The meaning of race

As far back as I can remember I have always identified myself as a member of the “White” race. I don’t recall specifically how I came to think in those terms. It might have been while filling out one of those standardized test forms in school. Perhaps Sister Beatrice, my kindergarten teacher, instructed me to blacken the “White” or “Caucasian” balloon on the form with my number two pencil. Perhaps it was my mother or father who taught me that I am “White.” I don’t remember.

No one ever provided me with a definition of “White.” Like most such concepts, I learned to recognize different races through my experiences. Most of the people I knew, my family and friends, were “White.” Other darker-skinned people I saw while growing up in New Orleans, I would learn, were “Black.” I think the other categories were “Asian,” “Hispanic,” “Pacific Islander,” and “Other.” I didn’t know any of those, although I probably first learned to recognize them from TV and the movies.

Like most people, I originally assumed that “race” was a scientific classification, indicating distinctions that could be made at a biological level. It was only much later that I began to realize that the concept of race was problematic. It is now clear that “race” is a concept that was invented by our human societies. It actually has no basis in biology. The research bearing on this surprising conclusion was reviewed by Yale University researchers Robert Sternberg, Elena Grigorenko, and Kenneth Kidd in the January issue of American Psychologist, published by the American Psychological Association.

Scientists generally accept that all of us humans are descendants of humans who first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some time around 100,000 years ago, small numbers of people began migrating out of Africa and into southwestern Asia. The descendants of that non-African population are now believed to have migrated further, over subsequent tens of thousands of years, to eventually populate all continents and habitable regions of the world.

Over many thousands of years, populations living in relative isolation from one another changed for various reasons. Some of the changes were cultural, such as developing different foods and different clothing. Some of the changes, of course, were genetic.

Sometimes changes occurred as a result of Darwinian natural selection, meaning that those with gene patterns providing some advantage for survival or reproduction would, in time, become more prevalent. Other changes could occur randomly through genetic mutations, and also through a mechanism known as “random genetic drift.” Interbreeding within groups would also, over time, result in members of those groups becoming more and more similar to one another, and less similar to groups more geographically distant.

Obviously, differences in skin color are based in the genes. Sternberg and his colleagues insist, however, that “there is nothing special about skin color that serves as a basis for differentiating humans into so-called races.” That’s because if you identify any two groups of people that are different in one way, you can naturally find a cluster of ways in which they are different. For example, it has been noticed that groups who have survived over many generations in cold climates, such as Eskimos, tend to have rounded bodies, which are better suited for conserving heat. On the other hand, some populations that survive in hot climates, such as the Masai, have lanky bodies. A high ratio of surface area to volume, it is argued, permits better heat radiation, allowing such individuals to remain cooler.

Using our current racial classification systems, lanky and rounded people are viewed as representing two kinds of members of the Black and White races. It would, however, be just as reasonable to decide that classification of races should be done on the basis of lanky, versus rounded bodies, resulting in Black and White members of the lanky and rounded races. One could then identify certain genetic patterns that correspond to lankiness and roundedness, just as we could find genetic patterns corresponding to different skin colors.

Interestingly, we don’t speak of different “races” of, say moths, based upon differences in coloration within a given species. According to some, the concept of “race” is used by humans exclusively to classify human populations in order to create social divisions that are beneficial to the majority or ruling classes. Also, different racial classification systems are commonly found in different places and times. There is no universal agreement concerning a method of racial classification, nor can there be.

Human societies will probably always make racial distinctions. We categorize things quite naturally, it seems, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Racial categories often serve as a source of pride and personal identity. Unfortunately, racial classifications are too often used as a basis for discrimination against groups of people, even genocide. Perhaps as our societies come to grips with the fact that race is a social, rather than scientific construct, we will become less tolerant of such injustices.

Sexual dysfunction, like sexual enjoyment, is psychological in nature

At its best, sexual activity is one of the most powerfully enjoyable and satisfying human experience available. Likewise, when sexual problems develop, it can become a source of emotional distress and unhappiness like no other.

With the current widespread availability of modern medical remedies for sexual dysfunction, such as Viagra and Cialis, it is easy to forget that psychological processes typically play an essential role in problems involving sexual performance and satisfaction. A study appearing this month in the International Journal of Stress Management published by the American Psychological Association underscores the importance of “performance anxiety” in the development and maintenance sexual difficulties.

Experts have traditionally divided the human sexual response into four stages: desire, arousal, orgasm, and resolution. While problems could occur in any of these four stages, the first three appear particularly prone to the development of sexual dysfunction. Problems which appear initially in one phase may progress to affect another phase or phases of the sexual response cycle.

A person who experiences a problem in the desire phase typically experiences a lack of interest in having sex. He or she might not experience sexual thoughts or fantasies, and would be unlikely to initiate sexual activities.

A man experiencing difficulty with the arousal phase, as one might guess, would have difficulty achieving or maintaining an erection, making it difficult to engage in sexual intercourse. A woman would experience difficulty with the physiological responses which are needed to prepare her for sexual intercourse, such as the increased secretion of vaginal lubrication.

Problems in the orgasm phase are experienced by men as premature ejaculation, ejaculating too soon; or retarded ejaculation, taking too long to ejaculate. The female counterpart is known as inorgasmia, or having difficulty achieving orgasm.

Difficulty achieving orgasm is not rare among females, as I have pointed out here previously, and is not necessarily an indication of sexual dysfunction. In fact, as the pioneer sex researcher Alfred Kinsey demonstrated, sexual behavior is generally so diverse in its human manifestations that abnormality can in no way be considered a sign of pathology. Clinical psychologists often find it useful to consider emotional disturbance as a useful indicator for treatment, rather than targeting some sexual behavior that happens to fall outside of the mainstream.

Psychological problems may occur as a consequence of sexual dysfunction, and/or contribute to the development sexual dysfunction. Experts believe that performance anxiety plays an important role in the development of sexual dysfunction, particularly among men, although women with orgasmic dysfunction may also experience performance anxiety.

Sexual dysfunction may occur for any number of reasons; including problems in the relationship, attitudes toward sex, drugs or alcohol, anxiety, stress, fatigue, etc. A man who has experienced difficulty achieving an erection might subsequently entertain concerns over whether or not he will be able to achieve a sufficiently strong erection to permit sexual intercourse. Experts propose that performance anxiety may occur as a result of efforts at “willing” an erection, rather than permitting it to occur naturally as a product of sexual enjoyment. Anxiety may be increased with thoughts of imagined dire consequences of failing to perform adequately. Losing his erection at the point of vaginal penetration, when it is most needed, could serve to reinforce a man’s fears, increasing his anxiety level further.

Similarly, a woman who has difficulty experiencing orgasm might begin to entertain thoughts that her partner might become tired, and lose interest in continuing the session. She might excessively monitor her own arousal level, and feel an urgent need to experience an orgasm in order to satisfy her partner. She may, likewise, imagine dire consequences of not responding as she believes she should. The resulting anxiety interferes with her sexual enjoyment, and on and on in a vicious cycle.

Psychological treatment for sexual dysfunction typically aims at reducing the person’s anxiety level by identifying and changing the thought patterns implicated in contributing to the problem. Building a warm and mutually supportive alliance between the partners also can’t hurt. If each partner can learn to give and receive unconditional acceptance of the other during lovemaking, anxiety levels can diminish, and performance and enjoyment can increase. Just as they can interfere with sexual excitement, psychological factors can also enhance enjoyment, thus contributing positively to a couple’s relationship.

Why are men both attracted to and threatened by sexually attractive women?

Psychologists, as well as social commentators from other professional backgrounds have long noticed an interesting paradox: Men celebrate yet disparage, pursue yet fear sexually appealing women. Perhaps nowhere is this paradox more aptly represented than in Pattaya’s sex industry. Here men pay money for the sexual favors of mainly women, while the activities of those same women are socially denigrated, even criminalized by laws written by men.

Men’s ambivalence toward women is certainly not confined to this particular activity, place and time. References to the dangerous and deceitful nature of women can be found in folklore, religious texts, and other writings from the earliest civilizations. Noteworthy examples are the feminine mythical characters, Pandora and Eve, through whom evil and suffering were first introduced into human history. The Sirens of Homer’s Odyssey were powerfully seductive, yet harbingers of death and ruin, an attractive force to be avoided at all cost.

Women have suffered greatly as a result of these attitudes. Women who violate societal rules against sexual taboos typically face much more severe sanctions than do men. The vast majority of individuals identified and executed as witches during the 17th century in New England, U.S. were women. Many cultures continue to practice the barbaric act of female circumcision. Infibulation, a similar practice performed in some cultures, removes the clitoris and stitches the vagina closed until marriage.

The reason for this curious ambivalence by men toward women and sex is the subject of a report appearing this month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published by the American Psychological Association. The team of researchers led by psychologist Mark Landau of the University of Arizona proposes that negative reactions experienced by heterosexual men toward sexual impulses and attractive women could be explained by Greenburg, Pyszcynski, and Solomon’s “terror management theory,” (TMT).

The central claim of TMT is that we humans, like other creatures, have a basic impulse to avoid threats to our survival. In doing so, we primarily rely upon our superior intellectual abilities. The sex act, according to this line of thinking, by its nature, is a reminder of our animal heritage, our vulnerability, our mortality. Because reminders of our inevitable death tend to stir feelings of anxiety within us, our societies have developed ways of thinking to counteract these disturbing emotions.

One method we have discovered to relieve these unpleasant feelings is to elevate the sex act above the purely physical plane, to associate sexual activity with lofty values that are uniquely human, such as spirituality and romantic love. Furthermore, we suppress our natural biologically driven sexual inclinations through social, legal, and religious rules and taboos intended to govern when, where, and under what circumstances our sexuality is properly expressed.

To test this theory, the authors conducted five innovative studies to evaluate various predictions generated by TMT. Results tended to support the notion that concerns about mortality play a role in the negative attitudes of heterosexual men toward sexual attraction and women. For example, when men were presented with reminders of their mortality, they exhibited decreased interest in and sexual attraction toward women who inspired lust. As predicted, no such decrease in attraction was found for women who were presented as chaste and wholesome. No such patterns were found among women.

Obviously, men are not a homogenous group, and individual men are likely to experience varying levels of ambivalence toward sexuality and women. Missing from this analysis is an examination of the worldviews and attitudes of self- and other-acceptance of men with particularly healthy attitudes toward women.

It would be interesting to discover what attitudes and values would allow men to accept their sexual impulses and sexually exciting women independently of the romantic and spiritual associations, or the socially generated sanctions which are currently in place. If TMT holds true, one would predict that men who are more attuned and accepting of their mortality and animal nature would experience less ambivalence toward sexual attraction and sexually provocative women. Future psychological research will, no doubt, cast further light upon this interesting question.