Discussion Questions
1. Why might have Mary Roach chosen to make herself and her husband human subjects in lab-based studies of sex?
2. How does humor help Roach tackle the myriad questions surrounding human sex lives and practices?
3 Mary Roach writes, “Sex is far more than the sum of its moving parts.” Unpack that statement. What insight does it provide into the functions and limitations of lab-based, physiological studies of sex?
4. Freudian theory holds that grown women who rely on the clitoris for sexual gratification are stuck in a childlike state. This “phallic” phase, according to Freud, “is supposed to end at puberty, when a woman embraces her proper role as a passive, feminine being... [T]he clitoris should... hand over its sensitivity, and at the same time its importance, to the vagina.” Roach presents research that subverts Freudian theory about the separation of the clitoris and vagina. How has physiological science offered a defense against the theories of Freud on female sexuality? Why does this matter?
5. Roach notes that the linking of sexual delight and fertility dates as far back as Western medicine itself. Does this idea—no orgasm, no babies—surprise you? How have ideas about fertility shaped our understanding of sexual gratification?
6. The nineteenth–century physician Joseph Beck felt confident that some sort of uterine “upsuck” occurred during a female orgasm—”upsuck” that could pull sperm toward an egg for fertilization. But sex physiologist Roy Levin points out that “sperm straight out of the penis are not yet up to the job of fertilizing an egg. They need time to capacitate.” What is the lesson here in regard to fertility science?
7. Roach describes the introduction of Viagra to consumers. “In 1998,” she writes, “Pfizer—with a cadre of media–savvy urologists in tow—launched a massive publicity campaign to announce an exciting new approach to impotence, [Viagra]. Only it was not called impotence anymore; it was erectile dysfunction.” Why do you think the language changed? Does one terminology sound more “medical” than the other? Why might that be significant?
8. “Homo sapiens,” Roach writes, “is one of the few species on earth that care if they are having sex.” How do you react to this idea? What insight might this provide into the biological pressures and cultural forces at work in our sex lives?
9. Like Spook and Stiff, Bonk involves a wide–ranging tour of the human body. How would you compare these books? What kind of research techniques and writing style do all three books employ?
10. Roach remarks that “the ubiquitous media coverage of sex and sex research...have chipped away at the taboos that kept couples from talking openly with each other about the sex they were having.” Do you agree or disagree? Has journalism made sex easier to discuss? And has sex become a more admissible subject of scientific research?
(Questions issued by publisher.)
top of page (summary)