The research on sexiness, lustfulness, committedness, and marriage-ness this week is a mixed bag of good, bad and ludicrously ugly. See if you can figure out what’s what, and which ones span all three.
Sweat is sexy: Women can differentiate between men who are turned on and men who aren’t by sniffing their sweat, reports the New York Times.
A survey, reliant on self-reported data we assume, shows that Polish pairs get it on the most of any Europeans, with over 10% of them having sex every. single. day.
That big old study by Larry Young et al just won’t disappear from the news cycle. The latest tidbit? Kissing feels nice because it causes the brain to unleashes stress-reducing chemicals.
The ridiculously uncritical Times of India is reporting on another wrinkle in this research - that Supersmart Scientists will create drugs to make us fall in or out of love. Wrong. We debunked that one a month ago.
But wait! Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, says that kissing is all about mate selection and pair bonding. The cool thing about her research? Her next study “will take place in a secluded room at the back of an academic building with flowers, candles, a sofa and jazz music playing in the background”.
Women’s likelihood of marrying is shaped by race, education levels and economic class. 42% of black women never marry; onyl 21% of white women remain single throughout their lives. The black marriage rate dropped by 34% the last few decades.
I bet you’re feeling chaffed. Or chuffed, maybe. After all, it’s a few days after V-day and that inevitable hangover really hunkered down and it’s prolly still pelting you like a stormy little raincloud perched squarely above your shoulders. So, it’s okay to be grumpy. I hereby grant you full permission to wrinkle your nose, furrow your brow, cross your arms and reach for the nearest pot of coffee/bottle of aspirin/jug of hooch.
While you’re soothing yourself, here are some ridiculously bad headlines to help chase away that grump face. I put them in a numbered list to help you navigate.
2.) Wait - did UPI just forget to credit Consumer Reports as the source of this illuminating investigatory work? And will Consumer Reports start verifying these preliminary findings in their labs any time soon? (Hint to CR: it could be AWESOME)
3.) Four days before day 13 of their menstrual cycle, ladies become exceptionally fond of lads with oversized pupils. It’s a scientifically-proven fact or something.
4.) Prairie voles are surrogate humans, so it’s scary to know that when a male prairie vole is separated from his ladyvole, he gets bummed out. Just like human voles! Damn you vasopressin depletion and elevated levels of cortisol!
5.) Despite apocalyptic warnings on how sex is the worst thing ever, teenagers won’t stop having sex or being little sluts.
6.) Foreplay doesn’t matter to chicks? And two-pump chumps are just as good as marathon men? Um, sure researchers, it’s all about the dude and his skills. We ladies just lay there with our eyes squinched shut thinking about England until our flowers get all pollinated and tickly and we shudder ourselves into a lady-bits sneezing fit.
Until now, The Newlybed had a good week leading up to V-Day. We gushed about a new NILF-crush, we felt empowered by an Aussie take on realizing the benefits of being happy, and we found a new book to keep by the bedside.
I know that you’re in the business of being controversial and thought-provoking and that getting eyeballs means keeping your writers’ freezers stocked with frozen dinners.
But a press release trumpeting poll results which indicate that economic-inspired negativity has breached the impermeable hull of the newlybedrooms? Just cruel.
And it’s hard to underestimate the importance you assign to these things. In fact, you refuse to let us, as your wonderful PR hacks’ work (emphasis theirs) shows:
ASTOUNDING FINDINGS FROM VALENTINE’S DAY POLL INCLUDE:
42% of the Americans surveyed are now less likely to have children
More than one in three are less likely to get divorced
In both sex and dating, Americans are being more careful. 41% are more cautious about who they date and one in five are using more birth control to avoid having children
Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re not. Well-choreographed efforts to manipulate the relationship between causation and correlation always irk me, but I can get past that. I’ll ignore the so-called third person effect that taints survey results and instead focus on what I find most controversial and problematic: sexual frequency & income.
In other words, the more you make, the more you bang. 43% of couples making over $75000 a year have sex 6 times a month or more, while only 21% of those making less than that do the same. Anecdotal accounts of jobless spouses not being in the mood seem to make sense. This advice column proves that point pretty well for you (but goes farther in providing concrete strategies to deal with fallout).
But on the heels of both the DABA debacle and controversial research that asserts the bigger a man’s wallet, the bigger his lady’s orgasms, it seems like your de-contextualized findings do little more than reify what would otherwise be (rightly) considered dated, sexist stereotyping: If the he’s not bringing home the bacon like he used to, maybe he’s not the man you need him to be?
What’s more, you’re going to have to keep going to work and hold off on your True Destiny as a Woman: having kids. Why else would you state that “It’s startling to learn here of the number of people who are postponing having children for financial reasons. We could be about to see a potential Baby Bust.” Postponing is very different from nixing the possibility altogether, Tina. So if little junior or juniorette arrives a year or two or three late, there’s no net difference. Unless, of course, you expect that babies roll off the factory line in some weird Fordist production system and any hiccups in this are likely to cause inventory delays for pissed-off would-be octo-moms.
The one bright spot? 80% of democrats and nearly half (48%) of Republicans believe Barack and Michelle have a true romance.
Maybe it’s because they clear the $75,000 threshhold and already have their baby-making done?
In case you missed it, the New York Times featured a doubly-lovely lovey-dovey photo spread called “In the Bedrooms” - an art book produced by creative & romantic partners James Frank Tribble and Tracey Mancenido. The book features New York couples in - guess where - their bedrooms canoodling and teasing out ‘awwwwwwwwws!’ from onlookers (like me, duh).
The Stamford Advocate has a fantastic, gem-laden column this week which gather together tons of useful advice and revealing anecdotes from real-world seniors. Well worth a complete read, but the snippet below provides the biggest takeaway:
“Good sex is for everyone, says a fiftysomething couple. Good sex helped this couple bond and break through the fear when he developed throat cancer a few years ago. They sometimes smoke a little pot, rediscovered from their youth, to enhance the experience (not for everyone, they acknowledge). They stay healthy and connected in mind and emotion.”
I blame a Superbowl hangover: It’s a super slow news day, even in the sexy world of sex and love.
Instead of the normal raft of saucy headlines, steamy research and the like, three advice columns found their way into my alert folder of my email inbox. Never one to back down from a challenge, I offer my own advice to each of these three questioners.
Dear Dr Mitchell, I very recently got married after deciding to save myself for marriage. I am a Christian and my husband and I didn’t even kiss deeply before we got married.
My problem is that I discovered on our wedding night that he has a very small penis, and even when he penetrated me I felt no pain, nor did I bleed, because I don’t even think his penis got to the part where my hymen is located.
Columnist says:
“The fact that his penis is small needs to be properly dealt with. He needs to be seen by a specialist, ideally a urologist. He needs a detailed examination of his penis, prostate and testes and a hormone profile needs to be done to check his testosterone level. He might even need to do a chromosomal study to see if he has an abnormal chromosomal pattern.
…a sexual relationship does not only include penetrative sex so you both need to be creative in trying to satisfy each other sexually. You should have an honest and open discussion about the matter and also discuss the problem with your marriage counsellor who can help you to work through your problems. There are several books that you can buy which will help you to improve your sexual relationship so you should check with your local bookshop.”
I say:
Two words: sex toys. Lube, finger vibes, dildos, sleeves, plugs, caps can quickly become your best friends in the bedroom. Approach things with a positive, playful attitude and figure it out.
“My fiancé has a much higher sex drive than mine. We still have sex 4-5 times a week on average, but he’s almost always up for it. Even after 8 years together I can’t get dressed for work in the morning without him trying to grind up against me, he wants it as soon as we get home, watching TV in the evening. It never ends. Even when we arrive home after doing the grocery shopping he wants to do it in the garage. It can get pretty annoying, especially when he gives me the cold shoulder because we’ve gone, say, 2 days (gasp!) without sex.”
Columnist says:
“Finding a satisfying solution to your sex issue is about communication and compromise. Don’t give up on this good relationship. You’ve just run into a snag. This snag may always be there for you. Many couples have a problem area that crops up again and again in their marriage. But with work and communication they learn how to manage it better so they both get more of what they want.”
I say:
Yes, communicate better or you’re doomed to a lifetime of resentment and ill-will.
But recognize that many couples have sex drives in different gears. Instead of pushing yourself to up your appetite or salt-petering his food to lower his, look at other ways of achieving equilbrium.
My suggestion? Porn! Get him to get himself off. Watch or help him do it.
“My boyfriend and I have been dating for 21/2 years. He’s 36 and I’m 25. Everything with our relationship is okay (with the usual hiccups) except for our sex life. We just aren’t sexually compatible. When we do try to have sex, which is only about once a month, it usually ends quickly in disappointment or an argument.
We’ve tried different positions, reading sex books, using toys, accommodating each other etc.
We’re getting to the point in our relationship when we’re considering living together and eventually getting married, but I’m really worried that my future life as a married woman will be a sexless one. Please help.”
Columnist says:
“If you’re seriously considering living together and getting married, you need to do two things. Get your guy to a urologist to see if his problem is physical or psychological and get him some treatment. Then, get yourselves into some sex therapy to see if this issue can be resolved.”
I say:
Stop things now. Dump him, as amicably as you can. Obviously, you’ve got some deep emotional connection if you’ve stayed together through 2 1/2 years of totally unsatisying and infrequent sex. That’s enough to sustain a friendship, but not a marriage.
That you’ve tried positions, books, toys and compromise and nothing’s worked should be indication enough to nothing will.
Move on.
Do you have suggestions for these lust-lorn lovebirds? Leave your thoughts in the comments section.
Last week saw reporters and researchers let loose their mutual, pent up desire in way that would make any heaving-chested corset-clad heroine smile. Here are some of the salacious, sexy and otherwise sensational headlines their union sprang forth:
Borrowing heavily (but forgetting to cite) from Marty Klein’s 2006 book “America’s War on Sex” Fox’s Sexpert made clear an important pseudo-scientifically difference in sexual attitudes: When it comes to sexy time, you’re either an erotophobe or erotophile. Nope, it’s not a spectrum and sure, your attitudes may be shaped by past experiences, but ultimately, your sex-positivity is your choice. Ladies, I’m looking at you to loosen up your frigid, prudish ways, mmmk?
And now, for boy-specific news: Having a few drinks can help you in the bedroom, as Aussie men who didn’t completely abstain from alcohol reported fewer problems with ED than their teetotalling counterparts.
But then again, perhaps the color red helps as well: Dudes see red and feel amorous towards women, says research.
But the most significant findings were announced early in the week, in a study from Nottingham University that correlated higher sex drive in young men with higher incidence of prostate cancer in later years. Researchers asked questions relating to post-puberty sexual activity of 400 men with prostate cancer and 400 men without. The results? While the study insists that men who masturbated and had more sex in their twenties showed a higher rate of prostate cancer later in life, the raw data is murkier: “Roughly the same proportion of both groups, 59%, said they had engaged in sexual activity 12 times a month or more in their 20s, falling to 48% in their 30s, 28% in their 40s and 13% in their 50s”. Prostate cancer sufferers, however, did report a higher number of sexual partners.
And so, lest we forget, correlation does not equate to causation. What’s more, this research contradicts earlier findings which indicated that more frequent sexual activity was good for prostate health. The newer batch of research also used a less-than-reliable method of having older men recounting their sexual activity from decades ago, which the researchers themselves identify as a weak spot in the findings. Gentlemen, no matter what this research does or doesn’t tell us, please get yourself a prostate exam once a year.
Because other newlywed-focused websites focus exclusively on the yuppie-fication of your otherwise joyous union, The Newlybed has had little company in pursuing an agenda of happy, horny married life.
But no longer! Thanks to still-in-love husband and wife team in the White House, everyone is catching the spousal fever.
Last Saturday, Jezebel posted about other media mavens in awe of “married romance” - a concept peculiar enough to warrant an extensive discursive dissection on the Columbia Journalism Review.
Even Fox got into the fray, posting this analysis of the lovebirds:
While it’s great to recalibrate our assumptions about what the goings-on in the Oval Office and Lincoln bedroom and hope for some trickle-down effects of warm and fuzzy feelings, let’s stop short of bump watching, mmmk?
It’s a chick flick convention that a series of hilarious and endearing misunderstandings is usually enough to keep otherwise contented couples apart.
Dig deeper into the world of fiction, however, and you’ll see a long history of war, famine, religious conflicts, border battles, and family feuds working to divide happy unions. If you’re like me, you’ve probably wondered if these stories are flights of fancy or based on real world examples. Two current cases, taken from opposite corners of the globe, seem to indicate the latter.
In Pakistan, a newlywed couple who married without their parents’ consent now live in the Karachi police station to avoid the inevitable honor killing that awaits them should they return to their home village. They’re not alone in their plight either in Karachi, or worldwide. According to UN research cited in the article, about 5,000 people are murdered in honour killings, mostly women from South Asia and the Middle East. [Note: The article does a great job of providing more exposition on honor killings and the rural/urban divide in Pakistan; check it out.]
Closer to home is a peculiar case of cross border guards kiboshing coupledom. Back in 2007, newlyweds Nathaniel Spinney of Oregon and Sarah Rutherford of Nova Scotia accidentally-on-purpose fibbed about their marital status, telling border guards that they were engaged and not yet married. Spinney explains that the impulsive decision was a cover for the fact that he hadn’t applied for a fiance visa for Rutherford and wanted to square away legal filings once the couple arrived back in Oregon. But before they could, authorities uncovered the lie and were less than pleased: Rutherford is now midway through a 5 year re-entry ban into the US. The couple, unable to secure permanent employment for Spinney in Canada, lives on opposite sides of the continent.
This week was unusual in that a few of the articles posted were notably substantial and for the first time in months, conjecture gave way to conversation. In fact, it sparked a gosh-darned meaningful, intelligent dialogue about women’s sexuality. So much so, in fact, that it warrants a special edition of the Raunchy Research Review.
The source of this debate is a NYT Magazine piece which introduces findings from Queen’s University Meredith Chivers research on female sexuality. What stimulated women above the neck and what got them going below the belt was surprising but could be summed up in a word or two: almost anything. And so, everyone in the feminist blogosphere wanted their say on this matter.
At Jezebel, a few of the lead bloggers penned a paragraph or two. The consensus? Well, no consensus, per se - just that things were thought provoking. Problematic, illuminating, a bit emancipatory at time, but mostly, very very thought provoking. I love reading dialogues between these women, so definitely check this tete-a-tete out or their end-of-Monday wrapup on other blogger-lady lady-boner banter.
At Broadsheet, Tracy Clark-Flory took a bit of umbrage at the findings, calling out the researchers for qualifying statements like ‘rudderless’, ‘receptive’ and ‘narcissistic’, adding that “no reasonable person would expect the secrets of human sexuality to be entirely politically correct; these ideas can’t be dismissed just because they personally offend.”
And at Slate’s The XX Factor, Meghan focussed on what it means to have a sexuality rooted in being desired rather than desiring and the so-deemed schism between what our brains and our groins find sexy.
[Not surprisingly, The Frisky 'writers' ignored the whole thing with a "um, like OMG science is hard, dude! Can't we just all agree that sex is awesome? Kthxbai!".]
And so, we have a nifty little dilemma - just the sort we’ve all been hoping for: dense, complex and significant research on a subject that matters deeply to us. On its own, this NYT mag piece may not be sufficiently powerful to undo the damage from the unending barrage of glib, misleading and unquestioned junk science, but it is powerful enough to cause a ceasefire. That such broad-based (heh) discussion percolated so quickly is a rare victory for progressive thought. Opportunities to shine new lights on old assumptions and to question ourselves thought an internal dialogue don’t come along very often.
