|
绪论 - 什么是性行为? |
|
研究中的注意事项 |
|
当我们要谈论性行为（sexual
behavior）的时候，重要的一点是要记住区别:性别角色行为（gender
role behavior）、性欲行为（erotic
behavior）、生殖行为（reproductive
behavior）和增进生存行为（life-enhancing
behavior）。许多作者使用术语“性行为”时非常不严谨，没有区别这些行为的不同含义。他们把这些行为作互换对待，而且在一次论证的过程中，可能并没有意识到自己从一个含义跳转到了另一个含义。这种不严密的做法可能导致根本上的谬误。
例如：一些研究者研究过老鼠的交配模式，即老鼠的生殖行为，然后，就人类的性欲行为就这么下了结论，用来发表他们的研究成果。然而，怎么说这也是一个错误的结果。因为，这个结果在没有进一步区分“性行为”的情况下，从两种行为模式里收集的信息推导出了结论。这就像以水果的称谓“比较苹果与桔子”的做法。更何况老鼠并不是人，用这种方法推导出来的结论会忽略一个重要的问题，即人的性欲行为和生殖行为是非常不同的两种事物。
还可以举证另一个例子：多年以来，有一些研究者在性欲行为与性别角色行为之间推导出了一些错误的类比结论。于是，他们用女性的特质来推算男同性恋性行为，把这种行为叫做“性倒错（sexual
inversion）”。当他们解释一些男同性恋性行为的时候，说什么性欲已经发生了“倒转”，即已经被女人特征的性欲所替换。确实如此，诸如什么“倒转”是“在男性同性恋者的身体里具有了女性的灵魂”。这些研究者从没有意识到或者从不愿意承认，他们在这里正在处理的是各自完全独立的研究对象。男人的性别角色并不必定与他的性取向有关。毕竟，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，男性气概非常强的男人也有非常大的可能吸引到其他的男人。再重申一遍：没有在研究对象之间做出必要的区别，就不会出现真知灼见。
下面的内容将详细讨论如何做出区别。
|
|
|
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 As they explained it, in some men, the sexual desires had become “inverted”, i.e. had been replaced by desires that are typical of women.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.
|
