|
緒論 - 什麼是性行為? |
|
研究中的注意事項 |
|
當我們要談論性行為（sexual
behavior）的時候，重要的一點是要記住區別性別角色行為（gender
role
behavior）、性欲行為（erotic
behavior）、生殖行為（reproductive
behavior）和增進生存行為（life-enhancing
behavior）。許多作者使用術語“性行為”時非常不嚴謹，沒有區別這些行為的不同含義。他們把這些行為作互換對待，而且在一次論證的過程中，可能並沒有意識到自己從一個含義跳轉到了另一個含義。這種不嚴密的做法可能會導致根本上的謬誤。
例如：一些研究者研究過老鼠的交配模式，即老鼠的生殖行為，然後，就人類的性欲行為就這麼下了結論，用來發表他們的研究成果。然而，怎麼說這也是一個錯誤的結果。因為，這個結果在沒有進一步區分“性行為”的情況下，從兩種行為模式裏收集的資訊推導出了結論。這就像以水果的稱謂“比較蘋果與桔子”的做法。更何況老鼠並不是人，用這種方法推導出來的結論會忽略一個重要的問題，即人的性欲行為和生殖行為是非常不同的兩種事物。
還可以舉證另一個例子：多年以來，有一些研究者在性欲行為與性別角色行為之間推導出了一些錯誤的類比結論。於是，他們用女性的特質來推算男同性戀性行為，把這種行為叫做“性倒錯（sexual
inversion）”。當他們解釋一些男同性戀性行為的時候，說什麼性欲已經發生了“倒轉”，即已經被女人特徵的性欲所替換。確實如此，諸如什麼“倒轉”是“在男性同性戀者的身體裏具有了女性的靈魂”。這些研究者從沒有意識到或者從不願意承認，他們在這裏正在處理的是各自完全獨立的研究對象。男人的性別角色並不必定與他的性取向有關。畢竟，非常女性化的男人有非常大的可能在性欲方面吸引女人；然而，男性氣概非常強的男人也有非常大的可能吸引到其他的男人。再重申一遍：沒有在研究對象之間做出必要的區別，就不會出現真知灼見。
下面的內容將詳細討論如何做出區別。 |
|
|
Introduction - What is sexual behavior? |
|
A Note of Caution
|
|
When talking about sexual behavior, it is important to remember the distinctions between gender role behavior, erotic behavior, reproductive behavior, and life-enhancing behavior.
Many writers use the term “sexual behavior” rather loosely and do not distinguish between its different meanings. They treat them as interchangeable, and, in the course of an argument, may shift from one meaning to another without becoming aware of it.
This can lead to fundamental fallacies.
For example: Some researchers have studied the mating patterns of rats, i.e. their reproductive behavior, and then used their findings to draw conclusions about the erotic behavior of humans. However, this is an error. It results from calling both behaviors “sexual” without any further distinctions. It is like “comparing apples and oranges” by calling both of them fruits. Quite apart from the fact that rats are not people, this equation ignores that, in humans, the erotic and reproductive behaviors are very different matters.
Or, to take another example: For many years, researchers drew false analogies between erotic behavior and gender role behavior. Thus, they equated homosexuality in males with femininity and called it “sexual inversion”. As they explained it, in some men, the sexual desires had become “inverted”, i.e. had been replaced by desires that are typical of women. Indeed, such “inverts” had “female souls in their male bodies”. These researchers did not realize - or did not want to admit - that they were dealing here with entirely separate issues. A man’s gender role does not necessarily have anything to do with his sexual orientation. After all, very feminine men may very well be erotically attracted to women while very masculine men may be attracted to other men. Once again, the failure to make the necessary distinctions prevented any true insight.
The following sections will discuss these distinctions in detail.
|
