I don’t normally listen much to new
music (a pity, I know), preferring to keep on hearing the same old songs I grew
up with and that, to a great extent, have shaped my musical sensibility. When I
hear a lot of noise and excitement in the media about some artist or other that
I judge can be remotely close to my taste, I tend to buy the LP, and normally
be disappointed after a few hearings. Sometimes I’m happily surprised (last
installment of such: “Norman Fucking Rockwell” by Lana del Rey, which I’m still
listening to and find quiet remarkable; “Beneath the Eyre” by the Pixies has
also stood up to my fond memories of the group, which is also both surprising
and nice) but more times than not I despair of the overall quality of the music
produced these day. I know, I’m just old, it’s not the music, it’s me, and all
that. That makes listening to the radio a most jarring experience, outside of
the handful of stations that play oldies and the kind of music I
idiosyncratically happen to like, as I can’t, for the life of me, stand people
just talking (and, most of the times, blabbering about issues of exactly zero
interest for me), so if there’s no semi-decent music program on the dial I just
drive in silence. I know there’s this thing about podcasts being a great way of
getting information nowadays, but I’m a visual learner, and again I just can’t
be bothered to download (or stream) a couple of guys pontificating, even about subjects
I may otherwise find of the utmost interest.
Which is not that terrible, as I
move around in a motorbike, so the sound of the engine is most days enough to
keep me happy as a clam, and the mechanical vagaries of my most usual ride are
enough to engage my attention (old motorcycles are unreliable and mercurial, so
there’s always a new clicking or rumbling or wheezing or whirring to pay
attention to, a potential harbinger of some breakdown or other). However, last
week I had to travel to a nuclear power plant 120 miles away from home, and it
was raining cats and dogs, and, being old as I already mentioned, and having my
rain gear in a state of mild disrepair (that is usually enough to keep me dry between
my house and my usual workplace, only five miles away, but would certainly let
me soaked in such a long haul), I preferred to fit myself into an unholy box of
glass and steel, with way too many wheels (four! what an utter waste!), and
drive in relative comfort, cozy and warm, for a few hours. Most of them silent,
right away, but for some intervals I toyed with the dial, and heard a bunch of
super crappy acts that I’ve quickly and mercifully forgotten, with one
exception: I listened, with a mixture of surprise and delight (that had nothing
to do with the quality of the music, by the way, but with the inventiveness and
wit of the lyrics) to a song by the Puerto Rican singer Residente pithily and
adequately called “sex”, in which he, after a nod to Sigmund Freud and Judith
Butler, enumerates all the apparently innocuous and humdrum behaviors in which
people engage, from buying a new car to writing poetry, because, in the end,
“they want sex” (a sentence which the singer repeats remorselessly at the end
of almost every single verse, creating an intriguingly powerful effect, not as
boring or repetitive as it sounds, although subtle it certainly was not).
Of course, I’ve argued many times
that any purported explanation of every facet of human behavior appealing to a
single, simple, overarching principle is normally a big bunch of baloney, wont
to leave out as much, if not more, as it explains. My own reading of Freud
tried to unmask how his own underlying motive was very different from the one he
presented to the world: when he said, and wrote, that sex was the hidden
motive for every act and thought and utterance (and dream) he really
meant that status (the position we occupy, as perceived by others, in
the social hierarchy) was, in his own personal case, the real reason,
and obsession, and all-consuming drive, which he cavalierly and nonchalantly
assumed should be the case for every other human being, then and forever. That
said, both the (unsubtle) followers of Freud and this Residente guy have a
point. Sex is, no doubt about it, a powerful motivator and a hidden but
comprehensive explanation of a vast array of actions nominally performed for
supposedly more elevated reasons.
Now, why would that be the case? Why
is it that there is this single cause, bordering on obsession, that allows us
to understand so much of what we do, say, think and dream? The Scholastics said
back in the day (that’s around 1200 or 1300 AD, for those of you of little
philosophical training) that we desire that which we do not have, so I think it
is safe to assume that we behave so ardently in sex-seeking ways because we
have less (or much less) sex than we want. Not precisely breaking new ground
here, or stating something beyond the blatantly obvious, I know. I dare to say
that if there is one truly universal feature of human culture it is that males engage
in less hanky-panky than they would like. In any civilization, in any land, at
any time in history. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Carthaginians, the Hebrews,
the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Romans, the Germanic tribes, the Huns, the
Mongols, the Aztecs, the Incas, the Mayans, the Pueblos, the Apaches, the
Algonquins, the Ming Chinese, the Song Chinese, the pre-Tokugawa Japanese, the post-Tokugawa
Japanese, the Mauryas, the Mughals, the Abbasids, the Fatimis, the Ottomans… all
their men struggled with a life that at times seemed to them almost sexless and
devoid of carnal pleasures. My attentive readers have surely noticed that I
started talking, vaguely and loftily, of humans in general, and now I’ve
suddenly reduced my discourse only to half of the species, more precisely to the
half endowed with a penis. Bear with me patiently, as I’ll show in a moment why
such restriction is (mostly) necessary, as in the remainder of this post I will
explain, as promised in the title, why it is that most people (men and women
alike) do not have the amount of sex they would like, but for very different
reasons, and how it is that only half tend to get less than they hope
for, whilst the other half ends up having more. As usual, all arguments to
be presented are guaranteed to be as politically incorrect as they come, and
supported by as thin and unrepresentative sliver of empirical evidence (by
drawing from such an small and weird sample of humanity as the one directly
known by the author) as any unserious piece of folk psychology you may
encounter in most reputed magazines (Playboy, Cosmopolitan, Men’s Health and
the like).
Before getting into the thick of the
argument, we need to define some useful concepts: We all understand that every human
being, regardless of sex, gender, personal preferences, age or physical constitution,
has a certain frequency of intimate encounters (understood to happen with
another human being) that he or she is most comfortable with. We will see soon
how that optimal frequency varies along a typical life’s arc, and how its
average value differs between the sexes, but at this point let’s just give it a
convenient acronym: IOF (individual Optimal Frequency), measured in the number
of sexual encounter the person has in a year. That means that a person that
would enjoy most having sex about once per week has a IOF of 52 (would need to
make it 52 times per year, as a year has 52 weeks); one who needs/ wants to
make it three times per week has a IOF of 156 (52 x 3), while one that prefers
doing it once every month has an IOF of 12.
Let’s also highlight that such
frequency is strongly correlated with the overall life satisfaction of the
individual. Enough psychological studies attest that the person that has roughly
as much sex as she wants (uncommon as
that situation may be) is in general much more satisfied with how her life is going:
Her health is better, her immune system is stronger, her psychological outlook
more relaxed and hopeful, her disposition more sunny, even her skin seems to
glow more and her muscle tone is firmer. Small deviations from that optimal
desired frequency do not change much the overall life satisfaction, but as the
real frequency with which the person has sex gets further and further away from
that local maximum, the life satisfaction precipitously drop, in a somewhat asymmetrical
way. There is a certain frequency under which the person lives in a state of
permanent deprivation, and can think of little but in how little sex he is
having, thus bringing his life satisfaction effectively to zero. On the other
extreme, there is also a point at which the person derives an extremely low
satisfaction from life, as she considers that she has sex way more than
what she would like, leading to questions of self-worth, self-assertion and the
overall contribution to her well-being of the relationship she is in, but, as
long as the frequency we are talking about is (even if grudgingly, or unenthusiastically)
mutually agreed with her partner, it does not lead to a zero life satisfaction,
only to a very diminished one. It has to be noted we are strictly talking about
consensual sex here; if involuntary sex (rape) were to enter in the equation we
would be facing an entirely different situation, as obviously being raped (and
even more being repeatedly, and predictably, raped) has a much bigger, direr,
devastating impact in a person’s well-being than not shagging enough. With that
important caveat, we could graphically represent the relationship between
frequency of sexual activity and life satisfaction as follows:
The two important figures to
consider, along with the already mentioned IOF, are the IMAF (individual Minimum
Acceptable Frequency), under which life satisfaction drops to zero; and the IPL
(individual Physical Limit), which we can somewhat arbitrarily define as the
point at which life satisfaction falls below 25% of its potential maximum. It
is not, thus, an absolute physical limit, beyond which sex becomes
painful, or nigh impossible, but the point at which it starts feeling more like
a chore than a source of joy, more an obligation than a delightful experience. Before
we get into the details, and the implications, of the last two, let’s see how
to calculate the first variable. Based on extensive psychometric studies and a
vast trove of minutely calibrated psychological surveys (which is the standard
and scientifically reputable way of declaring “I’ve taken this numbers off my
rear end, but want to fool you into acritically accepting their validity”), the
following formula has been firmly established for calculating the IOF:
IOF = 52 +
SF + TF + NF – AF – WF – OF - StrF
The factors having the following
meaning:
·
52
(baseline) is what human beings tend to like by default, absent other factors
(of which, as we are about to explain in detail, there are a bunch). Once a
week seems to be what we come into this planet pre-programmed to enjoy most,
and indeed it acts as a kind of happiness watershed. In most situations, psychologists
have noted that there is a significant bump in life satisfaction between doing
it less than once a week and doing it even a teeny-weeny bit more. And yup, I
understand my younger readers may acknowledge this in disbelief and even in
utter horror, as once a week surely will seem to them a frequency so absurdly
low they may as well, if that is what their future older self may gravitate
towards, renounce every worldly pleasure and join a Carthusian abbey. I would
ask them to be patient and bear with me, as there are some mitigating factors
they may want to ponder before taking such extreme measures.
·
SF
(Sex factor): if you have a Y chromosome, SF=75; if you don’t, SF=0. Who said
life was fair?
·
TF
(Testosterone factor): If you have a significantly higher base blood
concentration of said hormone than the average male (525 ng/dL), TF=20; if you
have a somewhat higher concentration (say, by having been born with testes and
still having both of them in working order), TF=10; all else, TF=0. As for most
(sane) people doing a blood test to determine their precise testosterone level
is neither necessary, nor advisable, a number of very apparent physical
features can be used as a proxy, said features being: depth of voice, amount
and thickness of facial hair, early occurrence of male pattern baldness, (speculative:
difference of length between index and ring fingers) and overall level of
muscularity. If you are indeed very muscular (regardless of sex), showing
noticeable hypertrophy in “serious” muscle groups (traps, delts, quads and
hammies), you can confidently assume your T-level is quite above average
(regardless of how you got there… not all T is endogenous). If you show
hypertrophy in “shallow” muscle groups (pecs, biceps and, worst offender,
calves) all you can assume is that you spend way too much time in the gym…
·
NF
(Novelty factor): if you are a female and you are in the first 2-5 years of a
relationship, NF=50; if you are male, and are in the first 2-5 weeks of a
relationship, NF=5. Again, life is not fair
·
AF
(Age factor): also works differently for males and females (and in the former, its
effect is compounded, but not strictly reduced to, the likely decline in testosterone
levels, as such decline can be countered with exogenous means, something the pharma
industry is very happy to encourage). Just apply the following table:
|
|
16 to 25 YO
|
26 to 35 YO
|
36 to 45 YO
|
46 to 55 YO
|
56 to 65 YO
|
66 to 75 YO
|
> 76 YO
|
|
Males
|
-10
|
0
|
5
|
15
|
25
|
35
|
50
|
|
Females
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
30 (*)
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
(*) the decline in this case is much
more abrupt, less gradual, than in males, in whom it is spread all along the decade
(also, in females it partially reverts after 2-3 years), due to the sudden
change in hormonal profile (and cascading physiological and psychological
adjustments) known as menopause
·
WF
(Weariness factor): surprisingly (and, I guess, counterintuitively and
controversially), this one affects only women, where the weariness of sex, the
lack of excitement, the boredom associated with seeing the same guy, attempting
the same tricks, all increase with the exposure to the same couple (for complex
evolutionary reasons) and goes well beyond the absence of a novelty factor,
peaking around 30 years and then stabilizing at a slightly lower level. If you
are a woman, and have been in a monogamous relationship for more than 5 years,
the following table applies (the top line now reflects the duration of that
particular relationship, not the age of any of the members of the couple):
|
|
6 to 15 Y
|
16 to 25 Y
|
26 to 35 Y
|
36 to 45 O
|
46 to 55 Y
|
56 to 65 Y
|
> 66 Y
|
|
Males
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Females
|
-5
|
-10
|
-15
|
-10
|
-10
|
-10
|
-10
|
·
OF
(Obesity factor): if you are reasonably fit (BMI < 25, or body fat < 20%
for men, < 25% for women) WF = 0; if you are moderately overweight ( 25 <
BMI < 30, or body fat < 30%) WF = 10. If you are obese WF = 20. On the
other extreme, if you are anorexic or severely undernourished, WF = 20
·
StrF
(Stress factor): It is well known that being distracted by life circumstances
that create tension, anguish and uncertainty (be they exogenous or endogenous to
the couple’s shared life) is a great hindrance to the normal manifestation of desire.
The level of stress (and its sources, the most frequent being job, kids, and
the internal couple dynamics) are somewhat difficult to quantify, but for the
purposes of our research we could define the following levels: High stress level
(barely sleeps at night and can seldom take your mind off from some powerful
stressor) StrF = 30; medium stress level (wake up multiple times most nights
and have difficulties going back to sleep, find yourself many times along the
day thinking obsessively on some particular stressor) StrF = 15; no stress or
very manageable one (sleep soundly, may consider repeatedly some source of
preoccupation, not always in negative and despairing terms) StrF = 0
So, let’s take as an example a young
heterosexual couple in their late 20’s, both of them of average fitness and
health (not specially muscular, not taking any funny stuff in the form of “supplements”,
not overweight, not very stressed) that have been engaged for 2 or 3 years:
His IOF is: 52 + 75 + 0 + 0 – 0 – 0 –
0 – 0 = 127
Her IOF is: 52 + 0 + 0 + 50 – 0 – 0 –
0 – 0 = 102
Which sounds just about right. He
would like to have sex a bit above twice a week (to be precise, doing it three
times every other week would be perfect for him), while she is happy with just
a couple times. They both can find a frequency between those two relatively
close extremes that leaves them in almost total bliss. He wouldn’t mind doing
it a bit more frequently, and sometimes he goes to sleep wishing for some extra
physical action; she wouldn’t mind letting a few more days elapse between their
lovemaking, and some nights she obliges him and humors his playful advances
without being all that enthusiastic about it, but they can both live (and
happily make their relationship thrive) with the way things go. If he became
too insistent, and initiated sex a third time every week (attempting to take
their shared frequency closer to his optimal one) his life satisfaction
would increase only a little (as it was already pretty high, and close to his maximum),
while her life satisfaction would take a substantial dive. That would make
her start pushing back more forcefully (even unconsciously “somatizing” her
loss of overall satisfaction, those famed headaches do not come out of thin
air, you know!) until they settled back in a (lower) frequency that satisfied both
of them equally (in the following graph, the male curve is depicted in blue,
and his significant values are followed by 1, whilst the female one is depicted
in red, and her values followed by a 2):
I’m sure my most astute readers can
see where this is going. This little depiction of the beginning of a shared
life already seems like too nice to be true, and one cannot avoid thinking that
that is how God (or Nature, or GNON, or the Universe) intended relationships to
work forever… were it not for the fact that “foerever” is an awfully long word,
and the passing of time pushes those cornily close peaks of his and her optimal
frequencies further and further apart.
To see how that plays out, and how
relationships typically evolve, instead of the young, carefree, adventurous
couple of the first example, lets now have a look at a couple of fifty-year-olds
who have been together for thirty years already, where he has gained some
weight and they are both somewhat stressed (because work, caring of an aging
parent, wayward ways of teen children or whatnot -remember, IOF = 52 + SF + TF
+ NF – AF – WF – OF – StrF):
His IOF now is: 52 + 75 + 0 + 0 – 15
– 0 – 20 – 10 = 82
While her IOF is: 52 + 0 + 0 + 0 – 30
– 15 – 0 – 10 = -3
Which, again, sounds about right. Regardless
of what he may say, or brag about with his friends (if he is that sort of
indiscreet asshole), a not specially in shape middle aged man is more than content
doing it once a week, twice every other week. And a recently post-menopausal
woman with moderate stress and a not-that-attractive-to-begin-with, somewhat
boring spouse, may very well find as the “ideal” frequency not doing it at
all! She may be willing to give his husband some fleeting satisfaction
every now and then (as long as he is gentle and caring and loving enough, and,
most important, asks for it infrequently enough). The problem is, the
maximum frequency she can stand without her life satisfaction taking a serious
hit may be, at some point, below the one which provides said husband
with a reason to get out of bed every morning:
Note that, apart from removing
stressors from their life (something that many times is not in the hands of any
of the members of the couple, and that only can take them so far), there is not
much they can do to put a remedy to the situation. If he decides to lose weight,
or takes testosterone supplements, he would only make things worse, as
his curve would move rightwards, without much affecting his wife’s, thus making
the gap between his IMAF and her IPL bigger, not smaller!
I guess a lot of the situations
faced by couple therapists, in the end, reduce themselves to the above picture
(from what I’ve heard, there are even cases when the opposite is the case, and
it is the woman the one wanting more than what the man feels comfortable
offering, but I can’t for the life of me fathom what anomalous and most
uncommon combination of factors can lead to such outcome). There are a number
of strategies I can think of to reverse such dire state of affairs, some more
viable than others, some more likely to succeed than others (and I have the
impression that the ones most recommended by the aforementioned therapists
belongs more usually to the latter than to the former, what are the poor souls
to do, being trained in psychology and all that!) but (if I can overcome my innate
coyness, which is a big “if”) I would talk of them in another post, as this has
already exceeded my very lax and generous standards of verbosity already…
No comments:
Post a Comment