UVA’s Board-Certified Sexologist: Lanice Avery

Assistant Professor Lanice Avery holds joint appointments in the Psychology and Women, Gender, and Sexuality departments at the University of Virginia. Her research primarily focuses on race, gender, sexuality, and media, often examining how intersectional identities contribute to psychological and sexual health outcomes. Avery, a self-described “board-certified sexologist,” explores how Black women are impacted by racial and gendered stereotypes, typically framing these issues within a context of oppression and victimization.

Much of her work connects Black women's experiences with online victimization, body image struggles, and coping mechanisms like alcohol use. While her research aims to highlight these challenges, critics may argue that it often centers on a narrative of victimhood, rather than resilience or empowerment. Especially when Avery’s recent NIH-funded project, for example, seeks to understand how internalizing the "Strong Black Woman" stereotype impacts Black women’s mental health. Some previous research on this exposes that Avery sees the strong Black woman ideal as “self-silencing: and not sexually assertive enough. 

“The strong, silent (gender) type: The strong Black woman ideal, self-silencing, and sexual assertiveness in Black college women.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2022. From the abstract:

Women are socialized to endorse femininity scripts mandating that they prioritize others’ needs and engage in self-silencing behaviors. Further, Black women may also endorse the strong Black woman (SBW) ideal, by which they are expected to selflessly meet the needs of their family and community and, as such, may embrace self-silencing in their interpersonal relationships. … Findings highlight the complexities of Black women’s desire to fulfill expectations to be strong, assertive, and/or compliant and silent. Interventions to promote Black women’s sexual health should address sexual assertiveness and feminine silencing norms.

Though her work addresses real issues, it could be criticized for focusing more on reinforcing the idea of systemic oppression rather than offering solutions that promote empowerment or personal agency. Furthermore, some may question the scientific rigor of her scholarship, as her studies often appear to prioritize ideological frameworks over objective analysis, potentially limiting their broader applicability and impact.