Sexuality in the Global South: 50 Years of Published Research in the Journal of Sex Research-Inclusions, Omissions, and Future Possibilities.

Sexuality researchers from a range of disciplines have called for more global inclusiveness in sexualities research, particularly in the Global South (GS). We investigated the degree to which sexuality researchers have published work focused on the GS by conducting a content analysis of 50 years of research published in the Journal of Sex Research (JSR). We examined all research articles, brief research reports, and clinical notes published in JSR from 1965 to 2014 (N = 1,626). Overall, a small percentage of articles focused on the GS with no increase over time (4.8%; N = 78). Articles in the GS focused on Asia (37.2%), Latin America (28.2%), Sub-Saharan Africa (23.1%), the Middle East (6.4%), and a mix of GS regions (5.1%). Topics related to sexual and reproductive health were most prevalent (19.2%), followed by articles on sexual risk, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (17.9%), sexual norms, attitudes, and beliefs (16.7%), sex work (11.5%), cultural practices (10.3%), gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues (9.0%), intimate partner relationships (3.8%), and sexual violence (3.8%); the remaining categories (transgender and transsexual populations, sex research methods, sex testing, and women's sexuality) were negligible. We conclude with recommendations for improving the quantity, quality, and scope of global sexuality research in JSR.

"Bad girls rule": an interdisciplinary feminist commentary on the report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.

Feminist, critical, and postmodern scholars have long recognized sexuality as a site of power relations. The recently released Report of the APA (American Psychological Association) Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls is a welcome addition to ongoing feminist and activist conversations on how to intervene on issues of sexuality in the name of girls' and women's health. This article offers a critical interdisciplinary analysis of this influential APA report, expanding on and challenging several of its main claims. This article critiques the report as over-determining the negative impact of sexualization; offers other literatures as critical additions including feminist literature on media, consumer culture, gender, and the body, and earlier "pro-desire" feminist psychology scholarship; and critiques the task force's conflations of objectification and sexualization. The article concludes with a call for broadening feminist scholarship and activism across disciplinary boundaries to emphasize girls' and women's sexual agency and resistance, as well as sexual health and rights.