(originally posted April 7, 2008)The Associated Press recently reported on an new study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
The study surveyed fifty members of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research in the U.S. and Canada , and asked them what they considered to be the optimal amount of time for sexual intercourse. Thirty-four members, or 68%, responded. While some said the optimal time depended on the couple, the majority concluded that the optimal time for intercourse was 3 to 13 minutes, and that anything less than 3 minutes is too short.
The time did not include foreplay.
The report goes on to say that the lead researcher, Eric Corty, “said he hoped to give an idea of what therapists find to be normal and satisfactory among the couples they see.
"People who read this will say, 'I last five minutes or my partner lasts 8 minutes,' and say, 'That's OK,'" he said. "They will relax a little bit."
I'm of two minds about this study.
I think that if I'd been asked (I'm not a member of SSTAR) I'd have been one of those who answered, "it depends on the couple." I’m not a big fan of using numbers and statistics to tell people what constitutes “good sex.”
That being said, I think it can sometimes help people to have their experiences "normalized." That is the intention I get from Corty’s quote in the article.
When I was growing up, in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, there was a revolution concerning the publication of and access to sexual information. For the most part, that was a good thing. It educated people about sexuality, and one of the things people learned is that 2.4 minutes of thrusting during intercourse was not enough to get most women off.
The down side is that it gave rise to the belief that a "real man" gave his woman pleasure by pounding his hips into her pelvis for half an hour at a stretch. If the information in this article helps dispel that misconception, so much the better.
Based on research in sexology, and on what I have learned in my practice, here are some realities:
- A great many women, and some studies say a majority of women, do not reach orgasm through intercourse, no matter how long her (male) partner thrusts.
- Unless the woman is orgasmic through intercourse, thrusting for much more than about 5 minutes can become physically irritating. And BORING!
- Even if a woman can be orgasmic through intercourse, she won't necessarily always be. On those occasions when she's not, prolonged thrusting may communicate an expectation for her to have an orgasm in this way.
- For some women, not being able to reach orgasm through intercourse produces feelings of inadequacy. Prolonged thrusting by her partner can reinforce these feelings.
- If a woman can reach orgasm through intercourse, prolonged thrusting may be the only way for her to do so. However, that does not mean that this is the most pleasurable or most satisfying way for her to reach orgasm.
- “Good sex” does not necessarily include vaginal intercourse. Nor does it necessarily always result in orgasms for both partners. While people generally enjoy having an orgasm, for many, it is not a requirement every time.
So, it really does depend on the couple, the self-images and the expectations they bring to the sex act, and especially how much they are communicating openly about those to each other.
Communicating openly with our partners about our sexual needs and expectations can sometimes be challenging. But that’s a topic for another blog.
(originally posted April 11, 2008)
It’s an acronym. It stands for “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.” The term was coined by author Robert Heinlein. In days gone by, when food was cheaper, bars would set out food at lunchtime for patrons to help themselves at no extra charge. Of course, the lunch was not free. Its cost was figured into the price charged for the drinks.
Heinlein’s point was that anything that seems free has a price built into it, and we are kidding ourselves if we think we can have something for nothing.
Another way of expressing the same sentiment is that you can only get out what you put in.
Now, once explained, these are fairly simple concepts. Yet they seem to elude us in several important situations.
One place they seem to escape notice is in relationships. Am I saying that relationships come at a cost? Of course they do. The cost is to love your partner, as they love you. To respect your partner, as they respect you. To care for your partner, as they care for you.
You can only get out of a relationship what you put into it. If you ignore your partner, don’t expect them to be excited when you come home. If you snap at your partner, don’t expect them to be patient with you. If you aren’t willing to work at your relationship, how can you expect it to keep on running smoothly? We wouldn’t expect our cars to keep running smoothly without regular maintenance (although some people DO seem to expect that!)
Another place the TANSTAAFL concept seems to escape notice is in what we expect from our societies. We expect peace, but what do WE do to contribute to social peace? We want civility, not rudeness. But how thoughtful are we of the people around us. Do people who get off an escalator, and stop dead in their tracks to look around, expect civility from those behind them? Do drivers who speed up when someone is trying to enter their lane expect that they will be able to change lanes when they want?
You get out what you put in.
On an even broader level, we want crime-free societies. We’ve tried harsher laws, and more prisons, and that doesn’t seem to be achieving our goals. However, we know what conditions make crime more likely. So, why aren’t we demanding that officials take action on eliminating those conditions? The answer, of course, is money.
Fighting poverty, adequate housing, quality health care, good education, treating mental illness, all cost money. We don’t want to spend on money on those things. We want our money for ourselves, for our own uses. TANSATAAFL! You do not get safe streets and low crime-rates for nothing. You gets what you pays for.
When horrors like the Virginia Tech shootings occur, we are quick to vilify the gunman, to blame his rampage on “evil.” Yet, Cho Seung-Hui had been identified as mentally ill, and a danger to himself. By no stretch of the imagination did he receive adequate care. But, as a society, we are reluctant to take on responsibility for that. We don’t want the burden of identifying and treating people struggling with dangerous depressions or psychoses. But we don’t want them going on shooting rampages. And many people also don’t want gun sales or ammo sales restricted so that people in his condition won’t have access to them.
This sounds an awful lot like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. As if people were saying, “I want to be safe, but I don’t want to have to do the hard work to bring about real safety.” Well, sorry, but TANSTAAFL. We can continue to think of mental illness as an individual problem. But we will pay the price of that shortsightedness as communities.
When I was a young boy, John F. Kennedy was President of the U.S. I still remember the challenge he issued to his fellow citizens. “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” My values were shaped, in part, by those words.
And so, ask not what your relationship can do for you. Ask what you can do for your relationship. Ask not what your society can give to you. Ask what you can give to your society.
But what about the role of other people? Should we be expected to take all the responsibility ourselves? No, of course not. But our own behaviour is the only thing we can control, and that is where our own work must start. We can, at least, be secure in the knowledge that we have paid our share of the bill.
Author Robert Fulgham (Everything I Need to know I Learned in Kindergarten, and It Was On Fire When I Lay Down On It) has written, “I am not interested in what you value, I want to know what you will do. I don’t care what kind of world you want. I care what kind of world you are willing to work for.”
So, the next time you feel like complaining about your relationship, or about society, I would recommend that you ask yourself, what kind of relationship are you willing to work for? What kind of society are you willing to work for? And what is the work you are doing to bring them about?
