/ s11186-007-9059-4 Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. L. (2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles,53, 239– 251. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-5682-6 Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Towards a corporeal feminism.Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Grosz, E. (2008). Darwin and feminism: Preliminary investigations for a possible alliance. In S. Alaimo (Ed.), Material feminisms (pp. 23–51). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Guldin, A. (2000). Self-claiming sexuality: Mobility impaired people and American culture. Sexuality and Disability,18, 233–238. doi:10.1023/A:1005690009575 Gurevich, M., Bishop, S., Bower, J., Malka, M., & Nyhof-Young, J. (2004). (Dis)embodying gender and sexuality in testicular cancer. Social Science and Medicine,58, 1597–1607. doi:10.1016/S02779536(03)00371-X Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity.Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hamilton, L. (2007). Trading on heterosexuality: College women’s gender strategies and homophobia. Gender and Society,21, 145–172. doi:10.1177/0891243206297604 Hardy, S. (2009). The new pornographies: Representation or reality? In F. Attwood (Ed.), Mainsteaming sex: The sexualization of western culture (pp. 3–18). London, England: IB Tauris. Hartley, H. (2006). The “pinking” of Viagra culture: Drug industry efforts to create and repackage sex drugs for women. Sexualities,9, 363–378. doi:10.1177/1363460706065058 Hartley, H., & Tiefer, L. (2003). Taking a biological turn: The push for a “female Viagra” and the medicalization of women’s sexual problems. Women’s Studies Quarterly,31, 42–54. Hauge, M. (2009). Bodily practices and discourses of hetero-femininity: Girls’ constitution of subjectivities in their social transition between childhood and adolescence. Gender and Education,21, 293–307. doi:10.1080/09540250802667625 Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to self-objectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322–1331. doi:10.1177/0146167204264052 Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1998). Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. New York, NY: Routledge. Herbenick, D., & Reece, M. (2010). Original research— Outcomes assessment: Development and validation of the female genital self-image scale. Journal of Sexual Medicine,7, 1822–1830. doi:10.1111/j.17436109.2010.01728.x Herbenick, D., Schick, V., Reece, M., Sanders, S., Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, D. (2011). The female genital self-image scale (FGSIS): Results from a nationally representative probability sample of women in the United States. Journal of Sexual Medicine,8, 158– 166. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02071.x Hammack, P. L., & Cohler, B. J. (2009). The story of sexual identity: Narrative perspectives on the gay and lesbian life course.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Herbenick, D., Schick, V., Reece, M., Sanders, S., & Fortenberry, D. (2010). Pubic hair removal among women in the United States: Prevalence, methods, and characteristics. Journal of Sexual Medicine,7, 3322–3330. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01935.x Hammack, P. L., Thompson, E. M., & Pilecki, A. (2009). Configurations of identity among sexual minority youth: Context, desire, and narrative. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,38, 867–883. doi:10.1007/ s10964-008-9342-3 Herdt, G., & McClintock, M. (2000). The magical age of 10. Archives of Sexual Behavior,29, 587–606. doi:10.1023/A:1002006521067 Hammers, C. J. (2008). Making space for an agentic sexuality? The examination of a lesbian/queer bathhouse. Sexualities,11, 547–572. doi:10.1177/1363460708094267 Hanna, C. (2001). Sex is not a sport: Consent and violence in criminal law. Boston College Law Review Boston College Law School,42, 239–290. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature.New York, NY: Routledge. Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence. New York, NY: Basic Books. Hernandez, J. (2009). “Miss, you look like a bratz doll”: On chonga girls and sexual–aesthetic excess. National Women’s Studies Association Journal,21, 63–90. doi:10.1353/nwsa.0.0102 Hines, S. (2007). Transforming gender: Transgender practices of identity, intimacy and care.Bristol, England: Policy Press. 795 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs Hirschman, C., Impett, E. A., & Schooler, D. (2006). Dis/ embodied voices: What late-adolescent girls can teach us about objectification and sexuality. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 3(4), 8–20. doi:10.1525/srsp.2006.3.4.8 Holland, J., & Ramazanoglu, C. (1994). Coming to conclusions: Power and interpretation in researching young women’s sexuality. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 125–148). London, England: Taylor & Francis. Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (1994). Power and desire: The embodiment of female sexuality. Feminist Review, 46, 21–38. doi:10.1057/fr.1994.2 Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (2003). When bodies come together: Power, control and desire. In J. Weeks, J. Holland, & M. Waites (Eds.), Sexualities and society: A reader (pp. 84–94). Oxford, England: Polity Press. Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (2004). The male in the head: Young people, heterosexuality, and power (2nd ed.). London, England: Tufnell Press. Holland, J., & Thomson, R. (2010). Revisiting youthful sexuality: Continuities and changes over two decades. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,25, 342– 350. doi:10.1080/14681991003767370 Holland, S., & Attwood, F. (2009). Keeping fit in six-inch heels: The mainstreaming of pole dancing. In F. Attwood (Ed.), Mainsteaming sex: The sexualization of Western culture (pp. 129–146). London, England: IB Tauris. Holmes, M. (2002). Rethinking the meaning and management of intersexuality. Sexualities,5, 159–180. doi:10.1177/1363460702005002002 Holt, M. (2009). “Just take Viagra”: Erectile insurance, prophylactic uncertainty, and deficit correction in gay men’s accounts of sexuopharmaceutical use. Sexualities,12, 746–764. doi:10.1177/1363460709346112 Hoppe, T. (2011). Circuits of power, circuits of pleasure: Sexual scripting in gay men’s bottom narratives. Sexualities,14, 193–217. doi:10.1177/1363460711399033 Horne, S., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2005). Female sexual subjectivity and well-being: Comparing late adolescents with different sexual experiences. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,2, 25–40. doi:10.1525/srsp.2005.2.3.25 Howe, C., & Rigi, J. (2009). Transnationalizing desire: Sexualizing culture and commodifying sexualities. Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology,74, 297–306. doi:10.1080/00141840903053071 Hugh-Jones, S., Gough, B., & Littlewood, A. (2005). Sexual exhibitionism as “sexuality and individuality”: A critique of psycho-medical discourse from the 796 perspectives of women who exhibit. Sexualities,8, 259–281. doi:10.1177/1363460705049576 Hyde, J. (2003). The use of meta-analysis in understanding the effects of child sexual abuse. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Sexual development in childhood (pp. 82–91). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Impett, E. A., Henson, J. M., Breines, J. G., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2011). Embodiment feels better: Girls body objectification and well being across adolescence. Psychology of Women Quarterly,35, 46–58. doi:10.1177/0361684310391641 Impett, E. A., & Tolman, D. L. (2006). Late adolescent girls’ sexual experiences and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Adolescent Research,21, 628–646. doi:10.1177/0743558406293964 Inhorn, M. C. (2007). Masturbation, semen collection and men’s IVF experiences: Anxieties in the Muslim world. Body and Society,13, 37–53. doi:10.1177/1357034X07082251 Irigaray, L. (1984). An ethics of sexual difference(C. Burke & G. C. Gill, Trans.). London, England: Althone. Irvine, J. M. (1990). From difference to sameness: Gender ideology in sexual science. Journal of Sex Research,27, 7–24. doi:10.1080/00224499009551539 Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (2007). Faking like a woman? Towards an interpretive theorization of sexual pleasure. Body and Society,13, 95–116. doi:10.1177/1357034X07077777 Jagose, A. (2010). Counterfeit pleasures: Fake orgasm and queer agency. Textual Practice,24, 517–539. doi:10.1080/09502361003690849 Jagstaidt, V., Golay, A., & Pasini, W. (1997). Relationships between sexuality and obesity in male patients. New Trends in Experimental and Clinical Psychiatry,13, 105–110. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co. doi:10.1037/ 11059-000 Jewkes, R., & Morrell, R. (2010). Gender and sexuality: Emerging perspectives from the heterosexual epidemic in South Africa and implications for HIV risk and prevention. Journal of the International AIDS Society,13, 1–11. doi:10.1186/1758-2652-13-6 Jones, M. (2008). Makeover culture’s dark side: Breasts, death, and Lolo Ferrari. Body and Society,14, 89–104. doi:10.1177/1357034X07087532 Jones, R. (2008). The role of text in televideo cybersex. Text and Talk, 453–473. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2008.022 Joshi, S. P., Peter, J., & Valkenberg, P. M. (2011). Scripts of sexual desire and danger in U.S. and Dutch teen girl magazines: A cross-national content analysis. Sex Roles,64, 463–474. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9941-4 Sexuality and Embodiment Kang, S. (2007). Disembodiment in online social interaction: Impact of online chat on social support and psychosocial well-being. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10, 475–477. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9929 Lamb, S. (2001). The secret lives of girls: What good girls really do—sex play, aggression, and their guilt.New York, NY: The Free Press. Kaplan, H. S. (1974). The new sex therapy.New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel. Lamb, S. (2010). Feminist ideals for a healthy female adolescent sexuality: A critique. Sex Roles,62, 294–306. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9698-1 Katz, S., & Marshall, B. (2003). New sex for old: Lifestyle, consumerism, and the ethics of aging well. Journal of Aging Studies,17, 3–16. doi:10.1016/S08904065(02)00086-5 Lamb, S., & Coakley, M. (1993). ‘Normal’ childhood sexual play and games: Differentiating play from abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect,17, 515–526. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(93)90026-2 Kehily, M. (2001). Bodies in school: Young men, embodiment, and heterosexual masculinities. Men and Masculinities,4, 173–185. doi:10.1177/10971 84X01004002005 Langdridge, D., & Butt, T. (2004). A hermeneutic phenomenological investigation of the construction of sadomasochistic identities. Sexualities,7, 31–53. doi:10.1177/1363460704040137 Kelly, D. (2004). Male sexuality in theory and practice. Nursing Clinics of North America,39, 341–356. doi:10.1016/j.cnur.2004.02.016 Langmuir, J. I., Kirsh, S. G., & Classen, C. C. (2012). A pilot study of body-oriented group psychotherapy: Adapting sensorimotor psychotherapy for the group treatment of trauma. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy,4, 214–220. doi:10.1037/a0025588 Kessler, S. (2002). Defining and producing genitals. Gender: A Sociological Reader.London, England: Routledge. Kim, E. (2011). Asexuality in disability narratives. Sexualities,14, 479–493. doi:10.1177/1363460711406463 Lester, R. J. (1997). The (dis)embodied self in anorexia nervosa. Social Science and Medicine,44, 479–489. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00166-9 Kinzl, J. F., Trefalt, E., Fiala, M., Hotter, A., Biebl, W., & Aigner, F. (2001). Partnership, sexuality, and sexual disorders in morbidly obese women: Consequences of weight loss after gastric banding. Obesity Surgery,11, 455–458. doi:10.1381/096089201321209323 Levitt, H. M., & Horne, S. G. (2008). Review of the book Challenging lesbian norms: Intersex, transgender, intersectional and queer perspectives by A. P. Aragon (ed.). Sex Roles,59, 296–297. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9401-y Kippax, S., & Smith, G. (2001). Anal intercourse and power in sex between men. Sexualities,4, 413–434. doi:10.1177/136346001004004002 Koch, T., Kralik, D., & Eastwood, S. (2002). Constructions of sexuality for women living with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Advanced Nursing,39, 137–145. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02253.x Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender and Society,3, 187–216. doi:10.1177/089124389003002003 Kong, T. S. K. (2002). The seduction of the golden boy: The body politics of Hong Kong gay men. Body and Society,8, 29–48. doi:10.1177/13570 34X02008001002 Koyama, E.(n.d.). Being accountable to the invisible community: A challenge for intersex activists and allies. Intersex Initiative.Retrieved from http://www. intersexinitiative.org/articles/invisible-community.html Labuski, C. (2011). “It’s hard to say”: Moving beyond the mystery of female genital pain. In S. Kwan & C. Boble (Eds.), Embodied resistance: Challenging the norms, breaking the rules (pp. 143–155). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Lacombe, D. (1996). Reforming Foucault: A critique of the social control thesis. British Journal of Sociology, 47, pp. 332–352. doi:10.2307/591730 Lindemann, D. (2011). “Is that any way to treat a lady?”: The dominatrix’s dungeon. In C. Boble & S. Kwan (Eds.), Embodied resistance: Challenging the norms, breaking the rules (pp. 26–36). Nashville, TN: Nashville University Press. Lindemann, G. (1996). The body of gender difference (J. Wolfgang, Trans.). European Journal of Women’s Studies,3, 341–361. doi:10.1177/13505 0689600300402 Litwin, M. S., Melmed, G. Y., & Nakazon, T. (2001). Life after radical prostectomy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Urology,166, 587–592. doi:10.1016/S00225347(05)65989-7 Lloyd, E. A. (2006). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Loe, M. (2004). Sex and the senior woman: Pleasure and danger in the Viagra era. Sexualities,7, 303–326. doi:10.1177/1363460704044803 Loe, M. (2006). The Viagra blues: Embracing or resisting the Viagra body. In D. Rosenfeld & C. Faircloth (Eds.), Medicalized masculinities (pp. 21–44). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Loe, M. (2007). The rise of Viagra: How the little blue pill changed sex in America. New York: New York University Press. 797 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs Loewenson, P. R., Ireland, M., & Resnick, M. D. (2004). Primary and secondary sexual abstinence in high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health,34, 209– 215. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.05.002 McClelland, S. (2010). Intimate justice: A critical analysis of sexual satisfaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,4, 663–680. doi:10.1111/j.17519004.2010.00293.x Longhurst, R. (2001). Breaking corporeal boundaries: Pregnant bodies in public spaces. In R. Holliday & J. Hassard (Eds.), Contested bodies (pp. 81–94). London, England: Routledge. McClelland, S. (2011). Who is the “self” in self-reports of sexual satisfaction: Research and policy implications. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,8, 304–320. doi:10.1007/s13178-011-0067-9 Lowe, P. (2005). Contraception and heterosex: An intimate relationship. Sexualities,8, 75–92. doi:10.1177/1363460705049575 McDermott, E. (2009). Review of the book Workingclass lesbian life: Classed outsiders by Yvette Taylor. American Journal of Sociology,115, 273–275. doi:10.1086/605741 Maddison, S. (2009). “The second sexual revolution”: Big pharma, porn, and the biopolitical penis. Topia: The Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies,22, 35–53. Magubane, Z. (2001). Which bodies matter? Feminism, poststructuralism, race, and the curious theoretical odyssey of the “hottentot venus.”Gender and Society,15, 816–834. doi:10.1177/089124301015006003 Mairs, N. (1997). Carnal acts. In K. Conboy, N. Medina, & S. Stanbury (Eds.), Writing on the body: Female embodiment and feminist theory (pp. 296–305). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Mamo, L., & Fishman, J. R. (2001). Potency in all the right places: Viagra as a technology of the gendered body. Body and Society,7, 13–35. doi:10.1177/13570 34X01007004002 Manderson, L. (2005). Boundary breaches: The body, sex, and sexuality after stoma surgery. Social Science and Medicine,61, 405–415. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.051 Marshall, B. L. (2006). The new virility: Viagra, male aging, and sexual function. Sexualities,9, 345–362. doi:10.1177/1363460706065057 Marshall, B. L., & Katz, S. (2002). Forever functional: Sexual fitness and the ageing male body. Body and Society,8, 43–70. doi:10.1177/13570 34X02008004003 Martin, B. (1996). Femininity played straight: The significance of being lesbian.New York, NY: Routledge. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response.Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Maxwell, C., & Aggleton, P. (2010). Agency in action— Young women and their sexual relationships in a private school. Gender and Education,22, 327–343. doi:10.1080/09540250903341120 Maxwell, C., & Aggleton, P. (2012). Bodies and agentic practice in young women’s sexual and intimate relationships. Sociology,46, 306–321. doi:10.1177/0038038511419192 Mayor, S. (2004). Pfizer will not apply for a license for sildenafil for women. Social Science and Medicine,328, 542. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7439.542 798 McHugh, M. C. (2006). What do women want? A new view of women’s sexual problems. Sex Roles,54, 361– 369. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9006-2 McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly,20, 181–215. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x McNair, B. (1996). Mediated sex: Pornography and postmodern culture.London, England: Arnold. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London, England: Routledge. Merskin, D. (2004). Reviving Lolita? A media literacy examination of sexual portrayals of girls in fashion advertising. American Behavioral Scientist,48, 119– 129. doi:10.1177/0002764204267257 Middelthon, A. (2002). Being anally penetrated: Erotic inhibitions, improvisations and transformations. Sexualities,5, 181–200. doi:10.1177/136346070200 5002003 Miller, J. G., Das, R., & Chakravarthy, S. (2011). Culture and the role of choice in agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,101, 46–61. doi:10.1037/a0023330 Miller-Young, M. (2010). Putting hypersexuality to work: Black women and elicit eroticism in pornography. Sexualities,13, 219–235. doi:10.1177/1363460 709359229 Millsted, R., & Frith, H. (2003). Being large-breasted: Women negotiating embodiment. Women’s Studies International Forum,26, 455–465. doi:10.1016/S02775395(03)00105-5 Minh-Ha, T. T. (1989). Woman, native, other: Writing postcoloniality and feminism.Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Minto, C. L., Liao, L. M., Woodhouse, C. R. J., Ransley, P. G., & Creighton, S. M. (2003). The effect of clitoral surgery on sexual outcome in individuals who have intersex conditions with ambiguous genitalia: A cross-sectional study. Lancet,361, 1252–1257. doi:10.1016/S01406736(03)12980-7 Sexuality and Embodiment Moi, T. (2001). What is a woman? And other essays.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Moore, L. J. (2007). Sperm counts: Overcome by a man’s most precious fluid.New York: New York University Press. Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (1981). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color. Watertown, MA: Persephone Press. Pasko, L. (2010). Setting the record “straight”: Girls, sexuality, and the juvenile correctional system. Social Justice,37, 7–26. Peterson, Z. D. (2010). What is sexual empowerment? A multidimensional and process-oriented approach to adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment. Sex Roles,62, 307–313. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9725-2 Moynihan, R. (2003). The making of a disease: Female sexual dysfunction. British Medical Journal,326, 45–47. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.45 Phelan, J. E. (2009). Exploring the use of touch in the psychotherapeutic setting: A phenomenological review. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,46, 97–111. doi:10.1037/a0014751 Murray, S. (2004). Locating aesthetics: Sexing the fat woman. Social Semiotics,14, 237–247. doi:10.1080/10350330408629678 Phillips, L. M. (2000). Flirting with danger: Young women’s reflections on sexuality and domination. New York: New York University Press. Nosek, M. A., Howland, C., Rintala, D. H., Young, M. E., & Chanpong, G. F. (2001). National study of women with physical disabilities: Final report. Sexuality and Disability,19, 5–40. doi:10.1023/A:1010716820677 Piran, N., & Ross, E. (2005). The transition from girlhood to womanhood. In J. Worell & C. Goodhart (Eds.), Handbook of girls’ and women’s psychological health (pp. 178–195). London, England: Oxford Press. Nowatzki, J., & Morry, M. M. (2009). Women’s intentions regarding, and acceptance of, self-sexualizing behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly,33, 95–107. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01477.x Piran, N., & Teall, T. (2012). The developmental theory of embodiment. In G. McVey, M. P. Levine, N. Piran, & H. B. Ferguson (Eds.), Preventing eating-related and weight-related disorders: Collaborative Research, Advocacy, and Policy Change (pp. 171–199). Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier Press. Nugteren, H. M., Balkema, G. T., Pascal, A. L., Schultz, W. C. M., Nijman, J. M., & Van Driel, M. F. (2010). 18-year experience in the management of men with a complaint of a small penis. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,36, 109–117. doi:10.1080/00926230903554438 Nyanzi, S., Rosenberg-Jallow, O., Bah, O., & Nyanzi, S. (2005). Bumsters, big black organs and old white gold: Embodied racial myths in sexual relationships of Gambian beach boys. Culture, Health and Sexuality,7, 557–569. doi:10.1080/13691050500245687 Oliffe, J. (2005). Constructions of masculinity following prostatectomy-induced impotence. Social Science and Medicine,60, 2249–2259. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.10.016 Oliver, K. (2010). Motherhood, sexuality, and pregnant embodiment: Twenty-five years of gestation. Hypatia, 25, 760–777. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01134.x Owens, E., Behun, R., Manning, J., & Reed, R. (2012). The impact of Internet pornography on adolescents: A review of the research. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity,19, 99–122. doi:10.1080/10720162.2012.660431 Pardo, S. T. (2011). Queering transgender: Towards a sociology of transgender. Journal of Sex Research,48, 409–410. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.487769 Pascoe, C. J. (2007). “What if a guy hits on you?” Intersections of gender, sexuality, and age in fieldwork with adolescents. In A. L. Best (Ed.), Representing youth: Methodological issues in critical youth studies (pp. 226–247). New York: New York University Press. Pitman, G. E. (1999). Body image, compulsory heterosexuality, and internalized homophobia. Journal of Lesbian Studies,3, 129–139. doi:10.1300/ J155v03n04_17 Pitts, V. (1999). Body modification, self-mutilation, and agency in media accounts of a subculture. Body and Society,5, 291–303. doi:10.1177/1357034X99005002016 Plante, R. F. (2006). Sexualities in context: A social perspective.Boulder, CO: Westview. Plummer, K. (2002). Telling sexual stories: Power, change, and social worlds. New York, NY: Routledge. Plummer, K. (2012). Critical sexuality studies. In G. Ritzel (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to sociology (pp. 243–268). New York, NY: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444347388.ch14 Poon, M. K., & Ho, P. T. (2008). Negotiating social stigma among gay Asian men. Sexualities,11, 245– 268. doi:10.1177/1363460707085472 Potts, A. (2004). Deleuze on Viagra (or, what can a ‘Viagra-body’ do?). Body and Society,10, 17–36. doi:10.1177/1357034X04041759 Prause, N., & Graham, C. A. (2007). Asexuality: Classification and characterization. Archives of Sexual Behavior,36, 341–356. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9142-3 Pyle, N., & Klein, N. L. (2011). Fat, hairy, sexy: Contesting standards of beauty and sexuality in the gay community. In C. Boble & S. Kwan (Eds.), Embodied resistance: Challenging the norms, breaking 799 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs the rules (pp. 78–87). Nashville, TN: Nashville University Press. Rademakers, J., Laan, M. J. C., & Straver, C. J. (2003). Body awareness and physical intimacy: An exploratory study. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Sexual development in childhood (pp. 121–125). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Regehr, K. (2012). The rise of recreational burlesque: Bumping and grinding towards empowerment. Sexuality and Culture,16, 134–157. doi:10.1007/ s12119-011-9113-2 Reich, J. (2011). Public Mothers and private practices: Breastfeeding as transgression. In C. Bobel & S. Kwan (Eds.), Embodied resistance: Challenging the norms, breaking the rules (pp. 130–142). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Renold, E. (2005). Girls, boys, and junior sexualities.New York, NY: Routledge. Renold, E. (2006). “They won’t let us play . . . unless you’re going out with one of them”: Girls, boys and Butler’s “heterosexual matrix” in the primary years. British Journal of Sociology of Education,27, 489–509. doi:10.1080/01425690600803111 Renold, E., & Ringrose, J. (2011). Schizoid subjectivities? Re-theorizing teen girls’ sexual cultures in an era of “sexualization.”Journal of Sociology, 47, 389–409. doi:10.1177/1440783311420792 Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,5, 631–660. doi:10.1086/493756 Ridge, D. T. (2004). “It was an incredible thrill”: The social meanings and dynamics of younger gay men’s experiences of barebacking in Melbourne. Sexualities,7, 259–279. doi:10.1177/1363460 704040138 Ringrose, J. (2010). Sluts, whores, fat slags and playboy bunnies: Teen girls’ negotiations of “sexy” on social networking sites and at school. In C. Jackson, C. Paechter, & E. Renold (Eds.), Girls and education: Continuing concerns, new agendas (pp. 170–182). New York, NY: Open University Press. Ringrose, J. (2011). Are you sexy, flirty, or a slut? Exploring “sexualization” and how teen girls perform/negotiate digital sexual identity on social networking sites. In R. Gill & C. Scharff (Eds.), New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism, and subjectivity (pp. 99–116). New York, NY: PalgraveMacMillan. Ringrose, J. (2013). Postfeminist education? Girls and the sexual politics of schooling.London, England: Routledge. Roberts, T. (2004). Female trouble: The menstrual self-evaluation scale and women’s self-objectification. 800 Psychology of Women Quarterly,28, 22–26. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00119.x Roberts, T., & Gettman, J. Y. (2004). Mere exposure: Gender differences in the negative effects of priming a state of self-objectification. Sex Roles,51, 17–27. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000032306.20462.22 Roberts, T. A., & Waters, P. L. (2004). Self-objectification and that “not so fresh feeling”: Feminist therapeutic interventions for healthy female embodiment. Women and Therapy,27, 5–21. doi:10.1300/J015v27n03_02 Roberts, T. A., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2012). The sexualization of girls and girlhood: Causes, consequences, and resistance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Robinson, K. H. (2012). “Difficult citizenship”: The precarious relationships between childhood, sexuality, and access to knowledge. Sexualities,15, 257–276. doi:10.1177/1363460712436469 Roen, K. (2008). But we have to do something: “Surgical correction” of atypical genitalia. Body and Society,14, 47–66. doi:10.1177/1357034X07087530 Ronen, S. (2010). Grinding on the dance floor: Gendered scripts and sexualized dancing at parties. Gender and Society,24, 355–377. doi:10.1177/0891243210 369894 Rooke, A. (2007). Navigating embodied lesbian cultural space: Toward a lesbian habitus. Space and Culture,10, 231–252. doi:10.1177/120633120 6298790 Rothblum, E. D. (1994). Transforming lesbian sexuality. Psychology of Women Quarterly,18, 627–641. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01051.x Rothblum, E. D., & Brehony, K. A. (1993). Boston marriages: Romantic but asexual relationships among contemporary lesbians.Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Rothblum, E. D., Solovay, S., & Wann, M. (2009). The fat studies reader.New York: New York University Press. Rubin, G. S. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 143–178). New York, NY: Routledge. Rutherford, A. (2012). Problems of sex and the problem with nature: A commentary on “beyond Kinsey.”History of Psychology,15, 228–232. doi:10.1037/ a0027668 Ryan, G. (2000). Childhood sexuality: A decade of study. Part 1: Research and curriculum development. Child Abuse and Neglect,24, 33–48. doi:10.1016/S01452134(99)00118-0 Sanchez, D. T., Fetterolf, J. C., & Rudman, L. A. (2012). Eroticising inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender Sexuality and Embodiment role adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research,49, 168–183. doi:10.1080/00224499.20 11.653699 Sanchez, D. T., & Kiefer, A. K. (2007). Body concerns in and out of the bedroom: Implications for sexual pleasure and problems. Archives of Sexual Behavior,36, 808–820. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9205-0 Sandfort, T. G. M., & Rademakers, J. (Eds.). (2000). Childhood sexuality: Normal sexual behavior and development.Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Sanger, N. (2009). New women, old messages? Constructions of femininities, race and hypersexualized bodies in selected South African magazines, 2003–2006. Social Dynamics,35, 137–148. doi:10.1080/02533950802667301 Shifren, J. L., Brigitta, M., Russo, P., Segretti, A., & Johannes, C. B. (2008). Sexual problems and distress in United States women: Prevalence and correlates. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 112, 970–978. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181898cdb Shildrick, M. (2005). Unreformed bodies: Normative anxiety and the denial of pleasure. Women’s Studies,34, 327–344. doi:10.1080/00497870590964219 Shildrick, M. (2007). Dangerous discourses: Anxiety, desire, and disability. Studies in Gender and Sexuality,8, 221–244. doi:10.1080/15240650701226490 Shildrick, M., & Price, J. (1999). Breaking the boundaries of the broken body. In J. Price & M. Shildrick (Eds.), Feminist theory and the body: A reader (pp. 432–444). New York, NY: Routledge. Scherrer, K. S. (2008). Coming to an asexual identity: Negotiating identity, negotiating desire. Sexualities,11, 621–641. doi:10.1177/1363460708094269 Shiu-Ki, T. K. (2004). Queer at your own risk: Marginality, community and Hong Kong gay male bodies. Sexualities,7, 5–30. doi:10.1177/1363460704040136 Schilling, C. (2003). The body and social theory.London, England: Sage. Short, M. B., Black, L., Smith, A. H., Wetterneck, C. T., & Wells, D. E. (2012). A review of Internet pornography use research: Methodology and content from the past 10 years. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,15, 13–23. doi:10.1089/ cyber.2010.0477 Schleifer, D. (2006). Make me feel mighty real: Gay female-to-male transgenderists negotiating sex, gender, and sexuality. Sexualities,9, 57–75. doi:10.1177/1363460706058397 Schover, L. R., Yetman, R. J., Tuason, L. J., Meisler, E., Esselstyn, C. B., Hermann, R. E., . . .Dowden, R. V. (1995). Partial mastectomy and breast reconstruction: A comparison of their effects on psychosocial adjustment, body image, and sexuality. Cancer, 75, 54–64. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19950101)75:154::AIDCNCR28207501113.0.CO;2-I Seal, D. W., Smith, M., Coley, B., Perry, J., & Gamez, M. (2008). Urban heterosexual couples’ sexual scripts for three shared sexual experiences. Sex Roles,58, 626–638. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9369-z Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sedgwick, E. K. (1993). Tendencies.Durham, NC: Duke University Press. doi:10.4324/9780203202210 Segal, L. (1992). Introduction. In L. Segal & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Sex exposed: Sexuality and the pornography debate (pp. 1–11). London, England: Virago. Seidman, S. (Ed.). (1996). Queer theory/sociology.Oxford, England: Blackwell. Shapiro, E. (2007). Drag kinging and the transformation of gender identities. Gender and Society,21, 250–271. doi:10.1177/0891243206294509 Shaw, A. E. (2006). The embodiment of disobedience: Fat black women’s unruly political bodies. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Sheppard, L. A., & Ely, S. (2008). Breast cancer and sexuality. Breast Journal,14, 176–181. doi:10.1111/j.15244741.2007.00550.x Sieg, E. (2007). “What you want, or what you get?” Young women talking about the gap between desired and lived heterosexual relationships in the 21st century. Women’s Studies International Forum,30, 175–186. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2007.01.007 Simpson, A. (2007). Learning sex and gender in Zambia: Masculinities and HIV AIDS risk. Sexualities,10, 173–188. doi:10.1177/1363460707075799 Slater, D. (1998). Trading sexpics on IRC: Embodiment and authenticity on the Internet. Body and Society, 4, 91–117. doi:10.1177/1357034X98004004005 Slavin, S. (2009). “Instinctively, I’m not just a sexual beast”: The complexity of intimacy among Australian gay men. Sexualities, 12, 79–96. doi:10.1177/1363460708099114 Smith-Rosenberg, C. (1975). The female world of love and ritual: Relations between women in 19th-century America. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1, 1–29. doi:10.1086/493203 Spelman, E. V. (1990). Inessential woman. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Starr, C., & Ferguson, G. (2012). Sexy dolls, sexy gradeschoolers: Media and maternal influences on young girls’ self-sexualization. Sex Roles, 67, 463–476. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0183-x Storr, M. (2000). Review of the book The male in the head: Young people, heterosexuality, and power by J. Holland, C. Ramazanoglu, S. Sharpe, and R. Thomson. Feminist Review, 66, 151–153. 801 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs Strachan, E., & Staples, B. (2012). Masturbation. Pediatrics,33, 190–191. doi:10.1542/pir.33-4-190 Stryker, S. (2006). (De)subjugated knowledges: An introduction to transgender studies. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The transgender studies reader (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Routledge. Tally, M. (2006). “She doesn’t let age define her”: Sexuality and motherhood in recent “middle-aged chick flicks.”Sexuality and Culture,10, 33–55. doi:10.1007/s12119-006-1014-4 Tepper, M. S. (2000). Sexuality and disability: The missing discourse of pleasure. Sexuality and Disability,18, 283–290. doi:10.1023/A:1005698311392 Thompson, E. M., & Morgan, E. M. (2008). “Mostly straight” young women: Variations in sexual behavior and identity development. Developmental Psychology,44, 15–21. doi:10.1037/00121649.44.1.15 Tibbals, C. A. (2010). From the devil in Ms Jones to DMJ6: Power, inequality, and consistency in the content of U.S. adult films. Sexualities,13, 625–644. doi:10.1177/1363460710376493 Tiefer, L. (2001). A new view of women’s sexual problems: Why new? Why now? Journal of Sex Research,38, 89–96. doi:10.1080/00224490109552075 Tiefer, L. (2004). Sex is not a natural act and other essays.Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Tiefer, L. (2006). Female sexual dysfunction: A case study of disease mongering and activist resistance. PLoS Medicine,3, 10436–10440. doi:10.1371/journal. pmed.0030178 Tiefer, L. (2008). Female genital cosmetic surgery: Freakish or inevitable? Analysis from medical marketing, bioethics, and feminist theory. Feminism and Psychology,18, 466–479. doi:10.1177/0959353 508095529 Tiefer, L. (2010). Activism on the medicalization of sex and female genital cosmetic surgery by the New View campaign in the United States. Reproductive Health Matters,18, 56–63. doi:10.1016/S09688080(10)35493-0 Toerien, M., Wilkinson, S., & Choi, P. Y. L. (2005). Body hair removal: The “mundane” production of normative femininity. Sex Roles,52, 399–406. doi:10.1007/ s11199-005-2682-5 Tolman, D. (1994). Doing desire: Adolescent girls’ struggles for/with sexuality. Gender and Society,8, 324–342. doi:10.1177/089124394008003003 within compulsory heterosexuality. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,2006, 71–89. doi:10.1002/cd.163 Tolman, D. (2012). It’s bad for everyone: Impact of sexualization on boys, men, and women. In E. Zurbriggen & T. Roberts (Eds.), Hot girls? Sexualization of girls (pp. 84–106). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tolman, D., & Diamond, L. (2001). Desegregating sexuality research: Synthesizing cultural and biological perspectives on gender and desire. Annual Review of Sexuality Research,12, 33–74. Tolman, D., & Szalacha, L. A. (1999). Dimensions of desire: Bridging qualitative and quantitative methods in a study of female adolescent sexuality. Psychology of Women Quarterly,23, 7–39. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00338.x Tomassilli, J. C., Golub, S. A., Bimbi, D. S., & Parsons, J. T. (2009). Behind closed doors: An exploration of kinky sexual behaviors in urban lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Sex Research,46, 438–445. doi:10.1080/00224490902754202 Trapnell, P. D., Meston, C. M., & Gorzalka, B. B. (1997). Spectatoring and the relationship between body image and sexual experience: Self-focus or self-valence? Journal of Sex Research,34, 267–278. doi:10.1080/00224499709551893 Tricklebank, G., Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (in press). “It shouldn’t stick out from your bikini at the beach”: Gender, pubic hair, and pubic hair removal. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Turner, B. S. (1995). Aging and identity: Some reflections on the somatization of the self. In M. Featherstone & A. Wernick (Eds.), Images of aging (pp. 245–260). London, England: Routledge. Ussher, J. M. (1989). The psychology of the female body. London, England: Routledge. Ussher, J. M., & Mooney-Somers, J. (2000). Negotiating desire and sexual subjectivity: Narratives of young lesbian avengers. Sexualities,3, 183–200. doi:10.1177/136346000003002005 Valentine, D. (2007). Imagining transgender: An ethnography of a category.Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books. Vance, C. S. (1984). Pleasure and Danger: Toward a politics of sexuality.Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Tolman, D. (2002). Dilemma of desire: Teenage girls and sexuality.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. van Doorn, N. (2011). Digital spaces, material traces: How matter comes to matter in online performances of gender, sexuality and embodiment. Media Culture and Society,33, 531–547. doi:10.1177/016344 3711398692 Tolman, D. (2006). In a different position: Conceptualizing female adolescent sexuality development Vansteenwegen, A., Jans, I., & Revel, A. T. (2003). Sexual experience of women with a physical disability: A 802 Sexuality and Embodiment comparative study. Sexuality and Disability,21, 283– 290. doi:10.1023/B:SEDI.0000010070.46481.17 Vares, T. (2009). Reading the “sexy oldie”: Gender, age(ing) and embodiment. Sexualities,12, 503–524. doi:10.1177/1363460709105716 Villaamil, F., & Jociles, M. I. (2011). Risk and community: The impact of HIV among gays in Madrid: The case of sex clubs. Sexualities,14, 580–596. doi:10.1177/1363460711415334 Vitellone, N. (2002). Condoms and the making of sexual differences in AIDS heterosexual culture. Body and Society,8, 71–94. doi:10.1177/13570 34X02008003004 Walker, J. J., Golub, S. A., Bimbi, D. S., & Parson, J. T. (2012). Butch bottom—femme top? An exploration of lesbian stereotypes. Journal of Lesbian Studies,16, 90–107. doi:10.1080/10894160.2011.557646 Walker, L. (2001). Looking like what you are: Sexual style, race, and lesbian identity.New York: New York University Press. Ward, J. (2002). The skin we’re in: Teaching our teens to be emotionally strong, socially smart, and spiritually connected.New York, NY: Free Press. Ward, M., & Wyatt, G. E. (1994). The effects of childhood sexual messages on African American and White women’s adolescent sexual behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly,18, 183–201. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00450.x Waskul, D. D. (2002). The naked self: Being a body in televideo cybersex. Symbolic Interaction,25, 199–227. doi:10.1525/si.2002.25.2.199 Waskul, D. D., & van der Riet, P. (2002). The abject embodiment of cancer patients: Dignity, selfhood, and the grotesque body. Symbolic Interaction,25, 487–513. doi:10.1525/si.2002.25.4.487 Weber, C. (1998). Performative states. Millennium— Journal of International Studies,17, 77–95. doi:10.117 7/03058298980270011101 Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments.London, England: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203167168 Weinberg, M. S., & Williams, C. J. (2010a). Bare bodies: Nudity, gender, and the looking glass body. Sociological Forum,25, 47–67. doi:10.1111/j.15737861.2009.01156.x Weinberg, M. S., & Williams, C. J. (2010b). Men sexually interested in transwomen (MSTW): Gendered embodiment and the construction of sexual desire. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 374–383. doi:10.1080/00224490903050568 Weiss, M., & Weiss, M. D. (2011). Techniques of pleasure: BDSM and the circuits of sexuality.Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Weiss, M. D. (2006). Mainstreaming kink. Journal of Homosexuality,50, 103–132. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_06 Wentzell, E. (2011). Generational differences in Mexican men’s ideas of age-appropriate sex and Viagra use. Men and Masculinities,14, 392–407. doi:10.1177/1097184X10394780 West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society,1, 125–151. doi:10.1177/089124 3287001002002 White, M. (2010). Listing eBay masculinity: Erotic exchanges and regulation in “gay” and “gay interest” underwear and swimwear auctions. Journal of Gender Studies,19, 43–58. doi:10.1080/09589230903525437 Whitehead, K., & Kurz, T. (2009). Investigation of the reinvention of pole dancing as a recreational activity. Feminism and Psychology,19, 224–244. doi:10.1177/0959353509102218 Wiederman, M. W. (2000). Women’s body image self-consciousness during physical intimacy with a partner. Journal of Sex Research,37, 60–68. doi:10.1080/00224490009552021 Wiederman, M. W. (2001). “Don’t look now”: The role of self-focus in sexual dysfunction. Family Journal,9, 210–214. doi:10.1177/1066480701092020 Wilson, M. (2002). I am the prince of pain, for I am a princess in the brain: Liminal transgender identities, narratives and the elimination of ambiguities. Sexualities,5, 425–448. doi:10.1177/1363460 702005004003 Wilson-Kovacs, D. (2009). Some texts do it better: Women, sexually explicit texts and the everyday. In F. Attwood (Ed.), Mainstreaming sex: The sexualization of women and culture (pp. 147–163). London, England: IB Tauris. Woertman, L., & Brink, F. (2012). Body image and female sexual functioning and behavior: A review. Journal of Sex Research,49, 184–211. doi:10.1080/002 24499.2012.658586 Wolmark, J. (1999). Cybersexualities: A reader on feminist theory, cyborgs and cyberspace.Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Woodhouse, C. R. J. (2004). Intersex surgery in the adult. British Journal of Urology International,93, 57–65. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04712.x Yamamiya, Y., Cash, T. F., & Thompson, J. K. (2006). Sexual experiences among college women: The differential effects of general versus contextual body images on sexuality. Sex Roles,55, 421–427. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9096-x Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics,121, e350–e357. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0693 803 Tolman, Bowman, and Fahs Yost, M. R., & McCarthy, L. (2012). Girls gone wild? Heterosexual women’s same-sex encounters at college parties. Psychology of Women Quarterly,36, 7–24. doi:10.1177/0361684311414818 Young, I. M. (1990). Throwing like a girl and other essays in feminist philosophy and social theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Young, I. M. (2005). Breasted experience: The look and the feeling. In I. M. Young (Ed.), On female body 804 experience: “Throwing like a girl” and other essays (pp. 75–96). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195161920.003.0006 Zavella, P. (2008). Playing with fire?: The gendered construction of Chicana/Mexicana sexuality. In M. C. Gutmann, F. V. Matos Rodriguez, L. Stephen, & P. Zavella (Eds.), Perspectives on Las Americas: A reader in culture, history, and representations (pp. 229–244). Malden, MA: Blackwell.