Some Sex Statistics from The Kinsey Institute

Don't worry, it's just stats--nothing too uncomfortable.

Sex In Marriage:

• 3% of married women have not had sex in the past year. 1% of men.
• 13% of married couples have sex a few times a year.
• 45% a few times a month.
• 34% 2-3 times per week.
• 7% More than 4 times per week.

This is about what I have been telling clients (e.g. 2-3 times a week to 2-3 times a month is the "normal" range). One client who was wanting sex multiple times per day is obviously in the extreme, (although, I think that may be due to his not knowing how to emotionally connect in other ways).

Sexual Orientation:

• 90% of people consider themselves to be heterosexual, ~2% homosexual, ~2% bisexual, and ~4% as ‘something else’.
• 6.2% of men and 4.4% of women are attracted to people of the same sex.

I think it is important to consider not just the prevalence, but the diversity of experience and attraction beyond the simple gay or straight categories, including the fluid nature for some (but certainly not all).

Internet Pornography:

• 25% of men report* visiting a pornographic website in the last 30 days. 4% of women.
• 8% of men and women who use the Internet for sexual reasons reported significant problems associated with compulsive disorders.

I wonder if in more conservative or religious cultures this is a bigger problem because of the secrecy and greater amount of shame involved (which seem to make an addictive cycle worse). I would be curious about studies on this topic done on a cross-cultural/religious manner.

Masturbation:

• 5% of men and 11% of women have never masturbated.
• 35% of men ages 18-39 do not masturbate, 37% 'sometimes', 28% more than once per week.

For those who believe masturbation is something that needs to be abstained from, how do you teach your kids while at the same time not instilling them with excessive guilt and feelings of isolation, when in fact more than 90% do at some point?

Orgasm:

• 62% of women in relationships are “very satisfied” with the frequency of orgasm.

This seems to be in stark contrast to men, whom except in rare cases almost always have an orgasm during sex. Nature's cruelty to women!

Contraception:

• More than 120 million couples a year have an unmet need for contraception.

Think about all the unwanted pregnancies that would not occur if these people had this need met!

Rape:

• 14.8 % of women in the U.S. are raped at some point during their life.

This stat is scary. I had no idea it was so high. My wife actually thought it was low. Scary.

*Keep in mind, these are all self-report statistics. Some could be higher or lower.

What do you think? Anything surprising here (on the low end or the high)?

Your Brain and Sex

...was the topic of a great presentation I went to today. Granted, when you have a choice between "Your Brain and Sex" or "Ethics in Counseling Management" the choice is clear.

Some highlights:

• Marriage counseling is basically trauma work. "People say marriage counseling doesn't work, but statistics aren't very good in trauma surgery either." This is yet another case for PREVENTION! Work on your marriage before you need counseling.
• Addicts, at a basic level, are addicted to dopamine. The presenter opined that "orgasm is the largest naturally occurring rush of dopamine. The initial heroin high is similar to a two-minute sustained orgasm... now I don't want anybody running out looking for heroin!"
• Often women are blamed (or blame themselves) for a lower sex drive, and may be diagnosed with low sexual desire, but "How can you diagnose someone with decreased desire, when there’s not much there that is worth desiring?”
• People get caught in the "Dopamine/Prolactin Rollercoaster" which occurs when a desire for a new partner increases dopamine, which can begin an addictive cycle of increasing amounts of dopamine followed by bursts of prolactin.
• The "Coolidge Effect" - New sexual stimuli creates a quick fix that may start the cycle over again. More types or more frequency of sex for couples may actually make things worse in the long term. Variety to deal with sexual lulls are not enough. Couples need to know how to deepen their intimacy and bonding (which is associated with Oxytocin). Oxytocin facilitates stability in the desire/orgasm/resolution cycle shown below. This effect also suggests that moving quickly into a sexual relationship may result in a faster dissolution of the relationship.
• People often interpret the dopamine rush with a new person as "there's something here" when there is really not. The presenter suggested that people should interpret is as "I need to do something more in my own relationship."
• Regarding sex ed, if we are just teaching abstinence, or just that sex is bad, we may actually make the problem worse! When something is taboo it becomes more biologically enticing. He suggests that we teach our children what is happening with their bodies, and encourage them to find other ways of getting dopamine that involve bonding and commitment, such as through sports.

"Trillions" of inhabitable worlds

God, to Moses:

"And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten... For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them."

According to this article, there are "trillions" of planets similar to earth on which life could exist. Whether life on these other planets is intelligent or not is another matter entirely, but many of them may contain bacteria.

According to this article, the fact that I believe in science and religion is "doomed to fail":

"A true harmony between science and religion requires either doing away with most people's religion and replacing it with a watered-down deism, or polluting science with unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims."

I'm not sure why, but apparently this smarty-pants (I'm only saying that because the article is in the New Republic) professor thinks that I will have to do away with most of my beliefs, or pollute my science with unnecessary spiritual claims. I don't see why that is necessary. Any thoughts?

Granted, I don't make spiritual claims in science class. But I know enough for myself.

Truth

[This post will start a sometimes weekly sharing of my beliefs, and a dissemination of wisdom (be careful of confusing those two). I encourage amiable discussion, opposing views, and scurvy rejoinders.]

Photo by jayacg17

“We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons.” ~ Joseph Smith

“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth. Let it come from where it may.” ~ Joseph Smith

“The fundamental principle that has guided my religious life is that I need believe only what is true. The gospel is the truth as learned or discovered by whatever means and tools I can lay my hand or mind on.” ~ Henry Eyring

I believe that science and religion are compatible; as a believer and a scientist, I am convinced they must be, ultimately.  There is much we don’t know yet in science, and there is much we don’t know in religion. Bringing science into religion can provide a sifting process to discard the error and the myth. Religion has much to add in turn. Eyring said,

"It is the great mission and opportunity of religion to teach men "the way, the truth, the life," that they might utilize the discoveries of the laboratory to their blessing and not to their destruction. There is need for added spirituality, of the kind that leads to brotherhood, to go hand in hand with the scientific progress of our time."

May we all have the courage to seek truth from whatever the source, and to use that truth to the blessing of our fellow human beings.

*Prajna is a Sanskrit word for clear seeing, wisdom, or understanding.

Park on the driveway, drive on the parkway

I have another one for that list of things that are named the opposite of what they should be. The newly tested drug "Reclast" is supposed to fight osteoporosis by building stronger bones. I once took a human biology class--didn't do very well--but I did remember that bones are formed by two cells. Osteoblasts build bone, and Osteoclasts break it down. So "Reclast" should actually be called "Reblast." Also, if I'm not mistaken, "clast" comes from Greek meening "broken". So does "Reclast" actually mean "Re-broken"? Maybe the "Re" is Greek for "not".

LDS leader hits all your favorite topics, from Intelligent Design to women holding the priesthood

An interesting thing has been happening with Romney running for President. LDS leaders are being interviewed in the national media, and they’re not being asked your standard Sunday School questions. Reuters recently interviewed Elder Christofferson of the Seventy. Some excerpts…

On a member voting contrary to a church political stance:

"Even where the church has taken a firm or vigorous position on something…if a member as a government officer votes in a different way or contrary to the church’s position there’s no church censure…either way we say to be honest, be of high moral standards and govern yourself that way but vote according to your best judgment. If we were to try and dictate to members how to vote…we would contravene a very fundamental doctrine and the whole idea of pluralism and religious freedom that we value so much."

On whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools:

"Not necessarily…We’re not pushing that schools teach Intelligent Design but rather that they teach honest science, and at church we teach what we know. Eventually they will come together."

On women someday holding the priesthood:

"I don’t know. I really don’t know. We do honestly believe in the reality of revelation…We think the Lord continues to reveal His will…God has always acted that way and there’s no way he wouldn’t continue. In that sense it would be conceivable…He wants to time things in a certain way that’s up to Him."

On polygamy:

"When someone’s spouse has died for example and they remarry, they could be married in a temple for a second time, sealed as we say. How that sorts out in the afterlife we’ll leave in the Savior’s hand… The default mode is monogamy. That was divinely established at the beginning of time with Adam and Eve and it continues unless God for his own purposes, for whatever reason, permits, or authorizes or directs in this case the practice of plural marriage, and there have been times when He has, if you look at Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…and this instance here in the early (LDS) church history… but unless God were to specifically reveal to the Prophet this must be done at this time, it’s not, it’s wrong without his direction."

And the quote of the week:

"I think it’s important to admit on the scientific side there are limits to what we know, and on the religious side there are limits to what we know."

That sums up how I feel about knowledge and faith. There is a lot we don’t know. Science will continue to have more discoveries that modify or change current theories, and religion will continue to have more revelations that modify or change current beliefs. May we all be open to further light and knowledge.

Global Warming or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Slow Driving

There seems to be at least three groups of opinions on global warming. The first group says that it isn’t happening at all. The second group says it is happening, but most of it is due to the natural cycles of the earth. The third group says that a lot of it is due to human impact on the earth. So, who is right? Does it matter who is right? Does it matter who we believe?

We know the first group is wrong. All reputable scientists know that the earth has natural climate change. So the debate is between the next two, which comes down to the question, what is the cause of global warming? The second group believes the scientists who say at least 95% of global warming is due to natural cycles, and only a meager 5% or less is due to humans. The third group believes the scientists who say that humans are a much bigger cause, and that if we change our light bulbs, driving habits, air conditioning use, etc. then we can positively impact the earth. Both groups say the other side’s scientists are paid to confirm their theories. SCANDALOUS! LIBERAL CONSPIRACY! CONSERVATIVE HATE-MONGERING!

So let’s say, for instance, that the second group is more correct. We little earthlings have very little to do with global warming. Let’s also say that most of us decide to buy into group three’s ideas, despite the fact that group two is right. WHAT IS THE OUTCOME OF THIS? Even though we may have very little to do with global warming, we think we do so we buy hybrid cars, use less energy, pollute our precious breathing air less, watch “An Inconvenient Truth” once a month for family home evening, and buy fancy light bulbs. All this means is we will get better mileage in our cars, decrease the demand for oil (which would lower the price of gas and indirectly decrease our support of terrorism), have cleaner air to breath, and inflate Al Gore’s ego.

I am not worried about global warming or cooling or freezing or whatever. Well, actually I don’t like global warming in the summer but I like it in the winter, unless of course, I’m snowboarding… I do feel like the parade Gore and his cronies are on is good, however. And I think they sincerely believe in their cause. Whether or not they are right is not an issue for me. It’s what they inspire people (including myself) to do. I am now trying to drive slower on the freeway, trying not to run the air conditioning when I don’t need it, and pondering the thought that someday, I may be able to afford those twisty light bulbs.

And for all those people getting irked behind me in the right lane because I’m driving ONLY 60 mph, just remember that I’m lowering the price of YOUR gas.