The Blog Erotic

"Smart" Women and Orgasm: Don't Feel Bad Over "Low EQ"

Late last week, the media buzzed about a research article that suggested that "smart" women are more likely to experience orgasm than...dumb ones? 

[If you want the quick skinny, check Dr. Petra Boynton's blog posts, in which she criticizes both the researchers (for the construction of the study and the researchers' conclusions, which are based on barely significant data) and the media (for equating Emotional Intelligence, or "EQ" with "IQ").]

My take is that women who either do not experience orgasm (anorgasmia) or who experience it infrequently have yet another reason to feel that they are sexually inadequate-or just simply inadequate. 

After all, some women aren't bothered by anorgasmia or occasions when orgasm doesn't happen.  Yet here is another article that suggests that women who don't have orgasm have some serious pathology going on.  The fact is, about 10% of women never experience orgasm.  Also, the ability to have orgasm may change with a woman's hormones or even the amount of stress she is experiencing.  Orgasm just isn't such a cut and dry affair, as it mostly is with men. 

(But even men have trouble with orgasm.  More and more men are calling my office with delayed ejaculation--just taking too damn long to come.) 

Then, women who have difficulty with orgasm are further damned by the media as having emotional stupidity.  EQ is a fairly recent concept.  EQ is your ability to manage your emotions and to understand the emotions of others.  The premise is that the better you are able to do this, the more satisfying your social interactions.

But there is much more that goes into orgasm than being able to have good social interactions with your partner.  Sure, being able to share yourself intimately with your partner might make it easier to tell your partner what you like, and to express yourself sexually.

This, however, does not bear out in my clinical experience and, I'm guessing, the clinical experience of other sex therapists and educators.  The reason one woman orgasms easily and another one finds it takes more energy if it's going to happen may not be based on EQ, IQ, personality, or even the quality of her relationship.  It may be related to lack of sex education regarding her body, her anatomy (some studies show that having a clitoris located closer to the vaginal opening helps, e.g.), and experience.  It may have to do with

Elizabeth Edwards: Why Did John Edwards Have an Affair?

I don't know, and apparently, neither does he.

Unless you've been brain dead for the last 24 hours, you've likely heard that Elizabeth Edwards has published a book (read the TIME excerpt here) about resilience and springing back after adversity.  Elizabeth Edwards should know:  she and John lost a child; she has fought breast cancer; and now, she has experienced the effects of infidelity.

The big question, of course, is why did John Edwards do it?  Amazingly, he has no answer for Elizabeth.  Even more amazingly, they seem to have had little or no discussion about it, other than agreeing that it was "that woman" who caused all the problems.  (Sirens, you have found your leader in Rielle Hunter!)

None of us can ever know why anybody does anything; we can only guess.  And for psychologists, ethically we are not permitted to diagnose public figures.  We can only be circumspect and talk about problems in general.  (So the next time you hear a media psychologist talk about someone as if they have given them a diagnosis, you'll know that they are stepping outside of ethical boundaries.)

So why does any man (I'm going to focus on men today, I'll talk about women another time), public or private, have an affair?  I can share some of what I have observed:

• To escape a stressful situation, which may or may not be the marriage
• To experience companionship that is missing from a relationship
• To do something naughty or dirty--for a thrill
• To have sexual release
• To keep a marriage intact, usually for children, while getting unmet sexual needs taken care of elsewhere
• To soothe himself, because he is depressed
• To prove that he's still in the game, still sexy, still "got it"
• To act out a compulsion, that is, to have sex more frequently because he feels he must in a way he has trouble explaining
• To seek revenge on a partner he is angry at, but can't express it

Now, I know among my sexologist brethren (and sistren?) that there are those who minimize the effects of affairs on marriage.  It's almost a given, goes the reasoning, so why are we all surprised?  Get over it!

I disagree.  The effects of a discovered affair reverberate not only in a marriage, but across generations.  I can't begin to count how many folks have told me how hurt they were when one parent cheated on another, and sometimes that pain even drizzles down to grandchildren if the infidelity was public or had a flavor of incest (e.g., occurred between a husband and his sister-in-law).  And then affairs can have an effect on a community, as when a pastor cheats with a congregant. 

Another argument goes that "affairs are never about sex."  Really?  As you can see from my list, an affair can most definitely be about sex.  An affair is often about chafing in the sexual constraints of a monogamous marriage, where communication about sex (and the topic of monogamy itself) is rare.  It is about not getting sexual needs met and sometimes--out of desperation--a man goes outside his marriage.

Unfair?  Yes.  Wrong?  Yes, I think so.  An affair is a stupid fix to a bad problem.  It's like fixing a problem with another problem.  It's like using PVC pipe when copper is called for.  (Recently, a man asked me--earnestly--if I had any advice before he commenced an affair with a married woman. "Check to see how big he is, and see if he has a gun," I quipped.)

Why don't men see that?  It's hard to say.  The mind isn't all that good at rational decision making when one is under duress.  And clearly, Edwards was under duress:  wife with cancer, campaign to run, and whatever else might have been going on in his life.  Men sometimes do bad things when they are depressed, too, like drink or become irritable and nasty.  

But an affair isn't the answer.  Next post:  Answers.

Men! Want to Make Sex Better? "Take Out the Garbage!" Says Researcher

In this Toronto Sun article, Robin Milhausen, an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, tells it as she sees it.  Men, she reports, ask her how to make sex with a woman "astronomical."  Her response?  "Take out the trash."

It’s a fact borne out by research.  Men who help around the house do report having more sex.  Of course, causation does not prove causality, but it does seem to comport with what female clients tell me.  Those whose partners help little around the house, or just with tasks of living (making an appointment to get those tires rotated or get the kids to the dentist, for example) are more likely to complain of a lack of desire. 

And it isn’t just related to fatigue, although that’s part of it.  Women whose partners help around the house tend to feel that they are part of a team, working to make a life together.  It makes some women feel cozy knowing that their partner has taken an interest in making home a good place to be from an emotional standpoint, and that coziness translates into intimacy.

But to be honest, for some couples, it probably doesn’t make much difference.  Not all women care that much about things domestic (like my husband’s cousin who famously turned her kitchen into a breezeway and declared a war on cooking), and sometimes they are married to men who don’t care that much, either. 

Still, if you’re a man without much luck between the sheets, you might try folding them once in awhile.

Coitocentricity: When All Sex Leads to Intercourse

Northwestern Professor Gregory Ward teaches a class in Sex & Language at Northwestern University, where he has coined the term "coitocentric," as described in this Northwestern U online article by Sally Slater.  Root word = coitus, centric = centered.  Yep, he's right--as a culture, we tend to be overly focused on intercourse.  Most of the time, when we use the words "having sex," we really mean a man having intercourse with a woman.

He also notes that straight men and women and gay men think of "having sex" as "penetrative," while lesbian women think of any genital contact as "having sex." 

This isn't really a po-tay-to / po-tah-to issue.  It goes further than that.  What the article doesn't say is that one of the reasons someone may say "We had sex," instead of "We had intercourse," or whatever, is to keep the activity private.  It also serves to minimize the activity if someone colors outside the lines (remember Carry talking about Big in "Sex & the City"?) and doesn't want to admit that they, uh, scribbled. 

Okay, sorry to use a euphemism.  That they had oral, manual, or anal sex. 

You'd be surprised how many people still find anything but intercourse disturbing.  And, how many people feel that if their partner gets off, but they don't, that sex has been a big, fat waste of time.  They complain that their partner is "gross," or that they are being exploited or disrespected if their partner wants a little help having an orgasm.  It's as if saying, "I'm tired," means, "No, no, a thousand times no," and not just, "I'm tired, but if you need an orgasm, let me know, I'll help you out."

And surprised, too, at how many people, women in particular, who feel that the only sex worth having is intercourse.  Which creates a big, fat problem when their partner is stressed, tired, or whatever and can't have an erection, because then their partner cannot please them in any other way.  That leaves the partner feeling useless.

Now, I must admit, I've been, as Prof. Ward would say, "heteronormative," that is, writing about sex as if only heterosexual sex is normal.  That's because I am straight and I live in a very straight world.  I'm very comfortable talking about gay sex, but I've learned that most of my readers are straight--probably because I do tend to be heteronormative.  Even though I often use the word "partner" instead of "husband" or "wife," I still end up sounding straight.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.  It just suggests that we may all want to give a little thought to the way in which we use language to talk about sex and to limit its expression.

Actually, what I think is really funny is how professorial the word "coitocentric" is.  Only a linguist would think up a word like that to describe bumping fuzzies.

Passion, Romance, Or "Just Friends": What Kind of Couple Is Happiest?

I'll spare you the suspense--the winner is, the romantic couple in the long-term.  But what the heck is the diff between a passionate couple, a romantic couple, and a couple that are "just friends"?  After all, all couples need to be friends.  But a couple that has no passion will be unhappy.  And not everyone appreciates romance.

A pair of researchers state in Science Digest today that passionate couples are less likely to be happy in the long run because they often have conflict and are "obsessive," which isn't exactly healthy, and can't be sustained.  But it's okay, I think, to be a little "nuts" about your partner, don't you? 

Anyway, as I stated on The Buehler Institute blog, I think what people want from a relationship is to experience, at least at times, the passion that they once experienced.  And I don't think that's too much to ask.  It is surprising to me that the researchers don't make a connection that a romantic couple is more likely to have passionate sex.

Hmm, could it be the definitions that are a bit off-kilter?  Sometimes in research, the variables are not as well defined as they could be.  I think "romantic" and "passionate" are terms that are frequently interchangeable.  Romance can lead to passion, and passion, to romance.

The idea that passionate couples burnout, however, isn't new.  Passionate couples really are often conflictual; the fear that their partner could become unavailable keeps each partner off balance. 

Passion: Making Love Like You Mean It

When couples who have been married or committed for a long time think about passionate sex, they generally are referring back to the earliest moments of intimacy in their relationship.  They don’t know why sex felt better then, they just know why that it doesn’t feel as good any more.  (Except maybe when they have “vacation sex.”)

 

What was it about that initial lovemaking that made it so…passionate? 

 

Sad but true, after awhile, reality set in.  Your lover’s body was, well, a body.  After you’ve seen and felt it enough, it’s not longer new.  You got close—sometimes, too close.  In fact, enough with the closeness already!  Laundry piled up and work really couldn’t wait.  And how could you possibly be playful when you’re an adult, with responsibilities and things?

 

How do you get it back?

 

Today, my colleague Ron Frederick, PhD is launching his book, Living Like You Mean It.  If you purchase his book from Amazon or Barnes & Noble, you can get a bunch of really cool bonuses from a bunch of really cool people.  (Ooops, I’m one of those people, which I guess means I think I’m really cool!  Well, for a 50+ white mom married for 23 years, yeah, I think I am!)  Anyway, Ron interviewed me on the topic of passion, but you can only access the recording if you buy a copy of his book.  Ron and I had fun making the recording, I guess you could say it’s because I’m passionate about helping people have passionate sex.

Who Is Dr. Hoo-Ha and Why Did She Get an Award?

Get ready to laugh; I did!  Click to read a spoof on The Onion.  Could it get any sillier when it comes to talking about the science of women's sexuality?

What's pertinent to me is that on Friday Andrew Schorr of the radio program "Patient Power" will be interviewing myself and Chris Veasley of the NVA on "Women's Sexuality:  Why the Silence."  I wrote about this on The Buehler Institute blog, which I invite you to read.

While it's perfectly okay to listen to tv commercials that let us know that men can have "erections that last more than 4 hours," it's scandal to talk about a woman's genitals, e.g., her clitoris, vagina, vulva, labia, and mons.  (Click here for a diagram if you don't know what these are!)

Sex, 'Frisco Style

Okay, I'm old enough to have hitchhiked* to San Francisco during the sexual revolution.  Old enough to have participated in the same.  So why, when I read this article in the NY Times on a retreat centered on women's pleasure, am I so darn puzzled?

After all, the leader of the cul--I mean, retreat, is a woman, and the core idea--that women need to embrace their sexuality--is a good one.

But women waking up each morning, coming into a public room unclothed from the top down, and having clothed men masturbating them seems like a very odd way to accomplish said goal.

I mean, I kinda sorta get it.  If you can "let go" in an arena (hmm, arena, hmm, an interesting choice of words) like that, I guess you can let go anywhere, with anyone.  I guess.

As a sex therapist, most women I know are rather sensitive to the environment and need to have trust in their partner in order to have satisfying sex.

But what do I know?  After all, I'm old enough to have hitched to 'frisco during the sexual revolution.

What do you think? 

*Hitchhiked!  What an idiot!