{"title":"《吻我凯特》:对女人和性的新看法","authors":"N. Adams","doi":"10.53841/bpslg.2006.7.3.276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The way that we conceptualise sexual difficulties is always dependent on what we construe as ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ sexual functioning. Active female sexuality has historically been seen as more problematic and controversial than male (hetero)sexuality. Traditional models of sexual response have been often been based on male dominated paradigms of penile-vaginal sex and as such provide a limited basis for understanding the range of female sexuality. This article describes some of the limitations of traditional classification systems and some of the recent developments in our understanding of female sexual difficulties, are, I would argue, more helpful than others. However, it also acknowledges that we can never step outside of our own values and beliefs and invites the reader to consider the ways that we as clinicians conceptualise our work and the impact that this has on our clients.","PeriodicalId":311409,"journal":{"name":"Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kiss Me Kate: A new view of women and sex\",\"authors\":\"N. Adams\",\"doi\":\"10.53841/bpslg.2006.7.3.276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The way that we conceptualise sexual difficulties is always dependent on what we construe as ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ sexual functioning. Active female sexuality has historically been seen as more problematic and controversial than male (hetero)sexuality. Traditional models of sexual response have been often been based on male dominated paradigms of penile-vaginal sex and as such provide a limited basis for understanding the range of female sexuality. This article describes some of the limitations of traditional classification systems and some of the recent developments in our understanding of female sexual difficulties, are, I would argue, more helpful than others. However, it also acknowledges that we can never step outside of our own values and beliefs and invites the reader to consider the ways that we as clinicians conceptualise our work and the impact that this has on our clients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":311409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53841/bpslg.2006.7.3.276\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53841/bpslg.2006.7.3.276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The way that we conceptualise sexual difficulties is always dependent on what we construe as ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ sexual functioning. Active female sexuality has historically been seen as more problematic and controversial than male (hetero)sexuality. Traditional models of sexual response have been often been based on male dominated paradigms of penile-vaginal sex and as such provide a limited basis for understanding the range of female sexuality. This article describes some of the limitations of traditional classification systems and some of the recent developments in our understanding of female sexual difficulties, are, I would argue, more helpful than others. However, it also acknowledges that we can never step outside of our own values and beliefs and invites the reader to consider the ways that we as clinicians conceptualise our work and the impact that this has on our clients.